FACULTY SENATE MEETING

October 4, 2000

 

I. Call to Order

CHAIR CAROLINE STROBEL - Iíd like to call the meeting to order.

II. Correction and Approval of Minutes

CHAIR STROBEL - We have the correction and approval of the minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes as printed? If not, the minutes are approved as printed.

III. Reports of Officers

PRESIDENT JOHN PALMS -

Thank you, Madame Chairman. This is not casual day, but I am "student for a day." I enjoyed being in a first-year German class, but I did not appreciate being called on four times. I will remember that.

It is a busy time. I hope you had an opportunity to read some of the good press that we have received. Both in The State newspaper (long article) and in The Greenville News (with Bill Harris talking about the Research Alliance with Clemson and MUSC. John Monk, who wrote the article for The State interviewed about 50 different individuals. He probably could have written three books about the university, but his editor, of course, took some things out. Just bear that in mind. While there are some mistakes, the overall article is good news for the University. We are delighted that at least we are getting that attention and enlightened that the editorial board decided to endorse our vision to be a great university and be members of AAU.

That same week, we announced that although we had reached our goal of $300 million, the goals of the campaign have not been reached for all our colleges and the other academic goals. Looking at the campaign activity and potential donor backlog all over the country, it was with great confidence that we recommended to the National Advisory Committee of the campaign that we raise the campaign goal. After a detailed discussion on Saturday morning, they endorsed the recommendation to present it to the Board (although there were informal communication with members of the Board of Trustees already) that we raise the goal to $500 million. Doing that in a year and a half is challenging, but we are confident. We have a great team working in the Development Office, and great deans that are working with the development officers. Certainly, the life of a dean has become much more complex, with fund raising an integral part of their responsibilities. They have their own fund raisers in colleges, and deans are traveling throughout the country. I hope you will bear with their absences from the campus. They are making contacts, they are nurturing, cultivating, and raising funds, and we need that money. We are also using the success of the campaign to put increased pressure on the legislature for adequate funding. Funding. especially performance funding. is still a challenge for us. Jerry will talk about some of the work we are trying to do with Clemson and MUSC to set the research universities apart.

I want to congratulate you again. One of the great messages I continue to deliver with potential donors is the success of the Family Fund. It is rare for a university to have such generous faculty and staff. You have already contributed $7.6 million. When people ask me who gives to the university in this campaign, that is the first gift that I announce. The gifts of our own faculty and staff are critical to us and to other donors. It is also important in our dealings with the legislature where we are increasingly asking for matching gifts. The recent gift from NCR and WalMart of $6.2 million gives us software for a digital warehouse, which enhances our College of Engineering and Informational Technology.

On October 1, Joel Smith formally became Dean of The Darla Moore School of Business. I wanted to welcome him here, but he is not here this afternoon. Iíve already put Jerry Odomís name up for "Provost of the Year" for completing five deans searches and two vice presidents searches all in one year.

The week of October 9-14 is Carolinian Creed Week, and the students are really taking that creed very, very seriously. It has been adopted on many, many campuses throughout the country.

There is some good news from our Regional Campuses. Enrollment is up in a couple of those key campuses, and their fundraising is proceeding well. They are raising money for their second building at Beaufort. Also, Dr. Ronald Harshbarger, Professor of Mathematics at Beaufort, has received the Governorís Professor of the Year Award for the two-year sector. He will get that award tomorrow from the governor.

Norma and I look forward to having you at October Fest and another great festival.

Madam Chairman, that is my report. We are busy, but the semester is moving on.

I would be glad to answer any questions.

CHAIRMAN STROBEL - Are there any questions?

PRESIDENT PALMS - Thank you.

PROVOST JEROME ODOM:

Thank you, Madam Chair. We had a Deanís Council meeting at 9 oíclock this morning and when the President walked in I thought finally we are going to change our dress code in Osborne. Unfortunately, it was not to be. I see two of my chemistry colleagues here and they dress like I used to dress and I would like to dress. But I then had the chance to meet the "President for a Day." A very delightful young woman who is an art history major, Bob, and sheís right on target. I asked her for money immediately and she said "No, no. You furnish the money. I donít furnish the money." So she had the line down pat.

I just have two items that I would like to discuss. First, we had an excellent two hour meeting with the Higher Education Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee. This is the committee that really gets things started with respect to funding of higher education every year. This was the second year in a row that they have asked to visit us on our campus and sit down and talk to us in general terms about our needs. Not specifics at this point, not priorities at this point, but what we see as our needs for the coming year in general. We talked about capital projects. One of the things that we have tried very hard to do is to impress upon them the need to pay attention to some of our older buildings at the same time that we are building new buildings on this campus. They have very graciously furnished money for new buildings, for example, they are giving money for a new Law School. They were contributors to our new graduate science center. They are contributors to the arena. They are contributors to the Strom Thurmond Fitness and Wellness Center. But we have continued to try and impress upon them that we have existing facilities that direly need attention. If you walk behind McKissick on Gibbs Green, you will see that the Sloan College project is almost finished. The Department of Sociology will move into Sloan, hopefully, during the semester break. Then we will start on Callcott. We need to address Geographyís needs while we are working with Callcott and that is a topic of daily conversation. I want you to know that we are working hard to, hopefully, have Geography move out of Callcott over the semester break into quarters for probably 19 months while we completely redo Callcott and then they can move back. We also have planning underway for Petigru and we want very much to be able to redo LeConte College. That is one of our big priorities at the moment.

The other topic that we discussed in some detail with the committee, as the President mentioned, was Performance Based Funding at the state level. And, how increasingly it has become difficult to do strategic planning that we feel that we need to do as a university and at the same time meet some of the goals of the performance based indicators. One of those in particular is one that is being very difficult for me to see how it is related directly to performance but it is the percentage of out-of-state students. The greater percent of out-of-state students, the lower your mark. Clearly as we raise our admission standards and strive to attract better students to the university, we will probably increase the number of out-of-state students. That said, then we can expect to receive a low mark on that indicator and less money. There are a number of cases where these performance indicators are directly contradictory to what we would like to do as a university. It is not just us that feels this way. The other two research universities feel very strongly and we have been very united in our comments and concerns about performance based funding. It is very difficult if you think about it to take 37 indicators. First of all, that is a very large number of indicators and secondly, to have those 37 indicators guide the performance of 33 institutions of higher education, research universities, what are called four-year teaching universities, two-year regional campuses of the University of South Carolina and technical colleges. We have very different missions and it is very difficult to take all 33 institutions and fit them into one shoe called performance based funding. The committee was more attentive this time and seemed more attuned to some of the difficulties that we are experiencing and seemed very receptive to the idea that there perhaps should be a much lower number of indicators - 8 to 10 to 12 that we could be judged on, that we could be accountable for, and that were consistent with the mission of a research university. So we are having a lot of conversations with the Commission on Higher Education and with the legislature about that. I tried to emphasize to them that we desperately want to be accountable. We receive our funding (some of our funding) from the State. We want them to feel good about what we are doing with our money but at the same time we need to be able to have some way to pave our future that is consistent with what a university is all about.

The other item very briefly we will be interviewing 3 candidates for the Dean of Journalism and Mass Communications. And, as we always do, there will be opportunity for faculty, for students, for staff as well as other individuals in other colleges to interact with these deans. Dr. Will Norton will be here October 18th and 19th. Dr. Ted Pease will be here October 25th and 26th. And, Mr. Ron Lowen will be here November 2nd and 3rd. I think we are on schedule for having these interviews completed and some kind of decision made before the end of the semester.

The search committee for the Dean of Library and Information Science has been formed. I do not know whether they have had their first meeting with the Legal Council and our Equal Opportunity Advisor to talk about basic issues that are involved with a search, but that will go on next semester. Fred Roper who has been the Dean of that college will not step down until December 31, 2001, so we have plenty of time for that.

Those are the only two items that I had and I will be happy to answer questions.

CHAIR STROBEL - Are there any questions for the Provost?

 

IV. Reports of Committees

A. Faculty Senate Steering Committee, Professor Sarah Wise, Secretary:

PROFESSOR WISE - Nominations will be open for chair-elect and secretary-elect of the Faculty Senate at the end of the meeting.

CHAIR STROBEL - Right. We will open up nominations again at this point and they will remain open until the end of the meeting.

PROFESSOR HENRY PRICE (JOUR) - I would like to nominate Sarah Wise as secretary-elect.

CHAIR STROBEL - Alright Sarah Wiseís name has been placed in nomination for secretary. Are there any other nominations at this time? The nominations will remain open till the end of the meeting.

B. Committee on Curricula and Courses, Professor David Berube, Chair:

CHAIR STROBEL - I am now going to try to do something that David does quite well and that is to present the report to you. David is in Europe and the replacement that he had arranged to come and present the report has suddenly become ill and had to go home. So I am going to try and present the report to you. If you will turn to page 8, it is a relatively small report. Roman numeral one, College of Liberal Arts. I would like to make two editorial corrections. They are actually the same editorial correction in the description of AFRO 360 and RELG 343 after the word "approach" to add "ed." So it reads: Ö.approached from the perspective of comparative religion. This course, Rastafarians and Reggae, is cross-listed between African American Studies and the Department of Religious Studies and is offered as a 3-hour course. I would like to move that this course be accepted. Is there any discussion? There being none, all in favor? All opposed? The ayes have it.

Roman numeral two, Department of Physics and Astronomy, a new course PHYS 203 Physics for Medical Sciences a 1-hour course. There is a small editorial correction in the third line after the word "systems" change the comma to a period.

PROFESSOR PRICE - Madam Chair I believe there should also be a hyphen between problem and solving (problem-solving) in the sentence coming directly after the period you just inserted. That would make the emphasis on problem-solving.

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR - This is a standard terminology and problem solving is not hyphenated in this college in the sciences we do not hyphenate for this one.

CHAIR STROBEL - Are you willing to concede that Henry?

PROFESSOR PRICE - Only in the sciences.

CHAIR STROBEL - Thank you. With the one editorial correction changing the comma to a period, I move that PHYS 203 be accepted. Is there any discussion?

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN (CSCE) - If there is a representative from Physics here I would like to ask if they are prepared to deal with large numbers of requests to enroll in this course from students seeking 1-hour courses?

CHAIR STROBEL - Is there someone here from Physics who would like to comment?

PROFESSOR EDWIN JONES (PHYS) - I donít think we will be overwhelmed at all. It does have some prerequisites and it is pretty well geared to those students who are trying to prep for the MCAT exam and want a little bit extra on some of the topics that we donít ordinarily get to cover.

PROFESSOR EASTMAN - You mean there are prerequisites that are not listed?

PROFESSOR JONES - It should say PHYS 201 at least, doesnít it? It is probably my error since Iím the one that sent it in. I need to check that. The intent was that this would be for students that either completed PHYS 202 or were concurrent in 202. So it is not just a brief one credit course with no background.

CHAIR STROBEL - Are you wanting to make a prerequisite change then?

PROFESSOR JONES - Yes, I think that would be entirely appropriate that we should.

CHAIR STROBEL - To add the prerequisite or corequisite PHYS 202?

PROFESSOR JONES - Yes. Thank you, Caroline.

CHAIR STROBEL - With those two changes all in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it. We have one more under Medical Technology, a change in curriculum. Is anyone here from the Medical School to know if this is correct?

PROVOST ODOM - This is actually in the College of Science and Mathematics.

CHAIR STROBEL - Okay. Is there anybody here that is familiar with this curriculum change? Hopefully it is alright. I move that we accept this curriculum change. Is there any discussion?

PROVOST ODOM - If could just raise a question, maybe we could ask Caroline Eastman. Because I think the change, Caroline, is to add CSCE 102 to this curriculum. Is that suitable with CSCE?

PROFESSOR EASTMAN - We have no problem with that. We welcome the students.

CAROLINE STROBEL - Are there any questions? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you. David would have done the job much better than I.

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

PROFESSOR WILCOX - There are 4 items to report to you on. One is to report on a matter that was raised at the last senate meeting regarding the delivery of personal parcels through the University Postal Services and referred to us. I think we have a satisfactory resolution of the question that was raised. The concern that Postal Services has is simply the capability to deliver a large number of packages. And, the answer is yes, they would like to discourage people having personal parcels delivered at the business address. However, what they have agreed, and I think it is consistent with what the committee saw as a reasonable proposal, is they want to place top priority on business parcels. But they will deliver personal parcels as space allows. So it may mean there is a day or two delay if it is a heavy business day for delivery. They are not going to return parcels because they have deemed them to be personal. So there are two aspects of it. The first is that they wonít return them and the second aspect is that in making the decision that it is business parcel or a personal parcel, they have assured us they will err on the side of classifying everything as business if they are not sure. And, it is only things they are absolutely positive are personal that will get thrown into the personal bin. We felt like this was a reasonable priority, putting business before personal items. It shouldnít cause too much disruption. Our view is, if it comes back to us, that somehow the academic work of the institution is being interfered with by this policy, we will revisit it, but we felt like it was a reasonable compromise. If you still have questions on that, I will be happy to pursue it further, but we thought we had resolved that one adequately.

The other matters are to bring you up to speed on what the committee has on the table before it this year. There are 3 things which I think will be of interest to the faculty. The first is the committee has undertaken to look at the process of appointing people to endowed chairs and professorships, to insure that the university has appropriate policies in place to have this process work in the best way for the academic mission of the school. One thing we feel from our initial look is that we need to look more into the processes within the units for advertising the availability of chairs and the process of the dean nominating someone to fill a chair. We are beginning by looking at 5 peer schools: North Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, Florida, and Missouri Columbia to see what they have in place for this type of process. Our thinking at the moment is that what we are really talking about is ensuring that each unit has a process that is clearly published and publicized. Not the same process for everybody, but much along the lines that we have with tenure; every school has its own process. We feel that there appears to be a bit lacking at the moment in that and we may need to revise our procedures in that direction. So that is one thing we are looking at.

Going hand in hand with that inquiry will undoubtedly be some discussion as to why we have chairs--what the purpose of chairs is--and to ensure that the procedures that we have are consistent with the intended use of chairs. There are a lot of different things that have been raised that go into this inquiry, but we will be talking about that throughout the year. I would expect by the Spring we will hopefully have some language, if we deem it necessary, to revise the Faculty Manual as appropriate, or Procedures and Policies if thatís what the university needs to do, to recommend some changes there for your approval and then implementation by the university.

The second thing we are looking at which I think may have a huge amount of interest among, particularly untenured faculty, but I think all of us have an interest in it is the process of making the decision on retention of untenured faculty. A proposal has been sent to us by the Provostís Office on this issue and we are looking at it. We agree with the Provost that the Faculty Manual probably needs to be revised. It has an unfortunate juxtaposition of tenure and retention in the same sentence and they really donít work together very well. And, we agree that we probably need to split the two into different paragraphs and in the process consider who really makes the decision on retention. The proposal that is in front of us is a proposal that the dean makes the decision with the advice of the faculty and that the information then be conveyed to the Provost. But the decision is made at the deanís office. That raises some questions of things we need to think about that we are going to be looking into, primarily with what range of discretion does the dean have. There are various circumstances that could come up where deans and faculty disagree on individuals and we are going to be looking at that whole issue. If people have thoughts on the subject, we certainly welcome input from faculty members. There are any number of possibilities. We have just gotten into it and we have already identified what I would say are probably some competing interests. Things that we are going to have to balance a little bit. Different purposes of the institution. We think that is really a very important question that needs to be addressed and clarified and it will be in front of us as well. Our expectation absolutely is that we will have a proposal to the faculty at the April Faculty Meeting to revise the Faculty Manual in some manner with regard to that. And, I will keep the senate advised as we move towards something more concrete in that area. But certainly, if you have input, feel free to correspond with any members of the Advisory Committee. You can certainly send an e-mail to me or call me. I will be happy to talk with you about this area.

The third thing we are going to do this year is ask the administration to share with us some insight into what the universityís strategic marketing plan is--to use that phrase, we are looking at the universityís long range plan for how it intends to inform the public--both the local and broader public on a national basis or even international basis-- as to the value of higher education and particularly the value of this institution in higher education and to the people of the State of South Carolina, the United States, whatever. We feel that the university needs to involve the faculty, that the faculty have a lot of resources there they can help with in that area. And, we certainly want to talk with administration and get the full understanding of what the marketing strategy is. The President mentioned the article in the paper a couple days ago and that is all part of marketing the university in a way. We are looking into getting some information from the administration as to how that fits into a longer range plan, and to offer our resources as we certainly have an interest in that as faculty members of the institution. The university has done a lot in terms of private fund raising and there is a lot of marketing that goes into that. We think the marketing in many other respects is important, even just identifying the various constituencies to which you market the university. Those are the kinds of issues we felt we needed some information on. We will be talking with the administration throughout the year on that. I am not sure where that will lead us. It may lead us to nothing more than that I will report back to the senate about what we found out. It may lead to action. But my expectation right now is that it will probably be informational as much as anything--and the opportunity to work together a little bit there.

I will be happy to answer any questions you all have.

PROFESSOR MICHAEL MYRICK (CHEM) - I want to ask you a question about the first point, which was on the chaired positions. At least in my experience in my department the chaired positions are often used as part of a retention package for a faculty member who has an offer to leave. And, often when we are in that situation, the faculty member gets an offer and we find out about that offer about the time it is made and we have very limited time to make arrangements to try to retain that person. In the past weíve been sometimes successful and sometimes not successful. But when weíve not been successful a lot of it has been slowness of response. Thus, Iím just concerned that if we put together some detailed rules and regulations about how we make the distribution of chaired positions, that it will make it more difficult for us to respond in an urgent situation like that.

PROFESSOR WILCOX - We are certainly conscious of that need and thatís where I say one of the issues thatís got to be addressed as we do this is to cushion the purpose of chairs. If one of the purposes of chairs is to use them as a financial incentive to keep people here, then that needs to be reflected in the procedures. I think we need to have a discussion among the faculty and have the provost office particularly in considering role of chairs. To the extent we do it, you are correct that the proposal we come up with will have to reflect the need to be able to do that. We are conscious of that as one of the uses of chairs. Absolutely. Thank you.

D. Faculty Welfare Committee, Professor Jerald Wallulis, Chair:

PROFESSOR WALLULIS - Last Friday we sent out a general e-mail to the faculty on this campus and the campus-wide system. First of all, we want to thank the chairman of the faculty senate and the provostís office for being able to do so. In the e-mail, we were concerned above all with two themes: (1) is the general need for faculty who are interested in buying time in the South Carolina Retirement System to do so before December 31st of this year. We continue to insist this is a need. The month of October is a traditional month to meet with processing and benefits counselors about your general packet of benefits. So that will also be a good time to bring this subject up. We think that it is very much in faculty interests to do so within that time frame.

We also are planning a general information packet of some sort to deal with changes in the retirement system. Hopefully, also to help faculty make decisions about timing retirement as you move towards your 25th year of service.

The second issue deals with the survey. This is the final week to mail in the survey. I can report that so far we have had 589 responses. I believe that is a response rate of at least 43% which I believe will allow us to get significant results. The surveys when they are completed this time period will be taken to Bob Oldendick of the Institute of Public Affairs. His office will encode them and then they will be analyzed by the Statistics Laboratory under the supervision of John Grego and and Holmes Finch. They will report to our committee and then we will report the results to the Faculty Senate and to the administration. We believe this is going to take some time but we believe by the month of January we should be able to make a report.

Finally, the President mentioned the Family Fund. I want to mention that there is also a Faculty Enrichment Program in that fund and we encourage faculty to support this valuable option. The fund now has $20,718. We, of course, will be supporting the faculty flu shots and maybe aspects of the Wellness Program. In general we appreciate the support of that fund.

Thank you.

PROFESSOR STROBEL - Thank you.

E. Committee on Admissions, Professor Ernest Wiggins, Chair:

PROFESSOR WIGGINS - We do not have a report and I guess I need to tell the chair and faculty members because of a schedule conflict I resigned as chair but we will be having a meeting Friday to elect a new chair and we will have a report at the next faculty meeting.

PROFESSOR STROBEL - Thank you.

F. Committee on Scholastic Standards and Petitions, Professor Gary Reeves, Chair:

PROFESSOR GARY REEVES - No report.

PROFESSOR STROBEL - Are there any other reports of committees?

V. Report of the Secretary

PROFESSOR SARAH WISE - No report.

VI. Unfinished Business

PROFESSOR DAN BARRON - Thank you, Madam chairman. Good afternoon. I want to take an opportunity to talk to you again a little bit about our SACS process that we are involved in. I met with this body I believe either two or three times over the process over the past year and a half but I want to be sure and bring to your attention where we are and the needs that we have for the faculty to become involved in this process a little bit more intensely. I am afraid that we have lulled ourselves into a sense of false security in some ways by saying we are such a good institution. We have such good planning processes in place. We are reasonably financially secure. We have all the pieces that many institutions worry about whenever SACS comes along and so we say, "Oh, well, this is a done deal. There is no problem." We are in fact finding that we are a very strong institution and we meet most of the 485 if not all of those "must statements" that SACS hold us responsible for. I want to remind you however that we have engaged ourselves in a process to not only look at a portion of ourselves by a small group of people to show that we are in compliance with those "485 must statements." But we also commended ourselves to looking at the institution broadly and engaging the community broadly in a conversation related to information technology applications.

Now the President has asked us to set as a goal the University of South Carolina should be considered among the top five in the southeast of publicly funded institutions in our application of information technology and instruction which also carries with it scholarship and service to the community. One of the things that we need to think about is that even if we do meet those SACS standards which are very, very important because we would lose millions of dollars immediately if we werenít in compliance with those standards. We still have to show that we have followed through with our proposal to come up with a vision statement of where the University of South Carolina wants to be in its application of information technology.

We have as we said earlier, Peter Becker, my colleague and friend, who is completing that side of the self-study that will result in USC 2001 to show that we are in compliance with those "must statements" has engaged in as few faculty as possible so that we wouldnít impose upon you. Now what we have tried to do with the information technology side is to go the opposite direction. We have engaged 18 task force chairpersons or co-chairs of task forces all of whom were faculty. We have a writing and oversight team, 11 of whom are faculty, 2 are students, 2 are administrators and 4 are technical staff. We have engaged over 300 faculty thus far in the process of the information technology assessment where we are and where we want to go. But one of the most important things that I think we need at this moment is your constant feedback.

The concept here of information technology having a profound impact on higher education is undeniable. We have to decide how we want to use information technology effectively. If we sit back and think that it is not going to affect our lives in any way then all we need to do is look at the tenure and promotion process, the daily communication process on campus, the administrative process that is on the campus that give us our paychecks but also help our students to feel that this is a very welcoming university. Also in the notion of marketing, how are we going to let ourselves be known with our web presence? How do we want to look to the rest of the world? All these are issues that we are facing with this report. It is time for us every 10 years - this is a ten year opportunity - once in ten years to really take a look at ourselves and as one of my faculty colleagues said "maybe even painfully" to look at where we are with IT, where do we want to go with IT, how it interlaces with every single function that we are about here at the university and where do we want to go. This should be a faculty driven effort just as the curriculum is but the idea is now is the time for you to become involved please with this process.

If you go with our SACS web page, off the homepage, if you scroll down to useful sites, it says SACS and you can go to the SACS self-study. We have 16 of the 18 task force reports up. And Henry, donít look too close because they are the working drafts from the task forces. They are not the final products so please keep that in mind. But it is grist for our meal so that we can have a conversation about what does the faculty feel.

How do you feel? What do you want? How do you want to position us? What does it mean to you? On the website, you can either respond directly to that task force report by inputting your remarks on the web page and it will come back to us. You can send me an e-mail. You can send it to our office. You can fax it to us, however you want to do that.

I also would like for you to know that we are as a result of the task forces and the feedback that weíve gotten so far we have a couple of separate focus groups that we are pulling together: (1) the hard core IT innovators on campus. How can we really be seen and I think this is a very important part, an image of the university, seen as a leader in the application of information technology for learning, scholarship, and service. So we are pulling together the leaders on this campus and we have some very strong people who are doing some very innovative things with IT to say what is the next level. Where do we want to be in 2006? One of the interesting things that we found from Mel Miller in the Student Affairs junior-senior survey - one of the most important things that the students say is that the number one thing they liked the most was the fact that one of the services they liked the most was the fact that they could register on-line and how many services were available to them on-line. That was number one. Number two, what was it? Libraries and the ideas that these are information technology intensive efforts that we need to look at and continue to keep building.

We are again working with Mel we are having a series of student - we have a Student Advisory Council for SACS and the Student Government was very excited in doing this. In fact they passed a resolution to say that IT issues are going to be one of their major concerns this year and how they can help us because we get feedback from them to find out. You know they have friends at Virginia, Chapel Hill, and wherever they can give us feedback as to what is going on. Where do we want to go? At the end if you take a look at the task force reports provide us some feedback, get in touch with us directly. We really would appreciate it. We will keep you informed by going to the website. Our fall report is there. The entire process of who we have worked with and how we have worked with the community is there. But again right now we know in December it is very, very important to have your voices in this conversation. So with that said I appreciate your time. Are there any questions about the SACS self-study process?

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON - Is someone going to make it available through the use of the URL?

PROFESSOR BARRON - Yes, I will. That is the best way to keep in mind is to go to the homepage of the university. Just go to our homepage and scroll down to useful sites and it says SACS. It is HTTP:/aim.deis.sc.edu/SACS. Any other questions?

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN (CSCE) - I think it is critical that faculty from all units take a look at these reports. I encourage everyone to do so. I would like to comment why. For example, the Department of Computer Science and Engineering is very concerned that the draft of the task force on information professions was developed without any input from us. We think our input is critical in this area and hopefully it will be considered in development of the final report.

PROFESSOR BARRON - Any other questions? Thank you again.

PROFESSOR STROBEL - Thank you. Is there any other unfinished business?

VII. New Business

None.

VIII. Good of the Order

PROFESSOR STROBEL - I would like to call on Ron Edge.

PROFESSOR RON EDGE (PHYS) - I wanted to give an eulogy for Mike Schutte who died recently. (See Attachment B.)

PROFESSOR STROBLE - Thank you very much and it will be filed with the secretary.

I would like to call on David Waugh.

PROFESSOR DAVID WAUGH (ENGR) - Madam Chair, ladies and gentlemen, I am David Waugh, the Dean Emeritus of the College of Engineering. (See Attachment C.)

IX. Announcements

PROFESSOR STROBEL - We now have a representative from Student Government.

HEATHER HORNICK (STUDENT GOVERNMENT) - Good afternoon, Dr. Palms and Dr. Strobel and members of the Faculty Senate. On behalf of Student Government, I would like to thank you for inviting me to join you this afternoon. My name is Heather Hornick and I am currently the Student Government Academic Affairs director. Today I would like to share with you the details of our drop date extension project. As you know USC currently has a drop-add period of 5 days. Student Government believes that this period does not allow students enough time to adjust to their courses and make appropriate decisions regarding their classes. Student Government will propose to maintain the current add period as well as the 100% refund period and extend the drop period to 10 academic days. We feel that the extended 10-day period will allow students more time to adjust and make thoughtful decisions regarding their courses. In order for Student Government to clearly express the concern and support of the students, we have initiated a petition drive to collect 10,000 signatures of students in support of this project. Tomorrow our campaign push day will take place around campus with cabinet members and senators and their respective colleges collecting signatures from students. We hope that you will support Student Government in our efforts to extend the drop day. I would like to answer any questions you may have about our project. Thank you for your time.

PROFESSOR STROBEL - Is there anything else for the Good of the Order?

 

 

IX. Announcements

PROFESSOR STROBEL - Any announcements? We will come back then to nominations. Are there any nominations for either chair-elect to Faculty Senate or secretary? Is there a motion that nominations cease?

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR - So moved.

PROFESSOR STROBEL - Is there a second? All in favor. Aye. Opposed. The ayes have it. Since there was one nomination for chair of Faculty Senate, Rob Wilcox, is there a motion to elect him by acclamation.

UNIDENTIFED SENATOR - So moved.

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR - Seconded.

PROFESSOR STROBEL - All in favor. Aye. Rob is elected chair-elect of Faculty Senate. There are two nominations for secretary. The procedure is that we will be sending a ballot out for you to vote within the next few days. If you will return the ballots to the Faculty Senate Office, they will be counted.

X. Adjournment

PROFESSOR STROBEL - There being no other business, do I hear a motion to adjourn?

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR - So moved.

PROFESSOR STROBEL - Is there a second?

UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR - Seconded.

PROFESSOR STROBEL - All in favor. Aye. Weíre adjourned. (3:58 p.m.)