APRIL 27, 2000


I. Call to Order.

PRESIDENT JOHN M. PALMS - Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to open the spring meeting of the general faculty of the University of South Carolina.

II. Correction and Approval of General Faculty Minutes:

PRESIDENT PALMS - You have been made available to you the minutes of the last faculty meeting. Do I hear any corrections or additions to those minutes? Hearing none they will stand approved as circulated or put on the web.

III. Report of the President


I would like to express my hope that you had a good semester. It is an exciting time of the year, particularly with the legislature right across the street dealing with the budget. Last I heard yesterday, they were about $200 million off balance. I told them not to pick on us. But you could make a friendly call to the members of the House and the Senate to be sure that higher education is not forgotten. There is a lot of competition out there for things, and we want to be sure that we are continually treated well.

Although the Governor at first indicated that there would probably not be a bond bill, the members of the Senate are now talking about a bond bill that would be large enough to include most of the projects that we have requested for this year. We need to complete those buildings. Many of them are in partnership with donors who are expecting the state to deliver on its promise so they can make their gifts.

Last week we had Studentsí Awards Day, and many of you were present. We probably had the largest number of students receiving national awards, including our Rhodes Scholar, NSFís and Goldwaters. We also have a Truman finalist. Yesterday, we also recognized the faculty who serve on all these committees to get these students ready for competition. We want to thank you for your efforts. The fact that we have a Rhodes Scholar has put us again on everybodyís screen. There is something happening at the University of South Carolina that is good for students. Thank you very much.

Last night, we had the authorsí dinner at the house and congratulations to all of you who continue to publish books. We published 125 books last year, 1100 publications, and this year it looks like we are going to conclude in our research with $100 million of research. So $92 million last year and $100 million this year represent a tremendous amount of work on the part of the faculty. We had hoped to get $250 million in the year 2001 -- that might be a stretch, but our progess certainly is a tribute to your commitment and hard work.

The Bicentennial Celebration: thank you for serving on those committees. I think we would be helped immensely if we can get this flag down, and a lot of the things that we are trying to plan depend on people coming to visit with us and having conferences and symposiums. That is one of the areas that has been affected by the flag issue probably more than many others. So, it would help if you could call members of the House since it is in their jurisdiction right now. We certainly hope and are encouraged that something can be worked out.

For graduation speaker, you may have heard we have on Friday afternoon Anna Rosmus. She has been on 60 Minutes. She studied the Nazi situation in her hometown in Bavaria and has revealed things that that particular town did not want to admit to, and she has become world famous because of that. We also have the head of NASA, Daniel Goldman, who has already been on this campus to help us out with our research. Maybe, he will talk about how the universe is really flat and not infinite and roundÖ

We are giving an honorary degree to one of our Ph.D. graduates, Joe Lesesne, who has been a distinguished president of Wofford College for the last 27 years. Anybody that can be a president for that long deserves something. He has also been a general in the Reserves, besides. We are also giving an honorary degree to the Pearce brothers, Roy and Jim, who were some of the first ones to give us million dollar gifts and just raised the level of giving in this campaign. We have now had over 54 $1 million gifts, including one from a Clemson graduate. Not bad.

A 100 Ph.D.ís will be awarded this graduation, 1300 masterís degrees, 2200 bachelors degrees, and 280 associate degrees altogether. Again, thank you for your work. That is the end of my report. Are there any questions? I will turn it over to the Provost. I knew there was one coming.

PROFESSOR CHARLES MACK (ART) - Thereís some rumors floating around now that certain high profile donors are attempting to dictate policies within academic units. I wonder if you could just address that issue.

PRESIDENT PALMS - The national issue are you talking about?


PRESIDENT PALMS - We have high profile donors who have been asked for advice and they are giving advice. And thatís what it is - advice. We have incorporated them in a number of these dean searches. We have asked them to participate in the evaluations of these candidates and that is what they are doing. We have advisory groups, advocacy groups and various colleges, but the faculty is still the principle body that is picking our deans and certainly our faculty.

PROFESSOR MACK - I have another question just out of curiosity. Public museums and we have no strings attached policy regarding donations to those institutions. Do we have any such policy in place or in the future?

PRESIDENT PALMS - We donít have any formally stated, but there are no strings attached to any donation that I know of. I know what you are talking about and that is not the case in this situation. Any other comments? Alright, we will turn it over to the report of the provost. I think he has some good announcements.


Thank you very much, President Palms. Let me just very briefly tell you where we are in searches right now. This is definitely the interview season. I hope that most of you read the minutes or heard me the last time when I announced that Dr. Patricia Moody is the new dean of Hospitality, Retail, and Sport Management. We also have a new dean in the School of Music who is Jamel Rossi who will be joining us in the fall. We currently have on campus today our last candidate for the dean of the Darla Moore School of Business. We have interviewed two candidates for the dean of the College of Education and we are currently negotiating with one of those individuals. In Engineering, the search committee has given President Palms and me three candidates. All three candidates have been contacted and they are very interested in the position and will be coming to campus in the near future. We have the first candidate for the CIO position here yesterday and today. I want to thank the faculty and staff for their participation yesterday in his presentation. I understand there were about 70 people there. We will have the other two people interviewing in the next two or three weeks. Richard, you are supposed to help me out on this. Journalism and Mass Communication started late. The search committee is still looking at applications but we will move that forward as well.

Now to the really fun part of what I get to do today in the general faculty meeting is to recognize first of all our emeritus faculty who have given long service and very dedicated service to this university. All of these individuals were contacted. Some could be here and some could not. What I would like to ask you to do if you are here and I call your name is to stand and remain standing until I have called everyoneís name and let us give you our thanks.

Walter Bailey
Educational Psychology

John W. Barrett

Garnett F. Beazley

Harry E. Barrineau, III
Criminal Justice

Mary Caldwell
Journalism and Mass Communications

John R. Carpenter
Geological Sciences

Robert W. Clower

Wallace D. Dawson
Biological Sciences

Richard E. Day

Patricia J. DeCoursey
Biological Sciences

Ann W. Engin

Edward W. Ernst

Paul Fidler

J. Stanley Fryer

Beverly Heisner

Betty H. Hodges

Richard Hohn
Physical Education

A. Jerome Jewler
Journalism and Mass Communications

Richard Kherlopian
Instruction and Teacher Educatioin

James A. Kuhlman

Jarvis H. Latham
Journalism and Mass Communications

PROVOST ODOM - I hope you are still going to do graduations.



Guy M. Lewis
Sports Administration

Morgan Maclachlan

Thomas L. Markham

Michael B. Montgomery

Willard S. Moore
Geological Sciences

Phillip E. Mullen

Jayne F. Mulvaney
Theatre, Speech and Dance

Robert J. Mulvaney

James A. Patterson
Theatre, Speech and Dance

Leonard Pellicer
Educational Leadership and Policies

Roger Pemberton

Travis Pritchett

Ted A. Rathbun

Duane L. Rohlfing
Biological Sciences

Lawrence S. Rowland

Robert F. Sabalis

Donald E. Saunders

Thomas E. Smith

William R. Stanley

James M. Steven

Thomas H. Stork
Thomas Cooper Library

Gunars Strazdins

Foster E. Tait

B. Carolyn Taylor
Theatre and Speech

Thomas E. Terrill

Fred W. Teuber

Jon P. Thames

Helen Timmermans
Physical Education

Charles Madison Walker

Carol A. Williams

Larry H. Winecoff
Instruction and Teacher Education

Robert G. Wirsing
Government and International Studies

PROVOST ODOM - Colleagues, thank you very much for your service. What I would now like to do is read the names of award winners and when I call the personís name if they would come forward. While they are coming forward I want to tell you a little bit about them and then we will present their award.

Ada B. Thomas Outstanding Faculty Advisor

Scott R. Goode

Dr. Goode is in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. He is characterized in his nominations as: compassionate, caring and knowledgeable advisor; one who not only provides academic advice, but also one whose advisees stay in touch with him 10 to 15 years after graduation; and one who serve as a mentor to other advisors in his department. He is a true student advocate who treats students fairly, realistically and with their best interest in mind.

Outstanding Freshman Advocate

Lucille P. Mould

Ms. Lucille Mould is a Senior Instructor for the Department of French and Classics. She has consistently received excellent evaluations from her students. She is sincerely interested in their learning, she cares about their progress, and instills confidence that they can learn French and learn it well. In addition to teaching she serves as a Preston College Associate and as an advisor to Alpha Lambda Delta, The Freshman Honor Society.

Please help me in congratulating Lucille Mould as the Outstanding Freshman Advocate.

Russell Research Award for Humanities and Social Science

Dr. Ronald J. Prinz

Dr. Prinz is a Carolina distinguished Professor in the Department of Psychology. He received his B.A. in psychology from the University of California, Berkeley and his Ph.D. in psychology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. His research focuses include preventive science and child clinical psychology. Professor Prinz has received extramural grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute of Mental Health. Among his many honors he is a fellow of the American Psychological Association.

I give you the winner of the Russell Research Award for Humanities and Social Sciences, Dr. Ronald Prinz.

Russell Research Award for Science, Mathematics and Engineering

James M. Sodetz

Dr. Sodetz is in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. He received his Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Notre Dame. His major research interest is in the structure, function and molecular genetics of a group of human blood proteins that work together with the immune system to destroy bacterial cells and other pathogens. The long-term objective is to produce genetically engineered analogues that might be therapeutically useful in destroying undesirable human cells, such as tumor cells. Dr. Sodetzís research has been supported for twenty consecutive years, with additional support being provided by the National Science Foundation and the American Cancer Society.

I would like to congratulate Dr. Jim Sodetz as this yearís Russell Research Award winner for Science, Mathematics and Engineering.

USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Health Sciences

Richard L. Sowell

Dr. Sowell joined the College of Nursing in 1995. His research and practice efforts have reflected his interest in the special needs of persons with HIV/AIDS especially the growing number of women with HIV infection and individuals living in the rural south. Dr. Sowell has published over 10 chapters and 45 refereed articles and has received over $2.7 million to fund his research. He has mentored two individuals in post doctoral research programs and has served as a sponsor or co-sponsor for two Picker-Commonwealth Scholars. He has also been the editor of the Journal of Association of Nurses in AIDS Care since 1966.

Please congratulate Dr. Richard Sowell as this yearís USC Educational Foundation Research Award winner for Health Sciences.

USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Humanities and Social Sciences

Mark M. Smith

Dr. Smith is an Associate Professor in the History Department. He received his B.A. in history from the University of Southampton, England. He received his M.A. and Ph.D. in history from the University of South Carolina. His research focuses on the American South. His first book, Mastered by the Clock: Slavery and Freedom in the American South received the Avery Craven Prize. Professor Smith is a prolific scholar, since receiving his Ph.D. five years ago. His fourth book is already forthcoming.

Please join me in congratulating Dr. Mark Smith as this yearís USC Educational Research Award for Humanities and Social Sciences


USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Professional Schools

Herbert A. Johnson

Professor Johnson is in the School of Law. He is a nationally renowned expert on the history of the Supreme Court and is author of the influential book, The Chief Justiceship of John Marshall. In addition to all his publications on constitutional law, Professor Johnson is also an authority on early aviation in the United States, which culminated in his widely-praised book, Wingless Eagle. He has also authored the only American history of criminal justice which covers both Western European and American developments in criminal law.

I would like to congratulate Professor Johnson at the USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Professional Schools.

USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Science, Mathematics and Engineering

Walter W. Piegorsch

Dr. Piegorsch is a professor in the Department of Statistics and earned his Ph.D. from Cornell University. His research is in statistical methods for environmental biology and toxicology. Professor Piegorsch has developed or studied environmetric models for non-normal data - particularly discrete data - in order to apply them to environmental toxicology assays. He is currently developing statistical designs and analyses for studying molecular genetic damage, including differential response in mutational spectra among organisms or populations at risk for environmental exposures. He has published two books, has refereed over 120 submitted manuscripts, and is serving as Co-Editor-in-Chief of the soon-to-be-published Encyclopedia of Environmetrics.

Please help me in recognizing Dr. Walter Piegorsch as this yearís USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Science, Mathematics and Engineering.

USC Educational Foundation Outstanding Service Award

Marilyn Chassie

Dr. Chassie has been a member of the College of Nursing since 1991. She has contributed significantly to the University, her College and to her community. Her University service includes being a member of the Council of Associate and Assistant Deans, the Telecommunications Advisory Committee, University Courses and Curricula Committee and the University Commission on Women. Her community service includes efforts to raise money to purchase play equipment for a day care center, coordinating a rummage sale for an endowment to assist with nursing care expenses of needy members of the community. She has coordinated two neighborhood picnics in impoverished Columbia communities, raised money for children at Palmetto Place Childrenís Emergency Shelter through the Capital Rotary Club of Columbia and assisted a Brownie troop in obtaining and delivering stuffed animals for children being treated at the College of Nursingís Children and Family Healthcare Center. She has coordinated renovations of three apartments at St. Lawrence Place, (a sheltered community), planned for a Neighborhood Fair at the Childrenís Center of South Carolina, intiated a progrram whereby children living in shelters may select new shoes of their very own, led a fraternal organization in the creation of a golf tournament that raised money for Central Carolina Habitat for Humanity and assisted in cleaning and repairing appliances at the Bethlehem Community Center so that meals can be prepared regularly for impoverished children.

Please help me in Congratulating Dr. Marilyn Chassie as this yearís USC Education Foundation Outstanding Service Award winner.

Our next award is the Carolina Trustee Professorship Award and I would like to ask Mr. William Hubbard who is chair of our Board of Trustees to come forward to help with this award. The trustees last year initiated this award as one they would like to call almost a most valuable player award given to a faculty member who has been exemplary in research, in teaching, and in service and has shown a sustained record over a long period of time of performing these activities.

Carolina Trustee Professorship

Daniel L. Reger

Dr. Dan Reger is a member of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. He has had a distinguished career at USC for over 27 years in research, teaching and service. He has been awarded the USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Science, Mathematics and Engineering, a Michael J. Mungo Teaching Award and the Amoco Outstanding Teaching Award. He was also named a Carolina Distinguished Professor in 1998.

I would like to congratulate Dr. Dan Reger for being chosen as this yearís Carolina Trustee Professor.

PROVOST ODOM - Is Mr. Mungo here? He was going to try to be here today but I donít believe he was able to make it. There are four Michael J. Mungo Teaching Awards being presented this year. I would like the recipients to come forward and then I will read something about each one of them while they are standing on stage.

Michael J. Mungo Teaching Awards

There are 4 Michael J. Mungo Teaching Awards being presented this year. they include:

Bill Bearden Darla Moore School of Business

Christopher Berg School of Music

Sandra Kelly Department of Psychology

Gail Wagner Department of Anthropology

Dr. Bill Bearden holds the Bank of America Chair in Business Administration. In addition to directing the Doctoral Program in Marketing, he regularly teaches large sections of undergraduate Principles of Marketing. He has previously won the University Amoco Award Outstanding Teaching Award.

Professor Christopher Berg received his training at the Peabody Institute of Johns Hopkins University and in master classes with Andre Segovia. His extensive national performance career has led to the creation of a comprehensive and innovative approach to guitar pedagogy that has been codified in his two books on guitar.

Dr. Sandra Kelly received her Ph.D. from McGill University in Montreal. Professor Kellyís teaching at the undergraduate level has included courses on biopsychology, learning and memory, and drug use and effects. She has received both the Mortar Board Award for Excellence in Teaching (1996) and the Golden Key Award for the Creative Integration of Research and Teaching (1999).

Dr. Gail Wagner, joined the faculty in 1989 with a Ph.D. from Washington University, St. Louis. She is an Associate professor in the Department of Anthropology, specializing in ethnobotany and paleoethnobotany. She involves undergraduate students in both her archaeological research in Camden, SC and in her enthnobotanical study of South Carolina yards and home gardens.

Thank you and congratulations for being named a Michael J. Mungo Outstanding Teacher.

PROVOST ODOM - Our last award which I think most of people consider the Universityís best award is the Amoco Outstanding Teaching Award.

Amoco Outstanding Teaching Award

John D. Spurrier

John Spurrier received his Ph.D. from the University of Missouri in 1970. He served as Chair of the Department of Statistics from 1963-96. He was honored in 1995 as a Michael J. Mungo Teaching Award winner and the Honors College award for Outstanding Teaching in the Sciences. Most recently, he has written the first textbook available for senior capstone courses in Statistics.

I want to tell you a very quick story. When I was called by Scott Goode to tell me who won this award, he said the committee, really at the instigation of a student, wanted me to go into Johnís class and simply interrupt the class and tell him in front of one of his classes that he had won this award. I thought this was a wonderful idea. I know several people who won the Amoco Award felt that, after perhaps their spouse, the next person or people that they wanted to know that they had won the award were their students because they felt like that those were the people who were most important to them. So I really had the pleasure of going over one morning and just opening the door and walking in as John was lecturing. He really was taken aback and it really was a lot of fun. So, John, congratulations. It is a great award.

PROVOST ODOM - The last thing I was supposed to do was to remind everyone that President Palms is hosting a reception honoring all award recipients immediately following this General Faculty meeting in the lobby.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Thank you, Jerry.

III. Reports of Committees.

PRESIDENT PALMS - We will now move to the Reports of Committees, and we have a report from the Faculty Advisory Committee.

PROFESSOR HENRY PRICE - You had in the agenda materials the notification that we were going to be presenting from the Faculty Advisory Committee the final revision, we hope, to The Faculty Manual. It is something that we have been laboring on for two years now. The material has been on the Provostís webpage since middle March and after hearing the comments at the last Senate meeting where we had an open hearing on that particular thing we have decided to break the body if you will into two pieces. One is going to be the piece that deals with essentially the University Committee on Tenure and Promotion, which seemed to generate a great deal of discussion at the Senate meeting, and the rest of it will be the rest of the body. Some of you I am sure received these printed materials along with the agenda. The material I am talking about breaking out begins on page 1 of that printed material under the heading of "Tenure and Promotion Proceduresí and proceeds through the overlined material on page 7 down to the heading of "Tenure Regulations and Non-Reappointment Procedures." We are pulling that out. So what I would like to do, Mr. President, is to move the acceptance of all the rest of the revision material without that being included, and we will come to that after this decision. I do so move.

PRESIDENT PALMS - You heard the motion. Do I hear a second?


PRESIDENT PALMS - Any discussion on that? Are you ready to vote?

PROFESSOR ROBERT PATTERSON -HISTORY - Are we talking about the preamble?

PRESIDENT PALMS - Yes, we are.

PROFESSOR ROBERT PATTERSON - I want to thank the Faculty Advisory Committee for improving its Latin which was a problem I pointed out to them the last time I was here. They did not particularly warm up to my suggestion that constitutional issues raised in the preamble of this document be adjusted. As it now reads, and has not been written before, "Amendments to The Faculty Manual are generally presented for the consideration and approval of the faculty and the administration before submission to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees however has authority to amend The Faculty Manual as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion." Having been involved in faculty governance for sometime in the university it has always been my experience and my understanding that the faculty has produced policy as well as amendments to The Faculty Manual both with direct and indirect consultation with the administration. The Provost is a member of the Faculty Advisory Committee and it seems to me that down through the years faculty governance has always consulted, as well, in an informal way with the administration on proposed changes. Secondly, there isnít any question or doubt about the full sovereign powers of the Board of Trustees. This power is expressed in several places in The Faculty Manual including the need for the faculty to receive Board of Trustees approval for any amendments or changes to The Faculty Manual. So my comments arenít in any way to be regarded as a criticism of something which basically canít be criticized effectively. But I do believe that we are inserting in here two principles. One, although it is present in the Manual later on, perhaps is not desirable to put up front, I am referring to the statement of the absolute powers of the Board of Trustees. I think it has somewhat of a chilling effect. I wouldnít like to use this as a recruiting document. Secondly, as I say, while it has been the standard practice for faculty and administration both formally and informally to work together on policy, the statement as it is written requires the approval of the administration before legislation from the faculty may go to the Board of Trustees. So on these two grounds I would move and hope you will follow me here in the deletion of "and the administration" from the second line of that paragraph. And, the elimination of the sentence: The Board of Trustees, however, as authority to amend The Faculty Manual as it deems appropriate in its own discretion. Thank you Mr. President.

PRESIDENT PALMS - You have heard the motion, is there a second? Second. Open for discussion.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER - What page is it on?

PRESIDENT PALMS - I donít think they have this in front of them.

PROFESSOR PATTERSON - Page 1 of the revised text.

PROFESSOR PRICE - The material was on the web page underneath the heading of Preamble. The Committee did consider your comments from the meeting of the Faculty Senate, and we decided that what we wanted The Faculty Manual to do was to represent as near as it could what the reality is. That included working with the administration, and it certainly includes the statement about the power of the Board of Trustees to alter The Faculty Manual anyway they see fit. Whenever they see fit. That is the way it is. And, we felt it was best to be up front with all faculty members about that particular thing z`because frankly many faculty members did not realize that that is the situation. I think we need to be aware of it from the first. That is why we left it where it is, and I think we would recommend it be left as is.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Would you state your name please?

PROFESSOR JEREL ROSATI (GINT) - Would it be possible to just read the Preamble as suggested? It is, I think, sufficiently short.


PROFESSOR PRICE - This is what is being offered:

The Faculty Manual embodies the essential elements of the employment relationship between the faculty, individually and collectively, and the university. It establishes the terms of employment, the manner of employment, the procedures and standards of tenure and promotion, the duties of faculty members and the procedures and standards for termination of employment. It delineates faculty organization and confirms the authority of the faculty to participate in the governance of the university, especially in regard to academic matters.

Amendments to The Faculty Manual are general presented for consideration and approval of the faculty and the administration before submission to the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees, however, has the authority to amend The Faculty Manual as it deems appropriate in its sole discretion.

Through the years, much information of interest and importance to the faculty has been added to The Faculty Manual. Such information has been placed in appendices in this edition, clarifying what material is part of the essential contract between the faculty and the university. The appendices may be amended in appropriate cases by the university without faculty or trustee approval.

That is what the Preamble is.

PROFESSOR CHARLES MACK (ART) - Point of clarification. Now you said between the faculty and the Board of Trustees does that mean faculty as a group or individual faculty members?

PRESIDENT PALMS - I interpret that as being faculty as a group.

PROFESSOR ROBERT FELIX (LAW) - It seems to me that in that middle paragraph, the first sentence as it is proposed as an alteration says everything that the Faculty Advisory Committee wants to be said. Therefore would you accept as a friendly deletion just leave the last sentence off. Everybody know the Board of Trustees is final. If you leave that first sentence intact "Ö.the administration before submission to the Board of Trustees." It tracks if you like the legal flow of recommendations and refers to the Board of Trustees as last. Everybody knows their authority.

PRESIDENT PALMS - But I donít think this speaks to the authority of the Trustees to initiate their own changes. You are just talking about being the final approval but not giving them recognition for having the authority to make independent changes.

PROFESSOR FELIX - I concede your point. But I see no reason to advertise it.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER - I was going to suggest exactly the same thing as a friendly amendment.

PRESIDENT PALMS - All right. Are you proposing that as a friendly amendment? Does that suit you? Any other objections to that? That is a friendly amendment to leave the first line and eliminate the second. That is now the motion before you. Any further discussion?

PROFESSOR MACK - Point of clarification. Has the latter ever taken place? The Board of Trustees just amends or changes The Faculty Manual?

PRESIDENT PALMS - It hasnít happened since Iíve been here. I donít know of a case. Further discussion?

PROVOST ODOM - I would ask Professor Patterson if this is deleted are you suggesting that it be placed somewhere else? That there be some statement somewhere in The Faculty Manual.

PROFESSOR PATTERSON - Dr. Odom, the powers of the Board of Trustees are fully expressed later on in the manual in several places. So I thought deleting that explicit statement was adequate. Nobody is questioning the Board of Trustees powers.

PROVOST ODOM - I understand.

PRESIDENT PALMS - The question has been called for. Are you ready to vote? All those in favor of this amendment please signify by saying "aye." Opposed same sign. So ordered.

PROFESSOR PRICE - Are there other areas of the main body of this that you wish to speak about?

PRESIDENT PALMS - You now have the amended document, and you are ready to vote on the entire document. Do I hear a motion?

PROFESSOR PRICE - This is excluding the area on tenure and promotion.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Is there a second? Discussion?

PROFESSOR SCOTT GOODE (CHEM) - Are these changes and revisions to be retroactive and to affect faculty who have been appointed under earlier faculty manuals?


PRESIDENT PALMS - Could you stand as a university attorney be recognized by the order? Further discussion? Are you ready to vote? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed same sign. So ordered.

PROFESSOR PRICE - Bless everyone of you.

Now we come to the other portion that we are putting forward. I will move the acceptance of the materials that are on this handout that begin with the heading "Tenure and Promotion Procedures" and run through the strikeovers to page 7 down to "Tenure Regulations And (Non)Reappointment Procedures." Everything before those two points has been approved. I move the acceptance of these, Mr. President. When the materials were picked up for this handout, the change that the Faculty Advisory Committee had made because of the discussion at the Senate meeting had not been entered on the webpage version of the revised Faculty Manual proposal. The materials you have, have the outdated version. There is a new paragraph that has been substituted about the duties of the UCTP once it receives a file. That is being passed out to you now. You will notice that it is in a "from/to" version just as you get when you have course changes and this sort of thing. The "From" is the version that is in this printed material. The "To" is the one that has been approved by the Faculty Advisory Committee and is being offered to you as the sentence for that particular area. Take a moment to get those passed around, and everyone have a look at them.

PRESIDENT PALMS - We have the committeeís report motion. It doesnít require a second. Are you ready for discussion?

PROFESSOR KENDRICK CLEMENTS (HIST) - I would like to draw the attention of the group to page 1 of the proposal and to the first paragraph under the heading "Establishment And Review of Unit Criteria and Procedures." Particularly to the third sentence in that paragraph which reads, "If a candidate is weak in teaching or research, promotion or tenure might not be in the best interest of the university." I think this sentence implies a right on the part of the administration to decide whether a unitís criteria are weak or strong, or whether an individual candidate is weak or strong according to criteria which are not here stated in any form. And, which seem to be or could be, not necessarily, but could be, different from the unitís criteria involved. It concerns me that such powers should be conveyed to the administration. Certainly if the President chose to make such a judgment he could do so without having the power explicitly conveyed upon him. But I think that the power should be described and should be kept as much as possible in the hands of the units and of the faculty. For that reason, Mr. President, I move to strike this sentence.

PRESIDENT PALMS - There is a motion to remove the sentence, "If a candidate is weak in teaching or research, promotion or tenure might not be in the best interest of the university." Do I hear a second? Discussion?

PROFESSOR PRICE - I donít think the committee would share your view of the application of that particular sentence. This is distinctly in the area where it is being discussed how units are to approach setting up their criteria and procedures. And, it is suggested to them at this point that if a candidate is weak in teaching or research, promotion or tenure might not be in the best interest of the university. It is not a thing that is given to the administration to wield this is simply a suggestion to the units that in their criteria they may wish to consider this element of strong teaching and strong research.

PROFESSOR MACK - However there is some confusion on the interpretation that might lead some future administration to interpret it as they choose other than your interpretation. It seems to me that if weíve got some dispute about interpretation going on here it might leave too much leeway to some future administration to interpret it the way they so choose. Perhaps we should clarify the interpretation right now so there is only one possible interpretation.

PROFESSOR ROBERT WILCOX (LAW) - I would suggest as a substitute motion that we keep the sentence and add language at the beginning of it, because quite frankly this is one of the problems that motivated the changes. We had a lot of confusion between language regarding consideration of individual files versus language that suggested consideration of criteria. We were trying to get these things segregated. But add language at the beginning of that sentence that would read: "Unit criteria should reflect that" if a candidate is weak in teaching or research, promotion or tenure might not be in the best interest of the university.

PROFESSOR MACK - I would accept that.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Did you hear the change? Second? All those in favor of that amendment indicate by saying aye. Opposed same sign. That is now the amended motion. Further discussion? Are you ready for the vote? We are still dealing with the amendment. to change the beginning of the sentence. Are you ready to vote on that change now? All those in favor indicate by saying aye. Opposed same sign. So moved. We go on with the document.

PROFESSOR MACK - A question about the correction sheet. The change to - The committee assesses whether the candidateís unit criteria were fairly and appropriately applied at all levels in evaluating the candidateís file and forwards its recommendation on the fileÖ. Is that forwarding its recommendation about whether or not the criteria were appropriately applied to the unit or its own separate recommendation? It seems to be a little bit unclear to me. But it may just be the end of the semester.

PROFESSOR PRICE - I think the intent there is to forward a recommendation that this person has been fairly evaluated and has met the criteria of its unitÖ..

PROFESSOR MACK - But not a separate recommendation?

PROFESSOR PRICE - I think the UCTP can make any recommendation it wants to.

PROFESSOR MACK - That is not what is implied here though in this change.

PROFESSOR PRICE - Well, I think it is, but obviously we have a disagreement on this.

PROFESSOR MACK - Again I think we need to clarify it.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER - A simple way to clarify to respond to the gentlemen would be to add where it says "and forwards its overall recommendation on the fileÖ"


UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER - I move that we amend this in compliance with Professor Mackís suggestion so that we replace the word recommendation by the word assessment since we are talking in the first part of the sentence about the committee making an assessment then lets it have forwarding its assessment on the file.


PRESIDENT PALMS - Seconded? Did you hear the change there? Change the word "recommendation" to "assessment" to be consistent with the first sentence. This has been seconded and is open for discussion.

PROFESSOR CHARLES CURRAN (CLIS) - My concern about this is the basis upon which the assessment is being made. If it is an assessment that is independent of the criteria application from the unit, then that concerns me. If it is an assessment made on some criteria that the unit has not agreed upon but which certain UCTP members think are appropriate, that is allowed by this language or by that language. I think that is the point that needs clarifying not the semantics but the basis upon which the assessment is being made.

PROFESSOR BETTY GLAD (GINT) - I was in on the discussion of this, just as a future member of the Faculty Advisory Committee, and I think the committee made it very clear that its goal is to make sure that the departmental assessments and evaluations were actually applied. So that is all it is doing. I want to say that I do not like the changing of this wording to "assessments" because I think that transfers faculty power to the provost and the president. I think it should be a clear recommendation and that in some sense that puts the administration position, if they are going against the UCTP recommendation, to explain why. I think it really weakens faculty power so I oppose the changing of the wording to "assessment."

PROFESSOR PATTERSON - I would like to strongly support that observation. The 24 UCTP is not simple sending along an assessment of a file. Yes, part of its recommendation is based upon an assessment but it is making a positive recommendation. Thank you.

PROFESSOR MORGAN MACLACHLAN (ANTH) - Professor Pattersonís remark muddies the water for me. It is my institutional memory of this matter that the intent from the out set of the establishment of the UCTP is that it has two basic functions. One is the approval of unit criteria and the other is to be the referee making sure that they are fairly and appropriately applied. The question that arose with the original language that was changed from "Is the UCTP going to be making its own judgement about the qualifications of the candidate that are independent of those of the unit committee. So I now find myself a little confused. Professor Patterson might wish to address that.

PROFESSOR JOHN SPURRIER (STAT and current Chair of UCTP) - I refer you to a document dated November 8, 1974 when this process of UCTP was set in motion. We had a faculty meeting November 26. Item 15 says: The committee (meaning UCTP) shall forward its recommendations to the Office of the President. Weíve had a long history of UCTP reviewing what has happened before, taking into account the votes, the vote justifications, and then making a recommendation. I think it is a process that has served us well. If we change the word recommendation to assessment it is unclear what the committee is supposed to do and whenever it is unclear, we get into grounds of grievance and grounds of lawyers and courts telling us what we should do. I think it would be very unwise to pass this amendment.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Further comments.

PROFESSOR RON PRINZ (PSYC) - In the case of the committee determining that a department or unit has not applied the criteria fairly, there must be some resolution at the committee level. I donít believe we remand files back to the unit, correct me if Iím wrong. If we donít remand and the criteria were not applied fairly, there must then be some way of applying the criteria fairly and that situation would be the committeeís job.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER - Hence the need for recommendations.


PROFESSOR ELDON WEDLOCK (LAW) - Actually the committee did remand until the most recent amendment, I think, the year before last. That was one of the problems that the UCTP faced was that when they found that the unit hadnít properly applied their criteria. There wasnít any place for the file to go except back to the unit for a new recommendation. And, that caused a lot of anxiety both for the faculty member and for the unit. We changed that, I think, in 1998 so that the UCTP could apply the unit criteria directly and move the file forward.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Further comments? Are you ready to vote on this amendment? All those in favor of the amendment of changing the word "recommendation" to "assessment" please indicate by saying "aye." All those opposed. The motion fails, so now the amendment is before you once again.

PROFESSOR BOB FELLER (BIOL) - I would like to offer an amendment to this paragraph and I have a handout that Iíve prepared. May I pass it out first to consider?

PRESIDENT PALMS - Fine. Want some help there?

PROFESSOR FELLER - I would like to offer this amendment as follows by adding a sentence to the paragraph which would say: The members of UCTP shall consider all votes and vote justifications in the file and shall apply the candidateís unit criteria in justifying their own votes towards the overall UCTP recommendation. I think this makes it clear that there is no de no row criteria invoked in assessment but is the unit criteria which are paramount in the recommendation. I offer this as an amendment.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Do I hear a second? Discussion?

PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - My initial reaction here is that it solves that problem but it introduces another. That is the question of whether or not the UCTP should make an independent determination and directly applies the unit criteria to the candidateís file. I think not. I think that that is an inappropriate thing for the UCTP to be doing for the following reasons. One is the only people on the UCTP who might be intimately familiar with the discipline of the candidate are those people from the candidateís unit, and they are prohibited by rule from considering the case because they would then be getting a double shot on the candidate: at the unit and at the UCTP. Therefore, the members of the UCTP not having the benefit of that kind of counsel, are left pretty much to their own devices as to what the criteria might mean. There are how many departments on this campus each with their own unit criteria? I think it is fairly impossible no matter how perspicacious the UCP members are, to familiarize themselves both with the discipline and then with the specific criteria and feel comfortable in applying those criteria in an independent fashion. So as it stands I would recommend against the amendment.

PROFESSOR JERRY JEWLER (JOUR) - I retiring but Iím not through yet. Iím a little confused because I served on the UCTP several years ago and within each file are the criteria for the unit. We had to read the criteria. They still do read the criteria. And, as much as possible we try to go by the criteria. I think this proposed revision clarifies that. When you look at the original recommendation you can take it apart and say: The committee assesses whether the candidateís unit criteria were fairly and appropriately applied at all levelsÖ" But then you read: "Öforwards its recommendationÖ" It doesnít say they forward their recommendation applying the criteria and I think that is what is assumed here but it doesnít say. So I think saying that they will apply the candidateís unit criteria, just like that gentleman proposed, is clearer and more accurate and fair.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER - Any further discussion?

PROFESSOR FELLER - If I might just add, I think your comments speak to the need, the great need, for unitsí to make their criteria clear. And, that is the whole problem that UCTP has.

PROFESSOR VANCE COWDEN (LAW) - It is my understanding that UCTP was intended to serve two functions. One is to review and comment and approve any unit criteria. The purpose of that is to safeguard the integrity of the university faculty as a whole and make sure that the units are not using weak or inappropriate criteria. That is the place, that is the stage at which that should be done. They should serve as a gatekeeper in approving the unit criteria. The other function UCTP serves is as a reviewing body to make sure that individual units are not abusing their criteria and process with respect to individuals in the department. That is more of a safeguard from an individual faculty standpoint, if you have done your job reviewing and approving the criteria initially. I have to agree with Professor Wedlock the language here tends to open up and invite a new application by UCTP of its own interpretation of the unitís criteria. If the unitís criteria has been followed and been applied fairly in each individual case then thatís all that needs to be done. The UCTP should not substitute their judgment for the judgment of the unit.

PROFESSOR SPURRIER - Oh, if it were that simple. We get files that units say yes, the chair says no, the dean goes one way or another, the provost - it is so often split. After our debate after the Senate meeting, I went back through the data for the last 3 years (I love data) to determine when the UCTP have made a difference. I found that out of 225 recommendations over the last 3 years UCTP seemed to make a difference in a negative direction 7 times. This means a positive recommendation at all levels of UCTP - UCTP voted no and the president voted no. There were 13 cases where there was a negative vote somewhere along the line, either the unit, the chair, the dean, the provost - UCTP said yes and the president said yes. These are very difficult cases that are often split. The units make it very difficult by not completely justifying their votes. In cases where they do, the cases slide right through - they sail right through. But it is not as simple as what you have been told. When you have split votes, you are making tough decisions and if UCTP doesnít do it, we are giving all this power to the administration. We are doing nothing that the deans donít do or the provost doesnít do.

PALMS - Further comments? Way in the back.

DR. (MEDC) - I donít agree with the last statement. If the case is that complicated (I think this was brought up earlier by Professor Wedlock) it is clear to me that there is something wrong either with the unit criteria to begin with or there is some major problem that may be very difficult to sort out about what would be the right thing to do. That is exactly the kind of case at least for myself, speaking for the School of Medicine, I would not want the UCTP try to interpret our particular guidelines and in many cases like some of the other schools here are quite different from some of the other departments. I think that is exactly the kind of situation where we should not encourage the UCTP to make an independent decision.

PROFESSOR BETTY GLAD (GINT) - I think we should remind ourselves that this is the overall faculty as a whole that has input in this process and that if we take away all powers from the faculty, that everyone seems to want, that is not going to give the faculty more power - it is going to give it less power. You know things could still be independently set at the presidentís level or the provostís level. So letís keep the faculty input and elect the faculty committee. I think we need a group and not reduce the faculty power here with a mission.

PRESIDENT PALMS - I would like to call on anyone who has not spoken so far.

PROFESSOR MARILYN CHASSIE (NURS) - It seems to me what we are dealing with here is a belief about the way things have been and should be and the reality of the way things have been. I know that we believe that the University Committee on Tenure and Promotion has reviewed the criteria and made a judgment about whether it has been adequately applied, but the reality is they have looked at the criteria, made that judgment and then made a recommendation on the file based on the criteria. Thatís what seems to me to be clear from this discussion (although I have never sat in a meeting of the UCTP). So the question is are we unhappy with what has been? John reported on the numbers. There have been some changes in the recommendations of the units that have been forwarded by UCTP to the president. Some of them have been upheld by the president and some havenít, and it seems to be pretty well balanced over the last 3 years. Twice as many times the UCTP reversed a negative recommendation from the unit. It just seems to me that what we are arguing about here is a question of what we think ought to be and a question of what is. I would speak to support the amendment that has been proposed because I think it reflects what is and what has been working.

PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - A couple of things. Some of the things that have been suggested here would weaken the UCTP to uselessness. Betty, I think you are right. John, I think you are right too. We donít want to do that. The UCTP was instituted a long time ago when it was instituted as a check on a system that wasnít very good. Essentially all the tenure and promotion decisions, after they left the unit, were in the hands of the administration. We didnít like that and so we instituted the University Tenure and Promotion Committee, basically to serve as an advocate for a faculty member who might be getting a raw deal either by the unit because he did something to offend the chairís spouse or by the administration who might have a different agenda in mind than the unit faculty. UCTP saw all the recommendations, and I need to emphasize theyíre all just recommendations. Itís the presidentís recommendation and the board of trustees eventually that gets the job done. But essentially whatís all there is the full file, the unit recommendation, the chair, the dean, the provost and then finally the UCTP.

The UCTP can see that along the way everybody has done what they are supposed to do. So I think we are really arguing about a very little bit. We talk as if the UCTP has a source of power. You know it is reviewing and makes its recommendations but then again that is all it is - another recommendation.

The problem is that it is the last recommendation. As my Brother Felix put it "just because itís last doesnít mean it is superior," and I would suggest that the real problem is comes somewhat from the timing. It is the last recommendation before it goes to the president and it has the aura of a faculty, as opposed to an administratorís, recommendation, and therefore -- it can be seen as somehow as a decision which has greater authority than that of the unit which I think is dead wrong. That is what is wrong.

I wrestled with myself and the language and I am having a hard time coming up with something that even I can understand. But I think that is the crux of the matter now. The question before us today is that in some of these amendments and language proposed by the Faculty Advisory Committee, is whether we want to take the last step and allow the UCTP to overturn (excuse me I am using the same kind of wrong language) to exercise their judgment independent of that of a fairly reached unit decision? Can it reach a decision which is contrary in fact? Of course they can.

There is no doubt that the fact is they can, but the question is should they? If they believe that the unit, working with the criteria, have applied them in a fair and equitable manner, should they go any further or should they just say, "thatís it we find that everything is just fine here, Mr. President, youíve all these other recommendations. We donít have anything to add," or whether they should say "Ah, yes, this is whatís happened, and by the way we think that this person should be promoted or tenured or not promoted and not tenured." That is the question.

Now I am not sure we ought to be standing here today trying to amend this thing as a committee of the whole. I understand Henryís desire to get out from under this, but what I would suggest -- there are two amendments already on the floor -- so what I am going to suggest, however, is that we remove that paragraph on page 3 where this language is being substituted, and reinsert the language that has been crossed out on page 5, the 6 full paragraphs, which is the old language that we have all come to know and hate -- well, at least we have been living with it for a number of years -- and maybe we can find the way sitting in committee to decide whether or not we ought to enlarge the warrant of the UCTP, or whether or not we want to keep things the way they were.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Further discusssion?

PROFESSOR GEORGE McNULTY (MATH) - I am a current member of the UCTP and I have a somewhat different view than the one expressed by Eldon Wedlock. I think about it this way. The file is made up and it has a number of elements. For example, it has external letters and theyíre the voice of the profession - they are the voice of the mathematicians or the chemists that are out in the world. They have some input about the candidate. And we have the voice of the unit, reflected in the ballot justifications primarily, and we have the voice of the chair of the department who has a little different perspective than the dean or the provost, and the University Committee provides a voice for all of us here, not just the voice for the unit, it allows for the whole university faculty to have a voice in the assessment and recommendation that goes forward to the president. I understand that it is the last voice and I see that that gives it a kind of luster. But maybe it looks like a luster from the point of view of the individual faculty members but I am not sure that it looks like a luster to the president, who has the whole file in front of him. I think it is valuable to have the University Tenure and Promotion Committee come last, in order that there is this sort of faculty oversight on the administrative recommendations sent up to the president from the chair, and the dean and the provost. So I think we should support the amendment and allow the faculty as a whole, in the body of the committee, to make a recommendation to the president about the candidates.

PROFESSOR BOB WIRSING (POLITICAL SCIENCE) - I would like to speak in favor of the amendment first because what it does is tell us a second time what was said already the first time in case there is any doubt about what needs to be done in making his decision. A recommendation is a wonderful thing. In this case there is no doubt after you said it a second time that the only thing the UCTP can do is make assessments, decisions, recommendations to the unit criteria.

PROFESSOR CAROLINE STROBEL - I guess I have one comment that I can make in response to what Eldon has just said. I am also currently on the UCTP and I served once before when Eldon served on it. If what UCTP is to do is to determine whether or not the unit criteria has been fairly applied to a file you are going to have to form an opinion about the file. I have thought a long time since Eldon has brought this issue up about this. How would I go about deciding whether or not the unit criteria has been fairly applied if I didnít look at the file, look at all of the vote justifications, look at the unit criteria and make some assessment about that file. I donít think I can. And so that is the fallacy of this argument. You are just naturally going to have to form an opinion about the file. I donít see any other way to do it and so I think if you consider the wording that you are trying to put in here that thatís the bottom line. I donít see any other way it could be applied.

PROFESSOR ALLEN MILLER - (FRENCH AND CLASSICS) - It seems to me that you are right there is no way you can come up with an opinion and an evaluation based on those opinions. Isnít the entire question what criteria are used in stating that opinion? Are they the unit criteria or other criteria? It seems that the amendment clarifies that only the unit criteria are to be the basis of that opinion.

PROFESSOR KATHERINE REYNOLDS (EDUC) - It might be helpful to all of us to hear what the AAUP briefly says on this issue. They call it (the university level unit) the review committee. "The basic functions of the review committee should be to determine whether or not the appropriate faculty body (that would be the department) gave adequate consideration to the faculty members candidacy in reaching its decision. Adequate consideration does not mean that the review committee should substitute its own judgment for faculty members of the department on the merits of whether the candidate should be reappointed or given tenure. The conscientious judgment of the candidateís departmental colleagues must prevail in the invaluable tradition of the departmental autonomy in professional judgment." Just a reminder.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Way in the back.

PROFESSOR DANIEL FELDMAN (BADM) - I think we are now at the point of the meeting where everything that needs to be said has probably been said here, but not everyone has gotten through saying it. Maybe we could just start to bring closure to this matter.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Iíve been struggling as long as you have, but I havenít heard any one call for the question.

PROFESSOR PATTERSON - Question called.

PRESIDENT PALMS - There is a call for the question which means we have a motion here to terminate debate and vote on this. Are you in favor of concluding the discussion? Indicate by saying aye. Opposed. We will vote on the amendment. Are you ready to vote on the amendment? You say you are. So all those in favor of the paragraph - the new paragraph with the amended additional sentence. This is what we are voting on where this substitutes. All those in favor of this motion indicate by saying aye. Opposed. The ayes have it so now the motion is before you. Do you want further discussion? The question has been called for. Henry pointed out that his interpretation of voting on this section beginning on page 1 to the point of tenure regulations and now with this substitution for this paragraph. All those in favor please indicate by saying aye. Opposed. So ordered.

PROFESSOR PRICE - Thank you folks. We appreciate it.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Believe it or not, thatís it.

PROFESSOR MACK - I would like to thank this committee for everything and in putting up with us today.

VI. Old Business.



VII. New Business.


VIII. Good of the Order.

PROFESSOR ROSAMOND SPRAGUE (A retired professor in the Department of Philosophy still actively teaching.) About 3 weeks ago, I was walking on campus and some friends came from McKissick and they said, "Rosamond, are you on your way to the Presidentís picnic?" I said, "What picnic?" and then I talked to another retired friend and he said "What picnic?" I was interested enough to call up the Presidentís Office and found that all retired persons have been axed from the presidentís invitation list. (Perhaps those of you who have just retired, might want to reconsider.)

PRESIDENT PALMS - Most of them were there.

PROFESSOR SPRAGUE - Now, I know that many people retire, put their things in a box and are never seen again and donít care, but some of us are still around the university and would like to be actively involved in the university, and if I may say so,

Mr. President (this is not a remark to be taken personally), this policy is just a little mean spirited.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Thank you. You all retired faculty will be invited next year.

Do I hear a motion to adjourn.


VIII. Announcements.

PROFESSOR RICHARD CONANT (MUSC) - I just want to invite everyone to the Faculty Clubís annual meeting. There will be a lot of partying and a lot of talking. You have earned a free glass of beer or wine today. The meeting will be short. If you are not a member, please come by and check us out and maybe you will decide to join. No pressure. Have a good time!

IX. Adjournment.

PRESIDENT PALMS - There will be a reception here right after this meeting. Thank you very much. Faculty Senate will have a brief meeting in five minutes after this adjournment.