Faculty Senate Meeting
March 7, 2001
I. Call to Order.
CHAIR CAROLINE STROBEL - I would like to call this meeting to order.
II. Correction and Approval of Minutes.
CHAIR STROBEL - You all have received a copy of the minutes. Are there any additions or corrections? If not, the minutes stand approved as printed.
III. Report of Officers.
PRESIDENT JOHN PALMS - Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. You know that we have been struggling with what we are hearing from the legislature about the budget. I hope you all have received the letter I sent last week. It lays out the reality of what we think is going to be the result of this year's deliberations in the legislature. There might be some minor changes as it comes off the floor of the House and into the Senate, because these cuts have not been evenly distributed, and some colleges and agencies are harder hit than others. You probably will see some intensive lobbying. You probably have already read some of the articles in the newspaper about what happened in the Ways and Means Committee which recommended distributing these cuts somewhat differently than what the Governor proposed; the Ways and Means Committee proposed three percent less in cuts for higher education.
There is still concern whether cuts to K-12 can really be sustained. Just this week or late last week we learned that there is a lawsuit in the State of Alabama where cuts were made to K-12. K-12 has sued the state, claiming that the citizens of the state are entitled constitutionally to K-12 education; therefore, the state has an obligation to fund K-12 first if they are in financial crises. However, the citizens are not entitled to higher education. We will see how that plays out, but I am sure people in South Carolina are watching this issue in Alabama carefully.
The budget cut will result in our getting roughly an 11.5-percent cut, but with some fringe benefits, other things we have to pay for, and state-mandated raises, the cut may be up to 14 percent. Then, if you look at the revenue enhancements, including tuition increases that will be allowed, we are down to around eight percent of real cuts throughout the University. We are constrained, as you know, because State employees have certain rights about being given notice; there are certain conditions under which you can RIF people. We are also under the academic administrative policy rules established by AAUP about when we can give notices and things of that nature. We are reviewing all of these "management tools" to see how we could accommodate this kind of a reduction at the base level. Some of these have only to do with extending the period under which we can perform a more comprehensive analysis as to what might be done. You really only have 90 days until July 1, but in order to give proper notice, you really have to do that on May 1 for the following year. This does not give us a lot of time for the kinds of procedures ordinarily used in higher education.
I don't think that I know of cases with this size of a cut. Even the 3-percent cut when I first came here was substantial at the time. So this is a new ball game altogether. I tried to explain this in my memo to you and to let you know we are in constant discussion. We had a meeting with all of the deans this morning, again having a thorough, open discussion of what this cut means and what the implications are. We talked about furloughs, and people are here today who can talk to you about what these furloughs might mean; how much money USC would gain from a day's furlough from everyone; and what a furlough would mean for faculty on a nine-month contract. Again, that is only a temporary solution that buys us some time to get through next year so that maybe we can do some additional analysis and assessment and hope that the budget situation will improve some. But, essentially, this is a lower, reestablished base that we will have to work from. I wanted you to know that this has been occupying a lot of time for all of us.
We had a retreat of the Board of Trustees in Greenville with all of our foundation boards there. The speaker of the House, David Wilkins, was also there to explain the impact ob the budget on one of the key forces driving a new economy and how we got to this financial crisis. He explained that this financial situation is the result of many, many years of trying to fund things that were not substantiated or backed by recurring revenue income, and it has all caught up with us. This also happened in North Carolina, and in Virginia where they are taking 15-percent cuts. It is happening in Mississippi where they are legally trying to get at what the definition of "financial exigency" is because they are experiencing approximately 18-percent cuts. The state gave tax relief to a lot of various lobbying and interest groups that reduced revenue in many occasions, and this measure has come to haunt us right now.
At the retreat, our Board of Trustees, and our major foundation boards, learned quite a bit about the situation, and we are trying to keep them informed about the budget and the constraints we are working under, so that they don't (and be fair to them) take a businesslike approach such as "just right size yourself." We are living in different worlds, so we are doing all we can to sensitize them to the realities. We talking about a about $180 million of our operating budget that has been cut essentially by $26 million, not out total University budget of nearly $500 million, which consists of funds that cannot be used to address the budget shortfalls.
As you have read in the newspapers and in my memo, we are trying to be sure that we have an outstanding freshman class. Some people have interpreted that by returning to the 1993 levels, we are increasing enrollment at the University. We are not. We are trying to get back the freshman class size without reducing the quality of that class. We have also reduced the size of our graduate enrollment, so that the overall enrollment will remain flat.
These are tuition constraints that we have established. The higher education price index ( the HEPI) is for undergraduates and not for graduate students and professional schools. As you know there is a limit as to what you can charge, because we are already under-funding our graduate students' stipends. So we just cannot pass a higher tuition increase to them. Raising tuition at some professional schools might be feasible, and they've done this in the past, particularly in Law and Medicine; but as we are trying to attract a broad diversity of students, raising tuition is not feasible unless we also have additional scholarship money.
People have asked about the lottery. The Governor did not propose a lottery with the intention of having that income substitute a potential shortfall in the State budget. The lottery money was originally promised for scholarships and IT, to bring K-12 and the universities up to standard. The governor is being very steadfast that lottery funds should be used as a private, supplemental funds to enhance and improve quality. We will see what happens in the House of Representatives, which is trying to redefine what that lottery money can be used for. As you read yesterday and this morning in the newspaper, the Governor is pressuring the House of Representatives to get on with passing that lottery bill. That will help as far as student tuition is concerned, but it will not help our operating budget. There are some people who would like to propose that lottery money be used for higher education, but we will see. We cannot count on any of that. I am sure that Jerry will have some additions to this subject. Jane Jameson is here from Human Resources and can answer any questions that you have about what a leave would mean and what furloughs would mean. It takes special legislation to allow higher education to use that particular management tool, and that process is on going right now. It has not passed the House and the Senate.
The capital campaign is going well. There is good news for us, though it can be misinterpreted outside the University. We received a $1 million gift from Mount Vernon last week, and a $1 million gift from BMW the week before that. Again, this is not money we are going to substitute for our general operating funds. It is money that people give for a particular reasonófor endowed chairs, for scholarshipsóand we are not going to touch that. If anybody tells you, "Well, use some of that $350 million you just raised," it is not available. Similarly people say about athletic money, "Well, you have successful athletics now." Again, athletics doesn't take appropriations from us, though we do take some revenues from them. Athletics has paid the expenses for all their scholarships and for indirect costs, and we have made a lot of progress there in the last several years. Remember that donors don't give to the Gamecock Club to make up for a shortfall from the funds that the state provides, and we want to maintain that separation. And, if anything, we want to try to get some additional help from them. I think in a way they'll be able to help some, but certainly not anywhere near the level that will have an impact on what we are facing right now. I'll be glad to answer any questions that you might have.
PROFESSOR RANDY MACK (ART) - You used a term a little while ago "re-established base." Are we to take it that these cuts when they come are going to be permanent, institutionalized and we have to then build upon that?
PRESIDENT PALMS - Randy, the blunt answer to that is yes. Now, of course, it does not reestablish the salary base. That is going up. However, some of our programmatic base funding has been coming our way through a supplement every year, but those funds are not (and never have been) recurring. Remember that about $60 million in this budget was not based on recurring revenues but on next year's revenues. The legislature's use of supplemental funds to fund recurring programmatic expenses has been going on for years and in several of the agencies. That money is now not there, and the legislature decided that this is such a precarious way to fund ongoing programs that this year they are putting $56 million in as recurring appropriations. At least we will not have to worry about that issue anymore. But, these measures do reestablish---or redefine---the base.
PROFESSOR MACK - As this begins to reverberate through the various units and on down, could you tell us what Osborne building is doing?
PRESIDENT PALMS - We are doing exactly the same thing. We are going through the exercise. I am going through an exercise of a 12-percent cut. I'm going through an exercise of an eight-percent cut. And, I'm going through a personal exercise of what a five-day or ten-day furlough would mean to me. We are all in this together, and no one will be exempt. Thank you.
PROVOST JEROME D. ODOM - Thank you very much Madame Chair. Let me start off with news of three searches that are ongoing. First of all the Journalism Dean Search, the candidate to whom we have made an offer has not turned us down. But we are not holding out a lot of hope at this point.
We have a search for an Associate Provost and Dean of the Graduate School that was an internal search chaired by Dean Harris Pastides. I met with the Search Committee Monday afternoon and they recommended two names to me. There were some excellent candidates and I have not been able to contact all of the people who did apply who were not named as the final two. So I would like not to announce their names. They will be interviewing with a number of various groups in the next couple of weeks. As soon as I can let everybody know where they stand that applied, that was an internal search only, then I will get those two names out to you.
Finally, we are in the midst of a search for a Vice President for Business and Finance and Chief Financial Officer. We had a large number of applications for that position. The faculty and the Faculty Senate were represented on that search committee by the Chair of the Faculty Budget Committee, Professor Martin McWilliams. We interviewed four candidates last week in Atlanta. What Iím particularly pleased to be able to tell you is that each one of those candidates had higher education experience and is currently affiliated with an institution of higher education, which I felt was important and I know the President felt was important. Sometime within the next several weeks we will be bringing at least three of those people to campus. Again we will have interviews set up with a number of groups and I would urge you to be part of that interview process.
Iíll talk just a minute to try to fill in some of the things that the President said about the budget. The main thing is we still donít know where we are. We feel like that what came out of House Ways and Means is what will come out of the House. We are not so certain about the Senate. The Senate is a different animal this year. We donít know what will happen. Right now, as John said, we are at 11-1/2%. I think a best case scenario might be around 8% after we factor in what we can do through revenue. We had an excellent meeting yesterday with the Faculty Budget Committee. We had an excellent meeting this morning with the deans talking about various ways we can do this. What I would like to tell you that I think will be the case is that because we are so late in this fiscal year that more than likely we are going to be looking at use of management tools plus some across the board cut. That is for next year because we have to have this cut in place by July 1 of this year. At the same time I would like to think that leadership at the administrative level and at the faculty level will be willing to look much more closely, as soon as we can, at a strategy for cuts throughout this University. That is not an across the board cut. That is some other way of looking at our budget. That process has not been determined. I have discussed it with the Faculty Budget Committee. I have discussed it with the deans. The President and I have had a number of discussions. The Administrative Council has discussed this. I think we need to look at our budget in a strategic way and we need to do it fairly quickly but clearly cannot do it quickly enough to have what we want to do in place by July 1, 2001. So we will continue to seek your input through the Faculty Budget Committee and any of your input personally as far as Iím concerned.
In the midst of all of this we have an upcoming visit, very soon, by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) for our SACS reaffirmation of accreditation. We had a preliminary visit from the President of the University of Virginia, who is the chair of our committee last week. It was a very good visit. A very encouraging visit. He met with the President, he met with me, he met with the Steering Committee, he met with Dan Barron and Peter Becker. He talked a lot about facilities. He talked a lot about what he hopes to do. We now know who the visiting team is, it is a fairly large team. We also will have five consultants coming in with respect in to the IT portion. I think one of the things that surprised us a little bit last week was that, John Casteen the Chair, said, "I would like to get the institutional effectiveness part of this out of the way pretty quickly. We can go through these "must" statements, get them out of the way and we will try to move on as a team to look at the IT part of this visit and your proposal." He had a draft copy of both of these. We feel like he felt that we were in pretty good shape on our must statements and that he wanted to move forward with the proposal part which is the information technology part. So that is where we are with that. The Faculty Senate will be meeting while the SACS team is here. And, as you probably know, we have no idea who these team members will want to talk to, where they will want to go on campus, so you may get a call. Iím almost certain that Caroline will, other people may, deans may, chairs may, but we wonít know until Monday morning where these folks would like to go and who they would like to talk to. And, then they will scatter all over our campus. While they are here they will be sending small teams out to visit Regional Campuses. So that is certainly is occupying a lot of time right now particularly for Dan Barron and Peter Becker.
My final statement is that I just want to make sure that the Faculty Senate and, I hope through you, the faculty can understand. There was a quote in a newspaper recently that sounded like I want to run the University like a business and I want you to know that is not true. That was taken out of the context of a very long conversation I had with the reporter and she asked me the question: Do you think in these budget cuts there will be colleges cut, there will be departments cut, there will be programs cut? And, my answer to her was that we have to consider everything. One of the things any time you look at cutting something there are two parts to that. There is an expenditure part and there is a revenue part. So if you take any program and you say it has a budget of $500,000 so if we cut that then we will cut $500,000 out of the budget. If that program is bringing in $750,000 you are making your situation worse. So what I was trying to explain to her was that you have to look just like a business does at expenditures and revenue for any particular unit. And, it came out in the newspaper that I, I guess, was the businessman. Iíll be happy to answer questions as well. Thank you very much.
IV. Report of Committees.
A. Senate Steering Committee, Professor Sarah Wise, Secretary:
PROFESSOR WISE - The Faculty Senate Steering Committee report of nominees for elected committees is presented on pages 22 and 23 of your material. At this time we can have additional nominations and at the end of the meeting. Do you want to offer that now?
CHAIR STROBEL - Are there any additional nominations at this time? If not, there will be another time towards the end of the meeting.
PROFESSOR WISE - I would also like to tell you the date for the summer Faculty Senate meeting which is June 20 at 3:30 p.m. This is a different time. This is early than we normally have the meeting so you might want to put that on your calendar to plan for that meeting.
CHAIR STROBEL - Thank you. We will also be having to move the location and will announce that later. They will be having law reviews here in this space at that time and so we will move to another building on campus for that meeting.
B. Committee on Curricula and Courses, Professor David Berube, Chair:
PROFESSOR BERUBE - The report starts on page 24, I. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY runs from page 24 to 26. On the bottom of page 26 we need to change a few things. The last three changes in prerequisites where it says FROM: EMCH 560, TO: EMCH 560 that should read FROM: ECIV 560, TO: ECIV 560. Next one it should read ECIV 562 and the last one ECIV 563. So the prefixes were wrong.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion?
UNIDENTIFIED SENATOR - This should be under Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. They are listed as courses of Mechanical Engineering.
PROFESSOR BERUBE - That is fine they will get there I guarantee it.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR BERUBE - II. COLLEGE OF HOSPITALITY, RETAIL AND SPORT MANAGEMENT on pages 26 and 27. On page 27 the "TO:" we need to do the following, line three strike the word "supervised" and after the word "coordinator" strike the last sentence. It is an undergraduate course, graduate students probably wonít take it. So moved.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR BERUBE - III. COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS starts on page 27 and ends on 28. We will go all the way down but not do E. We will get to that in a second. On A. we need to do some editing on GERM 320 in the last sentence of the description strike "rehearsal and" and substitute the letter "a." So it reads: Semester ends with a public performance "of" (put "of" in there) skits in German. On page 28 if you look at C. and D. it is just the same course being crosslisted so carry over the prerequisite under WOST 535 up to the prerequisites associated with the same course PHIL 535. So the PHIL 535 ECOFEMINISM after the number 3 will carry: (Prereq: 3 hours in Philosophy beyond the 100 level or instructorís consent). Also in the WOST 535 course you want to spell the word "oppression" with 2-sís in the last line. So moved.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR BERUBE - On the South Carolina course we will do this separately. All I want you to do is put the word "required" at the end. So it is: Ö.approval of Honors Dean required. So moved.
CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion?
PROFESSOR HENRY PRICE (JOUR) - I hate to bring that up but the Provost was just talking about being misquoted. But 15 hours of internship seems a lot. I was just curious if someone could possibly enlighten me as to what that internship entails?
DEAN PETER SEDERBERG (SOUTH CAROLINA HONORS COLLEGE) - We were only going to go to 9 because 9 is required by the Washington internship program. But while this idea of having Honors Internship course was in development we met with NASA. NASA is developing an opportunity for semester-long 15 credit internship program nationally, and this would enable us to participate. We donít know how many others are around. I didnít see this happening but when they said, "We want to recruit students for this; do you have a framework to offer students 15 hours of credit?" I said, well, yes we will, if this passes. So that is the explanation for the 15.
CHAIR STROBEL - Any other discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR BERUBE - IV. COLLEGE OF NURSING pages 28 through 30. So moved.
CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion?
PROFESSOR PRICE - In the description of NURS 534 would someone enlighten me as to what a "rural, interdisciplinary environment" is? I am sure it means something very important here but I am not sure what that is.
ASSISTANT DEAN ALICE ADKINS (NURS) - This is a course that students can take an option of credits 1-6 in the community health experience. It is a course that is sponsored by South Carolina Area Health Consortium with practicums occurring throughout the state, and different disciplines are a part of it. It has been taught through MUSC in the past and now USC will also offer this course. Our students will have a community experience where they will be with dental students, medical students, social workers, etc.
CHAIR STROBEL - Any other questions? All in favor? Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR BERUBE - V. COLLEGE OF PHARMACY it is on pages 31 to 33. On page 31 where we have the change in titles, PHRM 677 the third word is "POISON." You probably want to remove the second "I." On PHRM 680 the TO: is PSYCHOTHERAPY it needs an "H" after the "C". You want to turn the page now. On PHRM 685 the third word need to put the "M" in front of the "A" and reverse that in the word PHARMACY. PHRM 693 you want to strike one of the "PHARMACY" words. It gets a little redundant there. And, on page 33 PHRM strike PHRM 693, 694, and 695 as they are duplicates from page 32. So moved.
CHAIR STROBEL - Any questions? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR BERUBE - VI. SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH we are going to do the new course first so they can get that. The new course is EXSC 507 EXERCISE, SPORT, AND NUTRITION.
CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR BERUBE - Now pages 34 through 39 are the curriculum changes from the School of Public Health and Department of Exercise Science. So moved.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion? All in favor? Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR BERUBE - VII. COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND MATHEMATICS you obviously know there is a problem go to the TO: part where it says PHYS 311 it should read: Introduction and application of numerical methods to the solution of physical and engineering problems. Delete the next sentence. Delete the next sentence after that so you are deleting two sentences in a row. Leave the last one: Techniques include interactive solution techniques, methods of solving systems of equations, and numerical integration and differentiation. So moved.
CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed. The ayes have it.
PROFESSOR BERUBE - VIII. MAY MESTER COURSES the College of Journalism the description for 461M is not correct. I donít know where it came from but that is not it. The description should be: Basic meteorological concepts as a foundation for production of student television weather forecasting. So moved. Oh and another thing the credit hours should be "3" not "2."
CHAIR STROBEL - Three credit hours. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you David.
C. Faculty Advisory Committee, Professor Robert Wilcox, Chair:
PROFESSOR WILCOX - I am going to bring you up to date. I promised last month I would talk a little bit about the recommendations we will be making at the May General Faculty meeting regarding the reappointment decisions during probationary periods for tenured faculty. I will ask that we defer debate until the General Faculty Meeting; I think that is a more appropriate place. But I am going to make you aware of this so that you have the opportunity to get a message to me before hand if you see a problem or a concern that we can address, perhaps, before the proposal is finalized. This proposal is the recommendation of the Faculty Advisory Committee. It has been forwarded on to UCTP and Faculty Grievance and to the Provost Office for their comments. The Provostís Office has already been involved so I think we have his comments. As soon as we get those comments back we will be putting it on the agenda for May. The issue that came up was that the Faculty Manual is not entirely clear as written as to who makes the decision on reappointment or non-reappointment. It simply contains language to the effect that the deans shall forward recommendations to the provost. But it doesnít really say that the dean makes the decision or the provost makes the decision or whatever. We needed to resolve that. We have done two things, one of which I wonít belabor the details today. We have taken a large amount of material in the Faculty Manual dealing with tenure decisions and incorporated it into the tenure process, much of which we revised last year. Most of that is simply a movement of material from one place to another so that it is easily found. The second more substantive change was with regard to this reappointment of untenured faculty. We have done really two things. The first is that we have put in a standard by which faculty is to make a decision or recommendation as to the reappointment. And, it would now read: "That the tenured faculty of equal or higher rank of the unit annually shall make a recommendation by majority vote as to whether a faculty member within the probationary period is making sufficient progress toward tenure so as to be reappointed." That is essentially the language we use at the three-year review. We figured that should be the standard that would be used each year as you go along. Once the faculty has made its recommendation, that is forwarded in a departmentalized school to the chair and in a non-departmentalized college it would go on directly to the dean. The chair, if there is one, would add the recommendation of the chair and forward it on to the dean. The way the process would work is: If the chair and the faculty are in agreement (yea or nay - either way) and the dean disagrees with them or in a non-departmentalized college if a dean simply disagrees with the faculty (because there is no chair), then the matter would be forwarded to the provost. If the chair and the faculty divide, one said yea and the other said nay, then the dean would basically be the tie-breaker. And the dean would decide and simply forward the file on for information to the provost. So what it is designed to be put in the provost hands are only those cases where the dean is in disagreement with everybody before the dean. That is the resolution we have recommended. One thing it does without a doubt is it makes clear who makes the decision. We considered other options. Once we had that a decision had to be unanimous through the college or else the provost made the decision. Discussing it further with the provost, our feeling is that the language proposed instead is quite sufficient. What we are trying to avoid is what I would call the "rogue dean" (and I guess a faculty member can say that) -- the one who for whatever reason chooses to disregard everybody in advance. You may have grand conspiracies; we canít stop grand conspiracies very effectively. But it would the situation where the dean was in total disagreement with everybody else. In that case we would bump it to the provost for a decision. That will be the recommendation coming to the faculty in May unless we have to modify it due to outcries in between. And, it goes to Faculty Grievance largely because this does affect the grievance process and also we clarified some grievance language that was in fact ambiguous -- so we have sent it to them as well for their comments. I would welcome your comments. You may direct them to me and I will forward them onto the committee. But we probably need them in the next couple weeks. Certainly by the end of March so we can get it finalized on the agenda for the May meeting.
D. Faculty Budget Committee, Professor Martin McWilliams, Chair:
PROFESSOR MCWILLIAMS - You all know the famous Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times." Well I am the Chair of Faculty Budget this year. I do not really have a report for you in the usual sense because after Dr. Palmsí and Odomís reports you are right up to date on the budget. But the reason I asked to be able to speak is to assure you that the faculty point of view is strongly taken into account in these decisions that are being made on the budget. Jerry Odom never misses a Faculty Budget meeting. He brings his high level staff with him for an exchange of ideas. So the lines are open. You can access those lines through Jerryís private home number which I am now going to give you. Only kidding but you can in fact use my e-mail address which I will now give you: firstname.lastname@example.org. Anyone need that repeated? If I donít know what you are thinking I cannot represent you on the Faculty Budget Committee with the high levels of decision making on these budget issues. So I would be delighted to hear from you. And, let me also assure you that the faculty point of view is being taken into account in the CFO search. Both Dr. Palms and Dr. Odom have been very accepting of the faculty point of view. And, again if you have points you would like to make, let me know and I would be glad to transmit them. Thanks. That is all I have to say.
E. Faculty Welfare Committee, Professor Jerald Wallulis, Chair:
PROFESSOR WALLULIS - I have two items to focus on. Well focus on is the wrong phrase with respect to the first item. I want to explain that so far this year Faculty Welfare has not been reporting on parking because it has not fallen under our purview to have to talk about parking. There is a parking committee that is meeting and discussing possible changes in the parking system and they will be reporting to you in the Faculty Senate meeting after the General Faculty meeting this semester. There will be no immediate prospect for action in the beginning of next academic year so from their point of view there is no need to report until that time. But I thought I should report to you because we know how important parking is as a welfare issue.
The second item that I wish to bring to your attention is on page 41 and it is a statement of Faculty Objectives for 2005. So it is in part an expression of certain planning purposes. Its purpose is to join with a statement of USC Goals for 2005 formulated by the Board of Trustees. And, it is to provide more faculty input and faculty perspective into a formulation of goals to join those goals in a description of future planning for the University. The six objectives we propose were primarily formulated from results from the faculty survey, which more than 400 of you filled out in September and October. What we have tried to do is look at some of those most important results and formulate a shorter list of goals. The list of goals from the Board of Trustees I think runs to about 20 goals. This is a list of six goals which we think are firmly supported by results from the faculty survey. We hope these goals expressed your interest and the interest of all our colleagues and can provide a basis which we will communicate also to the Board of Trustees as planning goals for the future of the University. In each case there is a one-sentence statement of the goal, what follows afterwards in some an elucidation, a justification, and in rare cases an extension.
In the first case the first goal says: Maintain, repair, and improve campus buildings to make them more attractive and healthful. A major result of many questions of the faculty survey was concern about physical environment. This is to express this concern as a major objective both with regards to, if you will, cleanliness and also with regards to physical appeal. You will also note though in the final sentence underneath there is a concern for "accessibility for the disabled and for adequate parking for all." So it extends further to all aspects of the physical environment for which major concerns were expressed in the survey.
The second goal states: Improve graduate programs by increasing graduate stipends significantly. This again was very strongly supported in the survey. Many faculty believe that both the quality of the program and the quality of graduate students suffers from the level of stipends that are presently being offered. And, we wish to include that as a second objective.
The third objective is to: Maintain the undergraduate teaching mission of the University and extend its student base. This again is a very important aspect of our lives and under the present financial climate we will be expressing that importance.
The fourth is to: Raise faculty salaries and benefits to be competitive with peer institutions. That is again a strongly supported goal from the survey and we are including that as obviously a very important welfare consideration for ourselves.
The fifth is to: Maintain the library offerings and improve other research resources for faculty and students. In the survey strong support was given to the library so that is why the emphasis is on maintaining what is now being done there. Since other research resources such as information technology, travel funding, and other incentives were expressed in the survey, I take it as also a strong faculty interest.
The final goal is to: Reduce the tension between work and life demands for USC faculty and staff. There was strong support for supporting quality childcare and also for flexible course scheduling. We think as so many newer faculty are faced with dual career situations that again this is a very important goal for the future of the University and for our planning going up through 2005.
So what we are doing is reporting this to you as a committee based on our own study of the survey. And, we are asking you to adopt these today as faculty objectives for 2005 to join the Board of Trustees formulation of goals for the same time frame.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion?
PROFESSOR WILCOX - Are these intended to be in order or are they just six sort of equally ranked goals? Is there a statement of priority?
PROFESSOR WALLULIS - If there an order, it reflects in some sense the concerns of the survey.
PROFESSOR WILCOX - I asked the question just to get the record clear so that there is not a perception that the least important thing is daycare for example. Because I would suspect for a lot of people that is a higher rated than other things.
PROFESSOR WALLULIS - In terms of overall ranking it was the fourth most important welfare issue.
PROFESSOR WILCOX - So these six are equally weighted?
PROFESSOR WALLULIS - Yes. Equally but more to give a perspective from several different angles that affect our research, our teaching, the graduate students that we work with, different elements within a modest number of goals - which was our charge.
CHAIR STROBEL - Any other questions or discussion about these goals? Are we ready to vote? Do you want to make a motion?
PROFESSOR WALLULIS - Yes. Can this report made by the committee be moved by the committee?
CHAIR STROBEL - Yes. It can be moved by the committee.
PROFESSOR WALLULIS - So I move that this report be adopted by the Faculty Senate.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there a second? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it. We will be presenting this to a subcommittee of the Board of Trustees later on this month along with the results of the survey. I am very anxious for the Board of Trustees to see the concerns of the faculty. And, to have all of you who responded to the survey, your concerns communicated to them. We will also present to them at that time these six goals of the faculty for the year 2005. I think in this way it is a way we can try and represent you before the Board of Trustees in a way that is meaningful. I hope it will be meaningful for them.
PROFESSOR WALLULIS - I want to thank again everyone that did take part in the survey project that helped to make this possible.
F. Committee on Admissions, Professor Manton Matthews, Chair:
PROFESSOR MATTHEWS - On page 43 of your handout the College of Pharmacy proposes changing the GPA transfer requirements into the pre-pharmacy program to 2.75.
CHAIR STROBEL - Are you able to find that? The pages are a little bit out of order.
PROFESSOR MATTHEWS - The justification is that a student admitted into the pre-pharmacy program with just a 2.25 would have great difficulty in progressing on into the pharmacy program. Any questions?
CHAIR STROBEL - Do you want to move it?
PROFESSOR MATTHEWS - Yes, I would like to move this.
CHAIR STROBEL - We have a motion to approve this change in admission requirements for the pre-pharmacy program. Is there any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.
G. Committee on Scholastic Standards and Petitions, Professor Gary Reeves, Chair:
PROFESSOR REEVES - On the next page, page 45 from the College of Pharmacy some proposed changes in scholastic standards we would like to move that they be approved.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.
V. Report of Secretary.
SECRETARY WISE - There is no report other than the nominations that are before the senate.
VI. Unfinished Business.
CHAIR STROBEL - Are they any other nominations for Faculty Senate committees next year? There being none nominations cease and those listed are elected to the committees.
VII. New Business.
VIII. Good of the Order.
PROFESSOR MACK - I do not want to prolong things but is there a possibility of having an explanation of what we mean by "furloughs?" Whether they are mandatory furloughs, whether they are optional furloughs, or just what is being contemplated here?
CHAIR STROBEL - Nothing has been decided and things are being tossed around. If we have furloughs they will be across the board for everyone. They will be equitable distributed. They will be mandatory. It would be a matter of days spread throughout the year. It would not effect your benefits and it will not effect anybody who is getting ready to retire as far as reducing what their retirement base would be. In otherwords, it is not going to adversely effect anybodyís retirement base, if it happens. If it happens.
PROFESSOR MACK - We would be expected to continue our teaching duties?
CHAIR STROBEL - They would be on days when we would normally not be here.
JANE JAMESON (VICE PRESIDENT - HUMAN RESOURCES) - May I add a little to that? There are two provisos making their way through the legislative process right now. One is for voluntary furloughs and the other is for mandatory furloughs. If those provisos pass, both would be available to us. The information in The State newspaper last week was misleading on that point as were the news programs that night. So there are two things making their way through. The newspaper article made it sound as if voluntary furloughs would be available to everyone but higher education. But they would available for us too.
PROFESSOR BERUBE - I am the debate coach in addition to all this curriculum stuff, so I have some good news. The debaters went to their conference championship in the Southeast and won the overall conference championship. Going to two of the next three national championships ranked nine or better and that is a national ranking. So that is the good news.
PRESIDENT PALMS - We need your help again for recruiting this outstanding class coming in. I had the privilege of calling 35 finalists for the Carolina Scholarship Program. These are extraordinary students, and they could go anywhere. The uncertainty in the national economic situation is really helping us, because these students are also interested in Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, and they are not going to get full rides at those places. Their parents are starting to say, "Listenógo to the Honors College at USC; we will save some money, and you can go to graduate school at one of those other places." So check with your department, and I will pass these names along to deans and see if we can call these people and urge them to come. I would stress the same thing with the McNair Scholars; there are going to be 20 McNairs this year and 20 Carolina Scholars. Those are 40 of the most outstanding students that are available in this nation, and they are going to bring their friends. So we still have a chance to really improve the quality of the freshman class. I appreciate all those of you who have served when these finalists came here. When I call these young people and listen to their parents, I learn that they have visited other institutions, and no one has treated them as well as we have. I thank you for that kind hospitality shown to them and appreciate your help in the recruiting.
CHAIR STROBEL - Is there anything else for the good of the order? Any other good news like Davidís? In what has otherwise been a rather gloomy faculty meeting. If not the meeting is adjourned. Oh, Iím sorry, Iím sorry! Just a moment Dan has something to say.
PROFESSOR DAN BARRON (LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE - SACS SELF-STUDY) - First Peter Becker and I both would like to thank you for all the things that you have contributed to the SACS Self-Study process. I want to remind you that the entire SACS Self-Study is on the website. Go to our homepage, scroll down to SACS Self-Study and click there. There is now an executive summary for the IT portion and in keeping with the substantial goals from the Board of Trustees and goes well with that list. I would like to remind you that the recommendations that are coming out of SACS Self-Study are the recommendations that came out of the faculty discussions and the conversations with staff and the conversations with administration. So this is a community document. There are still opportunities for us to take a look at what the document says and to craft it the way we would like for that document to end up finally. We are waiting until the consultants come. We have five very good people who authorities in the area who will give us some good feedback but we still want to hear from the rest of the University community. I hope you will go back to your colleges and departments with this information. There are feedback loops on everyone of the pages so if you read something and you want to give immediate feedback, just click on that. Encourage your faculty colleagues to do the same. Again, thank you and we look forward to continuing to work with you.
There is one more thing, the list of recommendations are a tangible but flexible set of issues and ideas that the Writing and Oversight Team felt came as a direct result of the self-study and the task force reports. This is not blueprint for what we will do but it is suggestions for how we might be able in 2006 to have one of the finest IT structures in the country. Thank you very much.
This page created 27 March 2001 by the Office of the Faculty Senate and Computer Services.
Copyright 1999-2001, The Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina