Faculty Senate Meeting

May 3, 2001

I. Call to Order.

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

II. Correction and Approval of Minutes.

CHAIR STROBEL - You have received a copy of the minutes. Are they any additions or corrections? If not, the minutes stand approved as printed.

III. Reports of Officers.


Good afternoon. A quick update on the budget situation. As you know, the initial Senate Finance Committee plan cut USC Columbia's budget by 13.6 percent, or about $24.7 million, and for all the campuses, 13.4 percent or $29 million. The Senate Finance Committee changed that late last Thursday night. They came up with another $33.5 million to put into higher education, which reduced the average cut to higher education from 12 percent to eight percent. I never thought I'd be happy with an 8.7-percent cut, but this is better than what we had. This plan now goes to the full Senate. Please contact your senators and tell them to at least hold this budget the way it is. I don't believe it is going to get better, although there is a lot of pressure all over the state. Last week, I was in both the Upstate and Lowcountry, and no oneónot the business community, colleges, parents, or studentsóis happy with the budget situation. Let's keep the pressure on.

We have a new Dean of the Graduate School: Gordon Smith, please stand up. We want to recognize you again for wanting to assume this responsibility. And, you will have a lot to do, no question about that.

We also have a new Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer. We wanted someone who really knew the state budget, so we got the head of the Budget and Control Board, Rick Kelly. He will be joining us in June. Now we are initiating the research for a really good budget officer to work under Rick's authority.

Good news this time of the year as we hear about our students winning scholarships. We had three Goldwater scholars. Erin Flickinger, Brandon Fornwalt, and Ricky Shah We've had 16 Goldwaters, I think. This year, Furman also had three, but we have been the only college in the state and most of the nation that had three (except for some members of the Ivy League). It is just outstanding. I want to thank the faculty that helped these students prepare themselves for this competition. We also have a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship that went to David Butts. Again, we are on the radar screen with the NSF. We have a Udall Scholarship with Shawn Loew. It has just been another good year for us. Thank you for participating in this effort.

As you read in the paper this morning, I was so happy to give Ron Devore a call yesterday and tell him how proud we are that he was named to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. This is really outstanding. It is difficult for a Southerner to get into The Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Usually, the members are from the northern East Coast, the West Coast, and the Midwest. Ron has been nominated a number of times to this prestigious international society, which consists of the world's leading scientists, scholars, artists, business people, and everybody else. Is Ron here today? He is not. Let's give a round of applause because this is really very good news for all of us.

Also, Ezra Greenspan recently received the Association of American Publishers' 2001 Award for biography for his book, George Palmer Putnam Representative of an American Publisher. And, Joel Myerson received a distinguished achievement award from the Emerson Society. Just outstanding recognitions.

Today the bicentennial event is taking place on the horseshoe. It is called "Rooted in Great Teaching." Fifty trees on the horseshoe are going to be dedicated to outstanding teachers of the past, including teachers as far back as 1806 and representing all areas of study. Plaques will be placed on each tree honoring a faculty member. Please come. It is at 4:30 p.m. Hopefully the General Faculty meeting will be over by then.

So, that is the good news. I hope you have had a chance to witness some of the wonderful bicentennial events this semester. We've had outstanding performances in arts, conferences, and symposia. It has been a really good semester of celebration. I'll be glad to take questions.

PRESIDENT PALMS - I just knew you were going to do that. State your name please.

PROFESSOR CHARLES MACK (ART) - I just came down from the demonstration on the State House stepsÖ..

PRESIDENT PALMS - And, what year student are you, sir?

PROFESSOR MACK - I am one of the younger members. It was a very, very encouraging demonstration, I think. Some of my colleagues have expressed concern about we are perceived on the outside. Despite the budget cuts and despite our really bad situation we seem to be going ahead with the major construction projects - our Wellness Center and again the new athletic arena. And, there is some concern about how that is going to be perceived by the general public. Now we know that it is different funding but how that is going to be interpreted by the general public who is going to look at those buildings and say, "The University is flush - what are they complaining about?" And, I wonder if you had some reaction to that.

PRESIDENT PALMS - I think they are exactly right. There is going to be some misunderstanding. We have been all over the state and on television and we have issued press releases to try and explain the difference in funding. The newspaper has not picked it up yet, but they don't pick up a lot of things. For those construction projects, contracts (have been signed for a while) and the buildings are being funded by student fees or income from the football program. We will just continue to restate the difference between an operating budget coming from the state (that has not increased much over the last decade), and capital expenditures that are funded through bonds and other kinds of fees. You are right, it is a difficult and confusing situation, but that is the way it is.

I do want to clarify what you might be reading. I don't know how many times now the newspaper has included an editorial criticizing our increase in the freshman class. There has been a thorough discussion of this in the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees. We are not increasing the overall enrollment of the University. We are returning to a freshmen class we used to have, which means we are going to have to do some shifting. We have had a decline in graduate enrollment, and we are improving the quality of graduate students.

The enrollment issues are connected to state funding. Performance-based funding, regardless of what it is called, is not funding based on performance. It is still to a large degree based on headcount. And, the colleges in the state that increased their enrollment a couple of years ago got a special allocation right off the top to address this over-enrollment. That is money that should have been given to those schools who have out-performed everybody else. That didn't happen. If you were to look right now to see which colleges are over-enrolled in the state and say we apply parity (we have to have so much money per student equalized), USC would lose $6 million to other institutions in our category. Now, as The State newspaper said a couple of days ago, this formula funding is not working. But, it is there.

So, it is important for us keep our enrollment strong without decreasing the quality. We have a very strong applicant poolówith virtually a 50 percent increase in the number of applications. SATs are up. We are going to raise the freshman class to where it used to be, even if we have to change some of the dormitories to handle it and shift some of the teaching. Enrolling about 3,000 freshmen will put us in much better stead as far as overall funding. Until the state changes the formula and really applies it fairly, it would be kind of suicidal for us to ignore headcount funding and to keep improving quality while decreasing enrollment. We would definitely lose money and be a worse situation than now.

Some of you have been here a long time and you have been through this before. It was one of the fears about raising the SATs: "What happens if the enrollment drops?" Well, we are going to be lucky; I don't think the undergraduate enrollment is going to drop. We managed a decline in undergraduate enrollment for a little while, but now that graduate enrollment is declining somewhat (which is another very expensive operation), we can increase the freshman class. That is our intention.

Any other questions or comments? Yes, sir.

PROFESSOR WALTER CUTTINO (MUSC) - Is the budget going to influence in any way shape or form the UCTP decisions?

PRESIDENT PALMS - No, it has not. I can tell you that there is going to have to be a comprehensive study of the University in light of this new base funding that we will have at the end of this fiscal year. This is not a one-year cut that hopefully is going to come back, so we have to assume that this will be the new base. Given that it may be a dramatic base cut (as much as $10 million coming out of this campus), it is time to look again at the total fund and the allocation of resources. The Provost will head the overall comprehensive strategic review. And, it will probably come into play because you have just so much money to spend in each department and so many obligations to meet. If there is a slight shift from graduate to undergraduate then you need to meet those teaching responsibilities well and that may dictate the kind of people you want to hire and how you evaluate them. We are trying not to have that affected in this round of promotion and tenure.

To talk about your question in that light, I think departments are going to have to look at our needs. As far as the kind of teaching, at what levels, what courses, and do we have enough people in this? Are they flexible? Can they stop teaching graduate courses and teach freshmen something else? That would be a part of the departments' plan. So, if you hire somebody to do these particular things, and three years down the road they are not doing those well but they are teaching and they are involved in research and scholarship, then it may be that the departmental plan is not meeting the department's needs. We just have to have those discussions in the departments.

By the way, Jerry and I met with the promotion and tenure committee this morning. We had four cases that we had some disagreement on; these are not major problems. This is the best set of promotion files that I have seen since I've been here, with an extremely high quality of files and excellent justifications for promotion or tenure. We can still make improvements when selecting outside reviewers, although there has been a tremendous improvement.

You should be grateful to that committee. They do a tremendous amount of work. They are very, very objective and fair. It has been a very good year for us. I want to thank those on the committee and who participated in this process. It is some of the most important work that you can do for the faculty and for this University.

Anything else? Thank you, Madam Chair.


Thank you very much Madam Chair. This always happens when the President and I donít have a chance to compare notes on what he is going to say and what Iím going to say. I was busy marking off all the things that I was going to say as he went down them on his list.

Let me start with the budget for just a minute and talk just a little bit more about that. In the budget presentations by the deans this year, I asked them in their presentation to explain to me how they would cut their budget 8%. We feel like that is a pretty good number. As the President mentioned the House proposed a budget that cut us 11.5% and the Senate proposed a budget originally that cut us 13.6 %. Then they added money from the Barnwell Trust Fund and that, of course, is one time money so that would only be for this year. With the revenues that we will possibly have, we are hoping that an 8% cut is a reasonable place for the deans to start. I wanted to just very briefly mention to you that we have to initiate this cut first. We donít know today what that cut will be and given the uncertain nature of everything about this budget, we have had to essentially resort to something that is not very strategic and that is an across the board cut for next year. But that cannot be the way that we approach a budget cut overall. I talked to the President and we basically will try to have something called a Strategic Directions Committee. It would be a fairly small committee but it will be made up primarily of senior faculty. I will try to put together that committee fairly soon in consultation with Caroline Strobel and Martin McWilliams (Chair of Faculty Budget Committee). I will try to frame over the summer some questions. I will use the Institutional Planning Assessment Office, as well as my office, as well as the Business and Finance Office to try to put together some data that we need to consider. There are a lot of overall issues that, I think, we can consider as a university. Then there are issues that are more college based that we also need to examine. So we are going to have to do a lot of work and we are going to have to do it fairly quickly. If we are then going to be ready on July 1, 2002, to have strategically developed a budget for this University that addresses what is our core mission, what is central to the mission of this University and what is not. And, where are we going to put our money and where are we not going to put our money. An 8% budget cut is really going to be a very painful thing for us to absorb and for us to deal with. There was some comment in the paper about the fact that we need to decide what we are going to be when we grow up. I agree with that, but I think we know what we want to be, I think that we have been put on a very strong and stable course what we want to be as University. There is a saying that I wonít quote exactly but it goes something like this: "When you are trying to drain the swamp, that was your initial objective. Yet youíve got alligators all around you which makes it really hard to think of what your initial objective was." It is also when you have an objective to be a first class and first rate research institution yet somebody is starving you financially, it is very difficult to not endure some pain. And not perhaps to make some turns in the road to try to stay on course as much as possible, but to accommodate what is happening to you at that particular time. That is something that we are going to have to deal with. It is hard to see when you start looking at a budget where are we going to cut $17 million or $20 million? It is very, very difficult. So we are going to have to do a lot of hard work. We are going to have to do very careful and considerate work. And, the faculty are going to have to be very involved in this process if we are going to be able to make some recommendations to the President by the end of the fall semester of this year. And, that is what I would like to do if at all possible.

Let me just turn for a minute to the subject of a Budget Director. That is what we need to do now in terms of recruiting in our Business and Finance Office. I have agreed to chair a search committee for the Budget Director. I am very concerned that our Budget Director understands the financial implications of higher education. So we really will be looking for someone from higher education. I will use again the Faculty Budget Committee for consulting and to meet with candidates from our applicants and in fact to help me decide on candidates to interview. Rick Kelly will be coming on board June lst and he will be involved as well. But it is very important that we get the right person for that job.

I just want to echo the Presidentís comments about the tenure and promotion committee. That committee of 24 people works harder, I think, than any committee in the University. They do the most important work in the University. To sit with them this morning and hear their very considered comments about people who are being tenured and promoted, thus being added to the family of the University perhaps for a lifetime - they have an awesome responsibility and I appreciate what they do.

Let me remind you that right after this meeting we have a General Faculty meeting. It is always the faculty meeting where we able to recognize the faculty who have won awards and it is always my favorite faculty meeting. So I hope that you will stay for that.

Also I wanted to mention very briefly that graduation for the Columbia campus is Friday and Saturday with a PhD hooding on Saturday morning. I hope you and your colleagues will try to attend at least one of those events. We have graduation at each of our campuses and those actually start tonight at USC Lancaster and continue until next weekend.

Finally I want to just address one issue and Jerry Wallulis may have some more to say. But this has to do with the Child Development Center. Iíve tried to keep you up to date on that. We are meeting with the University Neighborhood Association on May 8 to try to deal with any further issues that they have. Just to very briefly remind you, we have proposed putting a two-story facility on Blossom Street right beside our tennis courts. There have been concerns from the Neighborhood Association such as traffic. We actually commissioned Wilbur Smith and Associates to do an engineering study. They do not feel that there are any traffic problems so we feel like we have addressed that issue. The Neighborhood Association was somewhat concerned about what the second floor of this building would contain. We told them what it would contain, we told them that it would be a research floor primarily. They wanted to see more so we now have some very specific plans for the second floor in terms of offices, in terms of a music movement room, in terms of some interview rooms, and in terms of a classroom. So I hope that those problems are going to be addressed. I have to be at the Union commencement but Gordon Smith will represent my office at this meeting. Les Sternberg, Dean of the College of Education will also be there and I am hopeful perhaps that Caroline Strobel can be there to represent the faculty and maybe Jerry Wallulis as well. But we will be represented and we will try to move forward with this Child Development Center. I think it is something that we certainly need as a University and it also can provide the kind of research efforts in child development that are needed.

Just to also say a couple of words about the Presidentís remarks about enrollment. If you look at our enrollment we brought in, in 1997 - 3,000 freshmen. That is what we are hoping to do this year. I have continually checked with Dennis Pruitt, our Vice-President for Student Affairs, it looks like right now that our freshmen class will be right around 3,000 and we will not suffer any in SAT scores. We have a great applicant pool and that is where we are moving forward. Those are my remarks. I will be happy to answer questions. Yes, Randy.

PROFESSOR MACK - In the newspaper you were quoted, "We have told deans and department chairs the first classes they need to try to cut are the low enrollment graduate level courses and the low enrollment upper level courses." You are quoted as making that remark. Does this mean we have changed course again? Iíve been here long enough to have gone through several changes in direction. Have we pulled back from our objectives on AAU and Carnegie I aspirations.

PROVOST ODOM - I thought that I had explained that pretty well. I am trying to be the least painful to as small a number of people as possible. I donít think that we have changed at all our thrust to be a major research university. In fact I was at a luncheon today where I spoke to a number of people from the Chamber of Commerce and from business in the area about what we want to be in terms of a top tier university, and in terms of contributing to the economy of this region of this state. But Randy, again Iíll just say when somebody is going to take $20 million away from you when you are already being funded at 80% of what you should be funded it is very difficult to stay straight on course. So we may have to turn a little bit for awhile and I think that is what we are going to have to do. But we want to cause as little pain as possible. So what I am saying to the deans is if you have a faculty member that is going to teach 3 students or a faculty member that is going to teach 150 students, letís give consideration to those 150 students first.

PROFESSOR MACK - My concern is in my Art History program we have 22 graduates at the moment and we are able to offer next fall 2 classes that are exclusively graduate level. And, I am just worried about the quality that we are going to be able to maintain.



PROFESSOR KIRSTIN DOW (GEOG) - You mentioned that in addition to the Strategic Directions Committee you were hoping for a greater faculty involvement in the process of making the priority decisions. Do you have more specific ideas about how youíd like to do that?

PROVOST ODOM - No. What I am trying to do right now is to think about a process that we would have. Yesterday I met with Caroline Strobel and we talked about the fact that as soon as I get something on paper and can sit down and talk to her I want to do that and I want to talk to Martin McWilliams. To just see what we can do to make sure that there is plenty of faculty involvement in where we are going.

PROFESSOR JAMES DAY (FREN) - In this time of budget problems my question will appear to be merely rhetorical, but I was asked to bring this up so I will proceed. I work in the Humanities Office Building, specifically, on the 9th of its 10 floors. This morning when I arrived in the building there were several people gathered around the elevators, hopefully waiting for their arrival. Most of them were standing; there was one person sitting on a bench. I stood up with the others and we waited and we waited and we couldnít even hear any sounds of activity behind the closed elevator doors. People started heading for the stairs in groups of one or two, some of them with long trips up the stairs. I was perhaps more tired or more optimistic, I donít know, than the others. I hung around and finally there was just me left and the person on the bench. There was still no sound of elevator activity behind the closed doors, with the button obviously pushed. I said something to the other person and said here I go up to the 9th of the 10th floors. This fellow had a look of despair and humiliation on his face. He asked me if I would be so kind as to call the elevator authorities because he had a medical problem that prevented him from having recourse to the stairs. So the question is: is there any hope for a solution to this problem that has been ongoing?

PROVOST ODOM - Can I just say, I hope so! James I understand that one of the goals of this Faculty Senate and the faculty is to improve our buildings and our facilities on this campus. One of the items in the bond bill that the House came forward with this year was $20 million for this campus to let us start working on buildings. If you will get some of your Sociology colleagues to take you into Sloan College, it shows you what a wonderful job we can do renovating buildings. We are now working on Callcott. But every building on this campus needs work. Every building. I hate to be an alarmist but let me just tell you something else. We have boilers and chillers that heat this campus and cool this campus that are over 30 years old. I know they canít last much longer and I know that if we were doing what should be doing we would have a plan in place to periodically replace these pieces of equipment that we never see. Well we have a plan in place but it is a $30 million plan over 10 years. So we have to find $3 million a year. At the luncheon today I was listening to another person and he was talking about how we can change the economy of this state. He said, "Bottom line no matter how you look at it, is it is going to take money. You have to have money." And, that is our bottom line. We have to have some money to deal with some of these problems. Some of these problems we hopefully can deal with without being too expensive. But that is a problem that is going to take a lot of money. Now we dealt with that problem in the Darla Moore School of Business, the elevator problem. We will try to deal with your problem as well. But I can tell you there are other buildings on campus that have the same problems with elevators that need to be dealt with. Thank you very much.

CHAIR STROBEL - On that same note I might report that I met with the individual who was in charge of maintenance, repairs, and cleaning. I think I represented the faculty well in expressing to him what we thought about the situation. So at any rate I think people are aware of it. Obviously his coming to see me was because of I think the Faculty Welfare Committee having as number one a clean and healthful surrounding as a desire on the part of the faculty. So I think I represented us all well in expressing to him how faculty felt about the building maintenance and the cleaning of the buildings.

IV. Report of Committees.

A. Senate Steering Committee, Professor Sarah Wise, Secretary: No report.

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

PROFESSOR BERUBE - If you are a senator, we have an addendum. If you donít have an addendum, raise your hand so Iíll be sure you get one.

CHAIR STROBEL - All senators, if you are a senator, please make sure you are sitting in these two sections right here.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - There are about 28 pages of things to do so we are going to start on page 18 in standard non-addendum. There are some typographical errors we will correct as we go through here. First I want to thank whoever is responsible for putting my incorrect phone number. It was a very pleasant week. I enjoyed it enormously.

I. College of Criminal Justice, we have a deletion and a new course. So moved.

CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - II. College of Education on pages 18 through 19, Department of Physical Education. We have deletions, new courses, and a change in curriculum. All I am going to suggest is on the change in curriculum where it lists number 3 for Athletic Training Courses that they be listed in ascending numerical order. Right now they are a hodge podge. So we will correct for that. So moved.

CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion?

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN (CSCE) - I have a question about the general education requirements which have gone up from 55-60 hours to 59-65 hours with no apparent change either in their general education requirements or the universityís. Could you clarify that?

PROFESSOR BERUBE - Not without a bulletin.

CHAIR STROBEL - Is there anyone here from the College of Education.

PROFESSOR EVA VADOCZ (PEDU) - That change only reflects if students have not met the foreign language requirements prior entering then they must take 6 hours of foreign languages. Otherwise there was no substantial change.

CHAIR STROBEL - Any other discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - III. College of Engineering, Department of Computer Science and Engineering goes from page 20 through 23. There are a few editorial changes. On page 20, just for consistency purposes it lists CSCE 311 in prerequisites just cross out the second designator. In other words it should read: CSCE 212, 245. On page 21 where it says CSCE 212 in the third line of description after the word "setsí" there is an apostrophe where there should be a comma. Then the last sentence which reads "Credit may not be received for both CSCE 212 and CSCE 213." That whole sentence should be struck. Next you have the change in prerequisites to CSCE 355. Just for consistency purposes prerequisites should read: CSCE 211, 212, 350. I think I got them all.


PROFESSOR BERUBE - On page 21 under change in prerequisites for CSCE 313 it should say CSCE 211, 212. So moved.

CHAIR STROBEL - Is there any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - IV. College of Liberal Arts on page 24 and through page 29. The only thing you might ask is why on page 29 there is a GINT course cross referenced to PHIL 314, well that is in the addendum. So it will be all cleaned up when we finally get through the whole process. So moved?

CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed. The ayes have it.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - V. College of Science and Mathematics on pages 29 through 35. On page 30 STAT 510 it should be Introduction To and not Introduction Of. On page 31 is says "Under Cognates and Minors" on the right "Actuarial Mathematics and Statistics" needs to be put over "Aerospace Studies" in alphabetical order when the changes take place. On the bottom of page 33 there is something that says "In the Collegeís Guidelines for Advisement" cross all that out. That is internal and they deal with that. I believe that is it. So moved.

CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed. The ayes have it.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - In the addendum packet, I. College of Criminal Justice the only editorial is the change in title we probably want to put a comma after "Crime" to be consistent. So moved.

CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - II. College of Engineering and Computer Science it is on pages 1 and 2. On page 2 again those little editorial things. CSCE 513 prerequisites should read CSCE 211, 212. For CSCE 574 Robotics, prerequisites should read CSCE 211, 212, 245. For CSCE 611 prerequisites should read CSCE 211, 245. For CSCE 612 prerequisites should read CSCE 211, 245. So moved.

CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion?

PROVOST ODOM - Just for the sake of correctness is should be the College of Engineering and Information Technology.

CHAIR STROBEL - Any other comment.

PROFESSOR MARCO VALTORTA (CSCE) - The Provost did not comment on the incorrect name of the college in the main part of the agenda. I wonder whether that is a Freudian slip?

PROVOST ODOM - I am just a little bit slow this afternoon Marco.

CHAIR STROBEL - Any other comment or question? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - II. College of Liberal Arts goes from pages 2 to 5. From what I could tell, I have no editorial changes.

PROFESSOR ANNE BLACKBURN - In RELG 553 in the title Buddhist is misspelled.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - Yes it is. Too many sís. So moved.

CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion?

PROFESSOR BLACKBURN - Another spelling error on RELG 343 page 5 in the description "reggae" is misspelled.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - Yes right. Change from "raggae" to "reggae."


CHAIR STROBEL - Any other comments or questions? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - III. School of Music we have a new course; change in number, title, and description; and change in curriculum for Jazz Studies. So moved.

CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - IV. College of Science and Mathematics we have a series of curriculum changes. They actual mirror that actuarial math change that was in Statistics and it goes all the way to the top of page 10 where we have some cross listings with Chemistry/Marine Science. So moved.

CHAIR STROBEL - Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it.

PROFESSOR BERUBE - And, I believe that is it because we already did GINT 300. Thanks.

CHAIR STROBEL - Thank you.

PROFESSOR EASTMAN - One of my colleagues has pointed out a missing comma in the list of prerequisites for Computer Science courses can this be added editorially? Okay. Thank you.

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

PROFESSOR WILCOX - In the interest of time, I wonít belabor too many points but remind you that we do have a motion coming up at the General Faculty meeting from Advisory. It deals with the reappointment of untenured faculty. So I urge you to stay around for that meeting to discuss that proposal.

There are a couple of matters to be carried over into the summer and probably some in the next year that are in front of Advisory. The one that is closest to being before the faculty is reaching a relatively final draft stage are guidelines for the selection of endowed chair holders. We have developed a proposal that is now at the point of sending it to the administration for some comments. We have attempted to balance some of the concerns. We have mentioned to you earlier in the year where we have report on this of trying to be sure that faculty are aware of chair opportunities and have an opportunity to apply for them. But balance it also against the need sometimes to be able to move quickly in hiring decisions and that type of thing. I think we have come up with a pretty good set of guidelines that would become Faculty Manual material. Right now all of this is in just Policies and Procedures which we felt was not the appropriate place for it. So that will hopefully be coming to the faculty if not at the September meeting, it will be coming to you next year.

Two other things that are in front of the committee that will carry over probably a little bit longer term though we hopefully will move more quickly on one. The Copyright and Patent materials need to be clarified. Some changes need to be made in them and the committee will be undertaking that project. Also some work on revising the jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee. They came to use this year with a proposal that we remove salary grievances from their jurisdiction. That is probably a pretty good proposal. I think the committee feels that is a pretty good proposal. But before we do that the committee felt it important there by some other process for handling salary grievances. So that is the place where the committee is now - working up the alternative so that when we remove it from the current grievance committee there is someplace to put a faculty review of salary grievances. So those matters are the ones that are carrying over in essence to next year for the Advisory Committee.

CHAIR STROBEL - Thank you.

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

PROFESSOR WALLULIS - A few points. First of all, the Faculty Objectives, which we passed 2 meetings ago, were presented to the April meeting of the full Board of Trustees. They were introduced by Caroline Strobel and presented by myself. Secondly, on April 18 a policy was authorized to extend faculty tenure track probationary period. I believe that you were given notice of this by e-mail. But just to make certain that everyone does get notice and that it enters the minutes, Iíll simply read the policy:

"For documented reasons of a serious health condition (of a faculty member and/or the faculty memberís spouse, child, or parent) and for requirements of child birth, adoption, or placement of a foster child; faculty members holding a probationary term of appointment may request in writing that the maximum probationary period be extended with no resulting change in employment obligations, in order to provide them additional time to demonstrate fully their professional qualifications for reappointment or tenure."

This language has been regularized with the language of the Family Medical Leave Act and indeed when you make such a proposal, it has to have a request for Family Medical Leave. Human Resources is also happy with this policy just to make us all aware that at any time, according to the Family Medical Leave Act, you can initiate a leave on the same grounds that you can extend the probationary period.

Thirdly, the Welfare Committee does want to emphasize the importance of the Child Development Center. The University Neighborhood Association meets on May 8th and I believe that meeting is at 6:00 p.m. at Capstone. Our committee has drafted a letter with unanimous support and sent that letter to Kenneth Washburn who is president of the Parent PTO Organization. They would continue to solicit letters from any units that plan to do research in such a child development center and they are looking for your support.

Fourth item of business Daniel Sabia from Government and International Studies has been elected as chair of the committee in the coming year.

Fifthly, for this entire year the committee has not had to report on issues of parking. It has been for a very valuable thing for us that there has been an ad hoc committee dealing with parking issues. They have been working this year and they will summarize their results in the next report. Any questions? Thank you very much.

CHAIR STROBEL - I would like to call now on Don Wedlock who has been chairing the ad hoc committee on Parking.

PROFESSOR DON WEDLOCK (LAW) - Actually, Caroline, it is special committee because parking is not a thing to be taken care of, it is an ongoing process. It never ends.

We got started back when Caroline appointed the committee of eleven people and I put some ex-officio members. But we didnít have a meeting in the fall semester. The only reason for that was that Derrick Huggins who is developing the Master Campus Parking Plan, and really couldnít find an appropriate time to meet. I did meet with him a couple of times for lunch, and we talked about various issues. So we didnít get started really until the second semester. When we did get the Master Campus Parking Plan, I circulated it to the members of the committee, who then returned their comments. I then forwarded them to Derrick and we had a meeting where we sat down and went over them.

The basic principal of the plan, as I think Derrick outlined to you last fall, was essentially to redoce the pressure that is currently felt in the core parking areas with peripheral parking, coupled with a transportation system to circulate throughout the campus -- and, also to provide efficient periphery center transportation. We urged that we use a 5 to 7 minute wait window that is youíd be able to pick up transportation within 5 to 7 minutes of when you started waiting.

We also suggested that the plan is obviously going to have to be funded. Buses are going to cost $85,000 a piece. We are going to require 6 additional buses, in addition to the 4 that we presently have that are currently doing all the work, in order to meet the 5 to 7 window. There would be 3 peripheral parking areas one from the coliseum and the arena parking, the second from Bates House, and we initially thought the third one would be at Bell South building. We find out that is not in the cards right now. We urge the University officials to keep trying to get a hold of that asset. We donít care about the building we just want the parking. If we could just get a hold of the parking spaces we would fine. But Derrick is in negotiations and has high expectations of being able to acquire access to the Bombers stadium parking lot.

That is going to create some problems with trains, obviously. But we all have problems with trains. There is not much we can do about it but that space will be available. With two buses running from each of those points on campus, he thinks he can meet the 5 to 7 window. (Unless there is a train, obviously.)

Part of the plan was that this parking would be paid for; youíd have to pay for it. It was initially suggested that the amount would be the market rate which is about $70 a month for core parking. We suggested that was not based on what it would cost and for him to come back to us with some data on what it would actually cost to run both the transportation system and to maintain the parking lots.

When I say to maintain the parking lots, Iím talking not just about surfacing them. Iím talking about gates, which are going to cost $25,000 a piece. There is going to have to be some landscape work done. There is going to have to be bus stops established which would not be obstructing traffic. The gated lots will have to be reconfigured so that you wonít have a bottleneck effect back on the street as people are trying to get in. And, last but not least, security. We feel that security is a crucial part of this plan. People are going to have to feel secure leaving their cars in these remote lots and they are going to have to feel secure about being able to go and get them safely. So those are some costs that have to be figured in.

In doing that, Derrick came back to us with a proposal that would have people paying $25 a year for a decal. That is just for the privilege of parking in the peripheral lot. And, for the core lots, it would be $20 month. All of these fees could be paid with pretax money on a payroll deduction format, sort of like the cafeteria plan although not exactly. Access to the core parking lots would be assigned on a seniority system as well as the finances - the $20. Part of the problem there is to get those gated quickly so there will be access to them. These will not be reserved spaces. The lots would be oversubscribed but only by a little bit. So that they would be more efficient than they are now. Youíd be able to find a space most of the time. We also suggested fees for reserved parking be increased to reflect the fact that a 100% chance is worth more than a 96% chance of finding a parking space. So that reserved spaces would cost a little bit more. There wouldnít be any change to the garage or covered space parking. But we did urge that when you make these changes that the lots be gated in order to prevent, shall we say, poaching, and that fines be increased. Presently they are collecting 90% of $600,000 worth of tickets that they write ever year and it is getting better and better, because of technology and being able to track the cars. Also on the other end, cooperation from the Registrarís Office and not allowing people to register if they have outstanding tickets and not allowing them to graduate if they have outstanding tickets. We are getting much more efficient at that.

We also discussed at length the problems associated with handicap parking and how that would relate to gated lots and how that relates to people coming onto the campus to visit. There have to be places available especially at Cooper Library, Osborne, and the Admissions Office and other at public access places. So we have to do some more careful thinking with regard to that. But it is on the table.

Mr. Huggins reported that student ridership was good on the buses that were presently running. The nighttime service ridership was low. Tend to think that might be because the lots are open during the nighttime. And with the suggestion that the gated lots be open at night, it probably wouldnít be any different. We opened a line of communication with the University in discussing some of their problems that they have with us parking in their spaces as they would have it. And, Mr. Huggins is in cooperation, consultation, and planning with the Midlands Regional Area Transit Authority and the Columbia City Trolley to see if we can figure out how to interconnect those services to better raise public transportation into and around campus. Like I said this is not an ad hoc problem. This is ongoing.

There are no drastic changes until next year except that retirees will be given RT stickers instead of H. I donít know what a RT sticker is going to let you do but that is what is coming. The H sticker will eventually be retired itself. But this is an on going problem and the recommendation is the special committee continue to monitor, if thatís the wish of the leadership, the Campus Master Parking Plan. Any questions?

PROFESSOR DAVID TEDESCHI (PHYS) - When the presentation was made last fall there was a mention of a graded pay scale based on the individualís ability to pay for parking, but you have made no mention of that. Has that been tabled?

PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - That is probably an accurate description of it. It might come up again later. My thought, and I would share this with the committee, if we have concerns like that it might be handled through the Faculty Welfare Fund or the Staff Welfare Fund. The people who feel that is something that needs to be addressed could provide an avenue for some people subsidize other people with respect to their parking. We havenít got really past the point of thinking that one size fits all is probably the best way to go.

PROFESSOR FRANCIS GADALA-MARIA (ECHE) - I donít see the need to have gates in those lots if we donít have gates in these lots.

PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - Oh, Iím sorry you misunderstood me. The gates would be in the core parking area not in the peripheral lots.

PROFESSOR GADALA-MARIA - The Law School would have one?

PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - Yes, and Wardlaw would have one and the C lot would have one. Mr. Huggins brought us a map on which he had designated certain areas of campus where they were parking lots next to academic buildings. Those would be the lots for which a $20 a month fee would be paid in order to park and those are the one that would be scheduled for gating. Not the peripheral ones.

PROFESSOR DANIEL FELDMAN (BADM) - In respect to our colleagues who are waiting outside, I wondered if it might be possible to bring this discussion on parking to at least temporary end? Although it is clearly an ongoing problem.

PROFESSOR WEDLOCK - Let me suggest something to facilitate that. If you have these specific kinds of questions, my e-mail address is: wedlock@sc.edu. Send it to me and Iíll share them with the committee. Thank you very much.

CHAIR STROBEL - Thank you.

E. Committee on Admissions, Professor Manton Matthews, Chair:

PROFESSOR MATTHEWS - The Admissions Committee has two items and they are on the back of the original packet. The first is Admission requirement for the PACE program to be included in the Bulletin. On behalf of the committee I would like to move this.

CHAIR STROBEL - Is there a second to this? Is there any discussion? All in favor? Opposed. The ayes have it.

PROFESSOR MATTHEWS - The second is from the College of Science and Mathematics and it is to be modified just do the deletion of the Master Science and Medical Technology program.

CHAIR STROBEL - Is there a second? Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? The ayes have it. Thank you.

F. Committee on Scholastic Standards and Petitions, Professor Gary Reeves, Chair: No report.

G. Faculty Budget Committee, Professor Martin McWilliams, Chair:

PROFESSOR MCWILLIAMS - I will make this brief under the circumstances. There are just a couple of things I would like to say about the budget, to you as the representatives of the faculty. Since we last met, the faculty, through its Budget Committee, has been involved in the Provost's strategic planning meetings with the deans, and in the search for a new Chief Financial Officer. The Committee will be involved in the President's Budget Conferences next week and in the search for a Budget Director. Now, we don't know, and won't know for some time, what the General Assembly is going to do to the University concerning it's contribution to the University's operating budget. So, all budget planning at the University has to be contingent at this time. We have to keep in mind that something like 90 percent of the University's operating budget is salaries, a matter that is very difficult to maneuver. In the short time that we have to plan the 2001-2002 budget, our options are very limited. In my view as the Chair of Faculty Budget, the press criticisms of the University's currently proposed budget solutions are not well founded. In the short time, with the limited options we have, they are the best options that are available. They were very thoroughly thought through with excellent professional advice, as well as faculty input. And I would like to emphasize that it is my understanding that these are one-year solutions. As the Provost has indicated, there will be a comprehensive rethinking of University budgeting for 2002-2003 and going forward, and that planning will be strongly informed by faculty input. Thank you.

CHAIR STROBEL - Thank you Martin.

H. University Athletics Advisory Committee, Professor Peter Graham, Chair:

PROFESSOR GRAHAM - No report except to say that we had a very good year and all indications are that the athletes are performing at an even greater academic pace than they were a year ago at this time. So we are very pleased. Thank you.

CHAIR STROBEL - Thank you.

V. Report of Secretary.

No Report.

VI. Unfinished Business.

CHAIR STROBEL - I would like to report that I have put together a task force to look at the Maymester issue. I have given them a charge. They are to report back to you at the September Faculty Senate meeting with recommendations for the Maymester.

VII. New Business.


VIII. Good of the Order.

PROFESSOR MACK - This is probably something that could have been handled at the General Faculty meeting but it occurred to me last summer with the passing of Mike Schuette, a colleague of ours who was former chair of the Physics Department, that there may be a place either at Faculty Senate or the General Faculty meeting for a short of role call of departed faculty members to inform us all. I met faculty members during the year who didnít realize that Mike had died and there is no sort of place where just a list of deceased faculty members might be.

CHAIR STROBEL - We had memorials to Mike and there was one other this fall. Those were included in the minutes of the Faculty Senate.

PROFESSOR MACK - I realize that. I just thought maybe a sort of general role call might be sort of nice thing to do. I donít know.

CHAIR STROBEL - We can take that under advisement.

IX. Announcements

CHAIR STROBEL - I might, while we are on that note, remind you under announcements that we do have the tree naming ceremony at 4:30 p.m. Hopefully, many of you will stay around for it. It is on the horseshoe. With that I declare the meeting adjourned and turn the podium over the President.

This page created 11 June 2001 by the Office of the Faculty Senate and Computer Services.
Copyright 1999-2000, The Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina
URL http://www.sc.edu/faculty/senate/01/minutes/0503.minutes.html