GENERAL FACULTY MEETING
May 3, 2001

I. Call to Order.

PRESIDENT JOHN PALMS - Ladies and gentlemen, can we call this meeting to order? Thank you. Thank you for your patience while waiting outside. We had a long report from the Parking Committee.

II. Approval of Minutes.

PRESIDENT PALMS - I would like to call for the correction and approval of the General Faculty minutes from the December 5 meeting posted on the Internet. Any questions or corrections? Moved. Seconded. All in favor say, "aye." Opposed same sign. So ordered.

III. Report of President.

PRESIDENT PALMS - A brief report from me. This will be repetitive for those of you who were at the Senate. You know where we are with the budget plan. An initial Senate plan included a 13.6-percent, or $24-million, cut for Columbia, which is nearly 90 percent personnel. The cut is $29 million for all campuses. Late Thursday night, an additional $33 million was found and the budget cut was reduced to 8.7 percent. As I said earlier, I did not ever think I'd be pleased with an 8.7-percent cut. This budget will go to the Senate floor next week. It is our hope that it will stand. I do not think there is much hope for it being approved, but we certainly want it to stand the way it is, as difficult as it is. I hope that you will contact your Senators to plead for them to leave this budget or, if they change it at all, to improve it. So call your Senators, please. Warren Giese has been particularly helpful to us in putting in money for some extra items which are crucial for this campus particularly EPSCORE and the USC Center for Nanostructures. These are very important to us. So if see him, thank him.

We have a new Dean of the Graduate School, Gordon Smith. Let's give Gordon a round here to help us. And, at these difficult times we were searching for a Vice-President for Finance and who better to occupy that post than someone who has overseen the entire budget of the State. So we have hired Richard W. Kelly—Rick Kelly—who was Executive Director of the South Carolina Budget and Control Board. Rick begins June 1. We are now initiating a search for an outstanding Budget Officer and will need someone who is quite familiar with academic and public university economics.

Good news this time of the year for scholarships. We have three Goldwater scholars: Erin Flickenjour, Branden Thornwall, and Ricky Shah. Thank you to all the faculty who participated in preparing these students for applying for these awards. One National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship so far, David Butts. And, a Udall Scholarship to Chang Low. We are doing well there and we continue to be on the radar screen. We've had 16 Goldwaters in the last 4 or 5 years. For a while, only Ivy League Schools had three Goldwaters. This year, I believe Furman (who is also gearing up their fellowship/scholarship program) also had three Goldwaters.

Great celebration of our 75th anniversary of Phi Beta Kappa, with a very good turnout. As you know we invited 7,000 Phi Beta Kappa members in South Carolina to this event. It was a good opportunity for us to let people know that we are still the only public institution in South Carolina that has Phi Beta Kappa.

Postcard dedication here on April 26 on the horseshoe with a beautiful artwork featuring a circa 1820 painting of the horseshoe.

This afternoon, at 4:30 p.m. on the Horseshoe, we are recognizing outstanding teachers from the past from, as far back as 1806. There will be 50 trees, each dedicated to a particular scholar. It will be a nice time to recognize outstanding teachers.

Good news from our faculty: Ron Devore was named to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Let's give him a big round of applause. This is a big deal. You know this academy has scientists, scholars, artists, business leaders and public leaders. I think Ron had been nominated before but it is very difficult for a Southerner to get in. That is true for the other academies, too. It is usually up the east coast and around Chicago. So, for a scholar at a Southern institution to get in is doubly gratifying.

Ezra Greenspan received the Association of American Publishers 2001 Award for Biography for his book, George Palmer Putnam, Representative of American Publisher. And, Joel Myerson received a distinguished achievement award from the Emerson Society. So some good news from our faculty.

Also want to mention again the great work our University Tenure and Promotion Committee continues to do. We had our usual breakfast meeting this morning at which time the Provost and I discussed with them the cases in which we disagree. And, there were only four cases this year. I don't think they were all that important as they did not affect anyone not getting tenure or anything like that. But there were some promotion issues. The dossiers have improved considerably, and I want to thank you for cooperating in your departments with this very, very difficult process, which is sometimes very painful, of evaluating each other. . Your efforts to be as objective as possible, to see to it that outside letters are solicited from people who are capable of evaluating the scholarship of the particular candidates, and that the evaluation is being completed in fair way. I can tell you that the dossiers are much improved. Every year, it gets a little bit better. We've talked about some issues such as the solicitation of those letters from individuals that would be expected to be maybe a little bit more objective. Sometimes the further away from the situation you are the more effective these evaluations are. But there is nothing that substitutes from scholarship that is published in the top journals and books that are published by the best presses in the United States. That stands alone as indications of the quality of scholarship. The better that productivity, the less the letters will mean, but the more important the evidence will be to substantiate the recommendations claimed by the chairman, deans, provost, and me. So, I want to thank you for your participation, and I think you should be proud of this particular faculty committee. It is, in my opinion, the most important committee on this campus. They spend hours of hard work, are extraordinarily objective , and are very helpful to the provost and to me as I make the recommendations to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees.

IV. Report of Provost.

PROVOST JEROME ODOM - No report but I'll be happy to answer any questions.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Since I stole his report, he will be glad to answer the questions you wanted to ask me. No other questions for the Provost?

V. Reports of Committees.

A. Faculty Advisory Committee, Professor Robert Wilcox, Chair:

PROFESSOR WILCOX - The Faculty Advisory Committee moves for the approval of amendments to two sections of the Faculty Manual. The amendments have been set forth in their full text on the Faculty Senate website. I feel kind of like the guinea pig today to see how it will work. How many of you did your homework and how many of you are going to wonder what I'm talking about today? But that is our 8% budget cut; we are doing it electronically.

The amendments that we proposed substitute a revised tenure and promotion procedures section for the existing tenure and promotion procedures section and, make several changes in that section, primarily due to revisions of the following section that we dealt with. We also substitute a new section entitled "Probationary Period and Reappointment Procedures" for the current section entitled " Tenure Regulations and Non-Reappointment Procedures."

In addition to the material that was on the web, there is a further amendment to the proposal that is being passed out in written form, which would be added to the new section titled "Probationary Period and Reappointment Procedures." This amendment deals with the reappointment of non-tenured track faculty, which was not addressed in the original proposal.

We want to bring you up to speed a little bit on what these amendments do. The purpose of this revision began with an effort to address an ambiguity that exists in the section now called "Tenure Regulations and Non-Reappointment Procedures." It is an ambiguity that does not define who exactly in the university has the final authority with regard to reappointment decisions. We felt it very important that the Faculty Manual be clear on that point. As we began to look at that section, however, to make those changes, it became clear that one of the problems with that section was the combination of tenure decisions with reappointment decisions. The combination of topics adds to much of the ambiguity. We did not feel it appropriate it was an appropriate mechanism. Consequently, we have pulled out of the current section on the "Tenure Regulations and the Non-reappointment Procedures" all the material that deals with tenure. We have moved it into "Tenure Procedures and Policies" which seemed like the logical home for it. We then rewrote the materials that dealt with appointment of untenured faculty. We consolidated some things. We removed ambiguities and we attempted to address the particular problem that started us on the way.

Let me - I believe the group probably agrees, so I let me outline these changes for you in case you have not read them on the web. The first thing in the "Tenure and Promotion" section that we would be doing is adding in language that now exists in the second section--simply moving it over. I will not detail all of those changes--a certain amount we are not changing anything; we are simply moving from one section to the other.

The substantive changes are two. First of all, tenure rules in the manual now provides that any subcommittee of a unit tenure committee should have associate professors on it. What that fails to take into account when it was written was the fact that sometimes a subcommittee is evaluating people for promotion to full professor. The people on the subcommittee who were associate professors would not make that decision and so we simply added some language that says "Associate professors should be on subcommittees except those that will be making decisions or recommendations regarding people for promotion or tenure to professor."

The second change deals with some language in the Manual which is not a requirement, but a recommendation in the Manual, that people be at the university--if they come in as an associate professor 3 years before going up for tenure. If they come in as a assistant professor it is 4 years before they go up the sense of the committee was that that language is particularly designed to apply to what we would call new professors. If you are a new professor you should have taught and done research for at least 3 years as an associate professor and at least 4 years as an assistant professor before you seek tenure and promotion. It is not necessarily the policy - the policy does not necessarily apply to a lateral hire. Someone who may have been an associate hire at another institution comes in here and may well wish to seek promotion to full professor. We may not want to hire them as a full professor, but not make them wait 3 years. We felt that it was an unnecessary impediment to recruiting. The language would be changed to say that normally you would not go up until your 3rd or 4th year if you are new to teaching. In essence it is applies unless you are transferring from another tenure track position from other universities.

Those are the two substantive things. I don't think either one of them is terribly major in the tenure and promotion part.

There are two major changes with regard to reappointment issues that I bring to your attention. The first one I can get out of the way most easily. The current Manual says two things about grievances in non-reappointment decisions. It first says that you have no grievance and then it says you have a right to grievance but only for due process violations. We thought that was ambiguous and so we deleted the part that says no right to file a grievance for a non-reappointment, we kept the part that said you had a limited right of grievance. That was the first thing we did just simply remove the contradictory language in favor of the faculty.

The second thing was addressing the issue that got us started. The resolution that we put before you today is a recommendation that each year the tenured faculty of a unit would vote a recommendation on the untenured faculty members. That recommendation would be forwarded to the department chair (if there is a chair) and then it would be forwarded on to the dean. If the dean agrees with the faculty recommendation, positive or negative, that is if there is an agreement between the faculty and the dean--the dean would have the final decision-making authority. If the dean disagrees with the faculty either way, positive or negative, the entire file would then be forwarded to the provost and the provost would have the decision-making authority. So in other words, the only way the dean would have the decision-making authority is when the dean is in agreement with a majority of the faculty in the unit. We felt that that provided a sufficient protection against the decisions that were violations of due process and created enough people looking at the file to provide protection for the faculty member. That is our recommendation as to how that decision should be made. That's the thrust of the proposed amendments. One that we add to our motion that you have in front of you today came after the committee made most of its decisions. We became aware that some instructors who were not tenure track have interpreted some language that currently exists in the Faculty Manual as providing them 12 months notice right if they are not reappointed from a contract position. The changes in the Manual that we proposed would not retain that ambiguity. We have done such a good job of clarifying that that ambiguity would be removed that they have relied upon. However, we have discussed this with the provost's office and the university counsel, and from those discussions has come proposed additional language that you have before you. This amendment recognizes that a person hired on a contract would be in essence given their notice the day they were hired--by the contract saying you are hired from August 15th to May 15th and no further notice would be required to terminate you. If you were hired on an open ended contract that did not specify termination you would then have a 12 month notice before termination in that situation. The intent of the university I believe is to move away from those kinds of open-ended dates, but if that did happen it would take a 12 month period. We felt that was a reasonable solution of the concerns of those people and also as consistent as the university has been. So I will put those motions before the body.

PROFESSOR JOHN SAFKO (ASTR) - Will you please give the full text?

PROFESSOR WILCOX - Yes, I will be happy to. The additional language would be a section to be added next to the last portion of the second section the area called "Probationary Period and Re-Appointment Procedures." It would become the next to the last section of that and it would be captioned "Appointment and Termination of Non-tenured Track Faculty."

Appointments of non-tenure track faculty shall be in
writing and shall specify the beginning and ending date
of the appointment. Appointments shall terminate on the
date specified and no further notice of non-reappointment
is required. If a non-tenure track faculty member is
appointed without a specified ending date, notice of
non-reappointment shall be given in writing to the faculty
member at least twelve months prior to the termination date.

I would be happy to answer any questions.

PROFESSOR MICHAEL MYRICK (CHEM) - I had a question about the non-reappointment of tenure track faculty. I understand that the issue of reappointment depends on progress toward tenure. Would a person who is subject to reappointment be informed on how they are doing in progress towards tenure? Would they have some timely notice of that or are they only told at the last moment?

PROFESSOR WILCOX - I think we need to read this in connection with other sections of the Faculty Manual that now provide for an annual review. So presumably as the annual review has gone along you have had some inclination in prior years. The first year that could make a difference--there is no provision that says that you have to be given notice any time before March 1st that you are not going to be retained. So I think that does suggest that in the first year you could be surprised by the outcome. After that you should have had at least one annual review. And, what we count on is that the annual reviews will reflect reality. Obviously if they don't, that creates issues that concern the legal counsel and people like that, because they should reflect it. Certainly there are possibilities where things could go bad in a year. But I think we are talking now about something more than just a general failure to do research or general failure to meet the classes, it is probably some other event. The realist in me says that you would probably be aware of it, if that kind of a thing occurred that caused you to go from:

"excellent", "excellent", "excellent" to "not retain."

PROFESSOR MARCO VALTORTA (CSCE) - There are some departments that now have committees to evaluate the teaching of faculty members. These are peer review committees in a sense and an associate and maybe an assistant professor evaluate the teaching of colleagues who may be full professors. Do you see this to be in conflict with the proposed changes? Or do you see that as a separate issue?

PROFESSOR WILCOX - I don't see it to be in conflict. Because all the changes do is say that you are not required to have associate professors on these committees. I personally, as an assistant professor am not inclined to want to evaluate a full professor or as an associate professor want to evaluate them. I think the college, to the extent that there are personnel available to do peer reviews, hopefully, will take that into account. It puts somebody in a very awkward position, particularly if they are untenured, to be evaluating their tenured colleagues who are going to be voting on them at some point. That was our concern but we did not say you can't do it. We simply took away the requirement that you had to do it which we felt was unwise.

PROFESSOR KEN PETERS (Transition Year) - I think I heard correctly that there would be an annual review of all non-tenured people in the proposal. Is that right?

PROFESSOR WILCOX - Not in this proposal. My understanding--and I may have the section, I don't have the full Faculty Manual up here. If you go back into a portion of the Faculty Manual that deals with post-tenure review, it is called "Annual Performance Review, Third-Year Review and Post-Tenure Review" an existing section of the manual. It now requires that: "Each tenuring unit must adopt procedures and standards for:
1. An annual written performance review for all tenure track faculty."

PROFESSOR PETERS - We have that right now but there was something else that you said that in essence the person would be going up for tenure review every single year. And, the home based committee (the college committee) would have to pass on that person each year?

PROFESSOR WILCOX -Each year there would be a recommendation from the faculty of the unit as to whether to retain a faculty member. That would be the starting point of the retention process.

PROFESSOR PETERS - So that is something new?

PROFESSOR WILCOX - The manual has said that what happens is the faculty makes a recommendation to the dean that is passed onto the provost. Let me get you the exact language because that was the language that was the problem.

PROFESSOR PETERS - We have a 3-year review right now, correct?

PROFESSOR WILCOX - The current language of the manual says "Recommendations to grant or deny tenure or reappointment are made by the tenured faculty of equal or higher rank in the unit and are accompanied by assessments of the candidates from the department chair and the dean to the provost. That was the language--it said nothing about who made the decision. It contemplates recommendations on reappointment which would have to occur every year. So I think that is in there now and we are perhaps clarifying the process to say that each year the faculty make a recommendation.

PROFESSOR RICK STEPHENS (JOUR) - I wonder if you could clarify from the sheet that has been handed out on "Appointment and Termination.." the last sentence here implies to me that apparently there will continue to be the possibility that there are on-going appointments - they are open ended?

PROFESSOR WILCOX - I think it is to cover inadvertencies instead. I think the first sentence which says you: "…shall specify…" indicates that would be the normal practice. But in the event that somebody is not --the first sentence is not complied with then have 12 months notice. They would not be an at will employee in that sense. So I think the last sentence talking about the 12 months is contemplating in the situation presumably of an inadvertency where there was not a specified termination date in a letter at the time of appointment.

PROFESSOR RICK STEPHENS - JOUR - Is it anticipated or will it now be in another policy manual or is it not the practice ordinarily to have open-ended non-tenure track appointments?

PROFESSOR WILCOX - I would rely on the first sentence of that proposal which says

"Appointments of non-tenure track faculty shall be in writing and shall specify the beginning and ending dates." That would be the normal rule.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Do we have a second to this motion?

-Seconded.

PROFESSOR WILCOX - Any other questions?

PRESIDENT PALMS - Are you ready to vote? Those in favor say aye. Opposed. So moved. I think that takes care of business?

VI. Old Business.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Is there any old business? None.

Jerry, if you will come up with the recognition of our faculty.

PROVOST ODOM:

Thank you very much. First of all I would like to recognize our emeritus faculty - those faculty who are retired. I would like to ask if those faculty that are here will stand and remain standing and at the end we can all recognize them all and thank them. This group as a group has really contributed substantially to this university over the years and it is my opinion we owe them a great deal of gratitude.

If I could start please:

Professor Emeriti

Edward H. Bodie, Jr.
English
Shirley Kuiper
Darla Moore School of Business
LeRoy D. Brooks
Darla Moore School of Business
Ronald W. Maris
Sociology
Marilyn Chassie
Nursing
Henry W. Matalene
English
Robert A. Chubon
School of Medicine
Sciences
Lawrence F. McClure
Psychology
Charles C. Curran
Library and Information Science
Julian Minghi
Geography
Mark W. DeLancey
Government & International
Studies
Robert L. Oakman
Computer Science & Engineering
James R. Evans
Psychology
Robert B. Patterson
History
Julian Fincher
Pharmacy
Robert M Rood
Government & International
Studies
Jean E. Gray
USC Sumter

J. Boyd Saunders
Art

Edgar O. Horger, III
School of Medicine
Carl R. Shirley
Spanish, Italian & Portuguese
Elizabeth G. Joiner
French & Classics
John Scott Wilson
History

PROVOST ODOM - Thank you so much. (A round of applause.)

Golden Key Faculty Award for Creative Integration of Research and Undergraduate Teaching

At this time will Robin Poston, President of Golden Key and Christina Catoe, Golden Key Awards Chairperson come forward to assist in presenting this award.

(Provost reads text, Poston & Catoe present plaque & check)

Recipient: L. Clifton Fuhrman

The winner of the Golden Key National Honor Society's "Faculty Award for the Creative Integration of Research and Undergraduate Teaching" is Dr. L. Clifton Fuhrman. Dr. Fuhrman, who is with the College of Pharmacy, has innovatively and effectively combined ongoing research with his instruction of undergraduate students using what he calls the Virtual Patient Database. The Virtual Patient Database is a research and educational tool that he developed that is used by all Pharmacy undergraduates.

Please help me in congratulating Dr. L. Clifton Fuhrman.

________________________________________________________________
Ada B. Thomas Outstanding Faculty Advisor

Recipient: Peter Werner

Dr. Werner is a professor in the Department of Physical Education. He has established an enviable record of teaching, research, and service in higher education. His students characterize him as one who "always has time for students, despite his busy schedule". His colleagues hold him in high esteem and value the fine example he has offered junior faculty over the years. His students view this honor as a small way of saying "thank you" for his caring and compassionate advisement.

It is my pleasure to announce Dr. Peter Werner as the Ada B. Thomas Outstanding Faculty Advisor.

________________________________________________________________
Outstanding Freshman Advocate

Recipient: Mary Ann Byrnes

Mary Ann Byrnes, Assistant Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, has been at the University since beginning graduate school in 1978 and began her career as a student advisor in 1982.

Mary Ann deals with thousands of students each year, but she makes the "overwhelming" into a nurturing environment for students. In addition to her regular responsibilities she has participated in the USC marathon bus trips to recruit students, and despite the long hours she is always upbeat, cheerful and eager to meet new students.

Please help me in congratulating Mary Ann Byrnes as this years Outstanding Freshman Advocate.

________________________________________________________________
Russell Research Award for Humanities and Social Sciences

Recipient: Lawrence B. Glickman

Larry Glickman has been an associate professor in the Department of History since 1998. Professor Glickman's work revolves around the history of American consumer society. His book A Living Wage: American Workers and the Making of a Consumer Society has received rave reviews and has prompted historians to reconsider traditional beliefs. In 2001 his article entitled, The Strike in the Temple of Consumption: Consumer Activism and Twentieth Century Political Culture will appear in the prestigious Journal of American History. This work was described by critics as brilliant and on the cutting edge of historical research. In 1996 he won the Society of the History of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era best article award.

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

________________________________________________________________
Russell Research Award for Science, Mathematics and Engineering

Recipient: Joe Padgett

Joe Padgett is a Carolina Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Statistics. His research interests include statistical quality control and industrial/engineering statistics, with applications in reliability, survival analysis, accelerated life testing, and nonparametric function estimation. He is currently developing statistical stress-strength models of carbon fibers and composite materials, useful for failure rate analysis of high-stress industrial components. Dr. Padgett's research has been supported for over 20 years by the Air Force and Army Research Offices and by the National Science Foundation. He has published three monographs and over 145 research papers, and has been a previous recipient of the Russell Research Award, Carolina Trustee Professorship, and the 1990 Governor's Award for Excellence in Science in South Carolina.

I would like to congratulate Dr. Joe Padgett as this year's Russell Research Award winner for Science, Mathematics and Engineering.

________________________________________________________________
USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Health Sciences

Recipient: Jeanette M. Jerrell

Jeanette Jerrell is a Professor in the Department of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science and the Associate Director for Research at William S. Hall Psychiatric Institution. Her areas of clinical research include substance abuse, mental disorders and health services.

Grant funds in support of research have been awarded Dr. Jerrell as Principal Investigator or co-investigator from the National Institute of Mental Health and from the South Carolina Department of Mental Health. She has received approximately three million dollars for research on cost effectiveness of treatment, with total grant support since 1989 exceeding seven million dollars.

Please congratulate Dr. Jerrell as this year's USC Educational Foundation Research Award winner for Health Sciences.

________________________________________________________________
USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Humanities and Social Sciences

Recipient: Keith E. Davis

Keith Davis earned his Ph.D. from Duke University in 1963. He started publishing important papers in top-tier psychology and sociology journals in 1959 - a pattern that continues unabated today. With over ninety publications in major journals, Keith has established a record of eminence in and outside his field of psychology. The span and depth of Keith's magnificent career is an inspiration to all scholars.

Please join me in congratulating Dr. Keith Davis as this year's USC Educational Research Award for Humanities and Social Sciences.

________________________________________________________________
USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Professional Schools

Recipient: Terry Tirrito

Terry Tirrito joined the faculty in the College of Social Work in 1991. Professor Tirrito has written 3 books on aging, with a fourth book currently under contract, and published 14 articles on aging issues. She has made presentations at over 100 international, national and regional conferences. She has served as a visiting professor and conducted research in Korea, Australia and New Zealand.

Her research focuses on the spiritual and religious lives of older adults. Letters of support refer to her as a "pioneer" in the field.

I would like to congratulate Professor Terry Tirrito as the USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Professional Schools.

________________________________________________________________
USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Science, Mathematics and Engineering

Recipient: Chaden Djalali

Dr. Djalali is a tenured Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. His research interests include the M1 strength in and spin structure of nuclei, the spin-isospin structure of the excited states of the nucleon via determination of spin-flip probabilities, and the h meson photoproduction. He is currently working on electromagnetic intermediate energy probes for the study of strangeness production amplitudes. Dr. Djalali's research has been supported since his arrival at USC by the National Science Foundation. He has published 52 research papers and was previously awarded the French CNRS Medal for ‘outstanding research in Nuclear Physics' by junior faculty in 1985 as well as the Michael J. Mungo Award for Excellence in Undergraduate Teaching in 1997, and the Amoco Teaching Award in 1999.

With your help, please help me in recognizing Dr. Chaden Djalali as this year's USC Educational Foundation Research Award for Science, Mathematics and Engineering.

________________________________________________________________
USC Educational Foundation Outstanding Service Award

Recipient: John T. Gandy

This year's winner is John Gandy of the College of Social Work. John received his Ph.D. from the University of Denver in 1975, at which time he joined the University of South Carolina. His contributions to the service mission of the University have been profound, among them chair of the University Committee on Tenure and Promotion, chair of the University Research and Productive Scholarship Committee, member of the Board of Directors of Carolina Sunshine for Children, and – most extraordinarily – associate dean of the College of Social Work for 21 years.

Please help me in congratulating John Gandy as this year's USC Educational Foundation Outstanding Service Award winner.

________________________________________________________________
Carolina Trustee Professorship

Recipient: Doug Williams

Doug Williams is a professor in the Department of Geological Sciences and the Marine Science Program. Currently he is also serving as an Associate Dean in the South Carolina Honors College.

Dr. Williams' fields of study are paleooceanography and paleoclimatology where he focuses on the study of Earth History in relation to global environmental change. He has received continuous NSF funding since 1978, including two $1 million dollar grants to support the Lake Baikal Drilling Project. Over his career he has received nearly $6 million dollars of funded research support. Dr. Williams is the author of one book with a second in press and over 150 published articles.

I would like to congratulate Dr. Doug Williams for being chosen as this year's Carolina Trustee Professor.

________________________________________________________________
Michael J. Mungo Teaching Awards

We have 5 Michael J. Mungo Teaching Awards being presented this year. They include:

Recipients:

Bonnie Drewniany
Milind Kunchur
Ron Maris
Steve McNeill
Catherine Murphy

Professor Bonnie Drewniany is an Associate Professor and the Director of the Advertising and Public Relations Sequence in the College of Journalism and Mass Communications. Her students have won dozens of national and regional awards for work they have done in her classes.

Professor Milind Kunchur is an Associate Professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy. His work in superconductivity has led to the discovery of several new effects. His research involves high school and undergraduate students.

Professor Ron Maris is a Professor in the Department of Sociology. A specialist on suicide, he has published approximately 60 scientific articles, 20 books, and taught over 8,000 students in the last 40 years.

Professor Steve McNeill is an Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering. He has been awarded the 1996 Samuel Litman Distinguished Professor Award in Engineering and the 1998 Joseph M. Biedenbach Distinguished Service Award.

Professor Catherine Murphy is an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry. She has won numerous awards for both research and teaching, including a Camille Dreyfus Teacher-Scholar Award, an Alfred P. Sloan Research Fellowship, the USC Mortar Board Award for Excellence in Teaching, and the USC Golden Key Faculty Award for the Creative Integration of Research and Undergraduate Teaching.

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

________________________________________________________________
Amoco Outstanding Teaching Award

Recipient: David Sumner

Considered the highest honor for teaching on this campus for a faculty member, the AMOCO Award is given annually to a truly exceptional teacher. This year's winner David Sumner of the Department of Mathematics. An associate professor, David received his Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts in 1971 and joined the faculty of USC that same year. He continues to teach Honors Calculus, Vector Calculus, and Discrete Mathematics. Dr. Sumner is known campus-wide as an inspiring, sympathetic, but demanding instructor; and has previously been recognized by the Honors College for outstanding teaching.

Please help me in congratulating Dr. David Sumner for receiving this most prestigious award.

VI. Announcements.

PRESIDENT PALMS - I would like to invite everyone to attend the Bicentennial Tree Naming Ceremony which will begin at 4:30 on the Horseshoe. Congratulations again to all recipients.

VII. Old Business.

VIII. Good of the Order.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Do I hear a motion for adjournment?

- So moved.

PRESIDENT PALMS - All in favor say aye. So moved.


This page created 29 August 2001 by the Office of the Faculty Senate and Computer Services.
Copyright 1999-2001, The Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina
URL http://www.sc.edu/faculty/general/01/0503.general.minutes.html