December 5, 2001

I. Call to Order.

CHAIR ROBERT WILCOX - Let's go ahead and begin.

II. Correction and Approval of Minutes.

CHAIR WILCOX - First item is the correction and approval of the minutes of the November 7th meeting. Are there any corrections to the minutes as published? There being none, is there a motion for their approval? All in favor say aye.
The minutes stand approved.

III. Reports of Committees.

CHAIR WILCOX - As you have noticed this month we have changed the agenda order a little bit. The Reports of Officers will be placed toward the end of the meeting. So we will take reports of the committees first. The Senate Steering Committee.

A. Faculty Senate Steering Committee. Professor Sarah Wise:

PROFESSOR WISE - As mentioned at the last meeting, we have openings on some committees for spring 2002. The nomination from the Steering Committee for

the vacancy on the Committee on Libraries is Pamela Melton from Law. The nomination for the Committee on Scholastic Standards and Petitions is Sarah Westphal from German.

Also, we have just learned that we have an opening on the Academic Responsibility Committee. Nominations are open for all three committees at this time.

CHAIR WILCOX - The nominations will remain open through the meeting. Are there any further nominations for Committee on Libraries? Any further for Scholastic Standards and Petitions Committee? If you all could come up with a nomination for Academic Responsibility, it is important that we fill that committee. They actually do have some work unfortunately to do in the spring. We need a full committee. So if someone has a name of somebody, we could use that this afternoon. Those nominations will remain through this meeting.

B. Committee on Curricula and Courses, Professor Jeffrey Persels, Chair:

PROFESSOR PERSELS - The report of the Curricula and Courses Committee has three items for your consideration on pages 23 through 25 of the agenda. Roman numeral I.

from the College of Engineering and Information Technology - the Department of Chemical Engineering - is a new course - ECHE 456 COMPUTATIONAL METHODS FOR ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS.

CHAIR WILCOX - We have the moving of I. a new course in the College of Engineering and Information Technology. Is there any discussion? There being none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. The course is approved.

PROFESSOR PERSELS - II. College of Liberal Arts, A. Department of African American Studies, a new course, AFRO 376 RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN AFRICAN-AMERICAN MUSIC. Then under B. Department of Religious Studies, this is the course cross-listed with RELG 376 RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION IN AFRICAN-AMERICAN MUSIC and another new course from the Department of Religious Studies

RELG 375 MUSIC AND RELIGION IN AMERICAN CULTURE. Then C. Department of Theatre, Speech, and Dance, change in designators. They are going to be moving from THSP to THEA, DANC and SPCH. The breakdown for these designators -- which courses of THSP will go to each of the three -- will be coming at the next meeting, as some of those are on the graduate level and are going to the Graduate Council so we will have those for the next meeting, but we would like to get the designators approved and, together with that, we need the approval of the new courses in DANC 300 MUSIC FOR DANCERS, DANC 303 THE DANCER'S BODY, DANC 304 INTERMEDIATE TAP DANCE, DANC 401 DANCE COMPOSITITION, DANC 402 POINTE VARIATIONS FOR INTERMEDIATE ADVANCED BALLET, AND DANC 406 WEST AFRICAN DANCE.

CHAIR WILCOX - Noting the need for an M in the word INTERMEDIATE in DANC 402. We have moved the approval in the College of Liberal Arts a variety of new courses and also the three new designators in the Department of Theatre, Speech and Dance. Is there any discussion of those changes? Subject to that one change, then, all in favor signify by saying aye. They are approved.

PROFESSOR PERSELS - Then finally III. approval of an experimental course in the College of Pharmacy, PHAR 612X, CRITICAL CARE PHARMACY.

CHAIR WILCOX - Does that require our approval? Experimental course. Let's go ahead and just approve it out of caution.

PROFESSOR WALTER SOWELL (PHAR) - I believe the designator on that course is incorrect. It should be PHRM rather than PHAR.

PROFESSOR PERSELS - Yes, thank you.

CHAIR WILCOX - We will correct the designator to PHRM 612X. Just in case we do need to approve it we will put that forth to the body. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. It is approved.

C. Faculty Advisory Committee, Professor Daniel Feldman:

PROFESSOR FELDMAN - I have four short items because in the spring the first couple of meetings we will probably be spending talking about the SDIC, so we will try to get as many items of business out of the way now as possible.

The first one is the endowed chairs procedures document is now on the Provost's web site. We have gotten a couple of comments and helpful suggestions. If any of you want to send us any e-mails, you can e-mail me at dfeldman@moore.sc.edu. Otherwise we will be voting on that in the spring.

Also on the Provost's web site in a couple of days you will find revisions to the post tenure review document. It's quite minor. It is basically clarifying when you are rated as superior. The document says when you are rated superior you will receive a pay raise, but it doesn't say superior by whom. So it just needs clarification.

We are also working on a revision on the sabbatical language. Right now the Faculty Manual is clear that you are not eligible to take your first sabbatical until you have been here twelve semesters. It is not clear that you can't take your second sabbatical until you have been here another twelve semesters, so we have had people applying for sabbaticals in less than 6 years. I guess people are not picking up the subtle social cue that sabbatical refers to 7. So, any way we will try to make that clearer. We also have a minor modification on procedures for nominating short term replacements on the committees that we do at every meeting. Any questions? Please feel free to call or e-mail us.

CHAIR WILCOX - Faculty Welfare Committee.

D. Faculty Welfare Committee, Daniel Sabia Chair:

PROFESSOR SABIA - Good afternoon. We have one item. I would draw your attention to the last page of the agenda for background. The Faculty Senate was asked by the Student Senate to support its attempt to get a policy change on non-discrimination to include specifically sexual orientation. The Senate then charged the Welfare Committee with considering that and of course we knew at the time that the Faculty Senate had in fact dealt with this issue before and we went to the archives and reviewed the appropriate minutes and discovered again as indicated there on the last page of the agenda that in fact the Faculty Senate passed such a policy - suggestion or resolution in December of 1993. We examined the rationale that was provided by the committee at that time. I will summarize that for you later because we found the rationale is still compelling today. We will urge you to reaffirm that decision. We also knew that at some point in time the President of the University had responded basically negatively to the resolution and we looked up that rationale but we did not find those arguments as compelling. So as I said we will move today that the University adopt sexual orientation among its non-discriminatory policies. The specific language is:

"Be it resolved that the Faculty urges that the University Equal Opportunity Policy, EOP 1.00, be amended to prohibit discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation."

Understand that the reference to EOP 1.00 is essentially the non-discrimination policy and language of the University. It deals specifically and exclusively with recruitment, hiring, compensation, T&P, sabbatical leave, and leave.

So why should we again reaffirm this or endorse it again? Let me basically just summarize what the Welfare Committee, and by the way it was Professor Price argued at the time, and I will gloss a bit. After indicating that the inclusion of sexual orientation in the University's non-discrimination policy would not protect anyone from engaging in sexual conduct that may be illegal, unethical, or unprofessional and indicating that inclusion would have nothing to do with the University's affirmative action policy; the committee made about four central arguments.

First, as a matter of moral principle, sexual orientation, said the committee, should not be a basis for discrimination, and a formal policy statement to this effect would "make a statement to the entire university community that the sexual orientation of individuals is not a proper basis for making judgements about their ability to contribute, the value of their contributions, or their worth as human beings."

Secondly they argued that fear of discrimination based on sexual orientation did and does exist among some faculty and staff and adoption of the policy would help eliminate that fear.

Third, it was argued that adoption of the policy would serve to include the University in that group of colleges and universities that have already adopted such a position. A group at the time counting well over 140 in number and including many prestigious institutions which the committee went on to identify.

Finally, fourthly, adoption of the policy, said the committee, would also be consistent with the policies of a number of professional associations. At least 4 of which are accredit units within the University and which expect or require adherence to such a policy. And, the committee went on to name those.

Let me just gloss that of course we know that the number of colleges and universities and also professional associations that have adopted a policy like the one we are talking about today has grown in number since the early 1990's when the committee counted over 140. My understanding is that the number, depending on how you count, is well over 300 today. Similarly let me add that the legal situation has changed to some degree. For example, although there are still no Federal Laws explicitly prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation there is an executive order that does so with respect to employment decisions in Federal hiring. It is also my understanding that something like this policy exists as policy in both Richland County and in the City of Columbia.

These are my comments. So again I move that we adopt the resolution as stated.

Thank you. And, of course I will answer any questions.

CHAIR WILCOX - The committee has moved the resolution:

"Be it resolved that the Faculty urges that the University Equal Opportunity Policy EOP 1.00 be amended to prohibit discrimination on the bases of sexual orientation."

Is there a discussion?

PROFESSOR PHILIP ROLLINSON (ENGL) - Is this just a resolution; are we just resolving and urging some other entity to do this? Is that correct?

CHAIR WILCOX - The policies and procedures of the University are actually adopted by the President, so this is urging the President to take that step. That is correct. Other discussion?

COLONEL CHRISTOPHER CAMPBELL (AERO) - For what purpose? What is the bottom line, what is the purpose for suggested change in policy?

CHAIR WILCOX - I will let the committee chair speak to that.

COLONEL CAMPBELL - Why is there a perceived need to basically grant a protected status to sexual orientation?

PROFESSOR SABIA - I thought I had answered that question and I am not sure I can do anything more than repeat what I said. That is it seems worthwhile to articulate this as a moral sentiment of the community. That it is always good to know what communities stand for normatively. Secondly, there is a contention that some people in fact fear that their sexual orientation is used against them and making this policy will presumably eliminate that fear.

COLONEL CAMPBELL - Then may I ask what set of morals are you applying to that?

PROFESSOR SABIA - Those of the faculty community - the University of South Carolina - that community.

COLONEL CAMPBELL - Are those listed someplace or are those well defined someplace?

PROFESSOR SABIA - The moral principles of this University and especially of this faculty are and should be articulated by us, hopefully through democratic discussion and debate..

COLONEL CAMPBELL - And that is what we are engaging in here.

PROFESSOR SABIA - Yes, I hope so.

COLONEL CAMPBELL - May I also draw to your attention that the acts for which the suggested resolution are advocating are still according to South Carolina State Law,

Title 16, Chapter 15, Article I, Section 16-15-60 and 16-15-120 still illegal. Just as long as the Faculty Senate is aware of that and goes on record with that.

CHAIR WILCOX - Further comments?

PROFESSOR ADRIENNE COOPER (ECIV) - I would like a clarification on that. Are you saying that sexual orientation is illegal or are you saying that the sexual act itself is illegal? Because there is a difference.

COLONEL CAMPBELL - Sexual acts in those statutes I specified were in fact adultery, fornication, and sodomy.

PROFESSOR COOPER - Okay, so homosexuality is not illegal but the acts that may go along with them are illegal is what you are stating.

COLONEL CAMPBELL - My point is that if you attempt to condone orientation which is talking around the fringes of the illegal activity you are not being very ingenuous and just not being very clear. So why not state what you want to state and say that you think the law ought to be changed either that or contact the lawmakers.

CHAIR WILCOX - Further comments?

PROFESSOR THORNE COMPTON (THSP) - I think that what this resolution speaks to is sexual orientation. It doesn't speak to sexual acts at all. It doesn't speak to anything that anybody does. It speaks to what somebody is, as a person. There are a lot of things that faculty members do that we may not want to discuss, vote on, or put before the people of South Carolina on a regular basis. There are a lot of things that my colleagues have done that I will carry with me to my grave and never mention it. But this policy is not about that. It is about what people are as people. It doesn't apply to acts. It applies to orientation.

CHAIR WILCOX - Further comments?

PROFESSOR EARLE LINGLE (PHAR) - I do have a question regarding the definition of sexual orientation. I don't think there is any doubt that what we are getting here is homophobia or homosexuality. But can this be perceived to go further than that by the statement in a non-definition of sexual orientation?

CHAIR WILCOX - I guess I would ask in what ways are you contemplating upon it?

PROFESSOR LINGLE - Pedophilia, beastiality.


PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - Mr. Chairman, further does this list that you read today include just plain old fornication?

COLONEL CAMPBELL - That was adultery, fornication, and sodomy.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - Well, I think we're all inclined to those.

CHAIR WILCOX - Let's keep the debate on a higher level here please.

COLONEL CAMPBELL - You don't have any protected status, according to the university policy, to have a predisposition or orientation toward adultery.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - Well, I hope I don't endorse adultery.

COLONEL CAMPBELL - Well, it is a very good point.

CHAIR WILCOX - Further discussion?

PROFESSOR SABIA - Again I think we need to clarify that this policy does not endorse illegal activity nor does it protect illegal activity.

COLONEL CAMPBELL - The resolution should be amended to state that, don't you think?

PROFESSOR RANDY MACK (ART) - I don't think the resolution needs to state it because state law will take precedent.

COLONEL CAMPELL - Then what is the purpose of the resolution.

PROFESSOR MACK - The purpose addresses orientation not action as already explained.

PROFESSOR COMPTON - This opposes discrimination.

COLONEL CAMPBELL - No it does not. No it does not. Discrimination of all sorts is not legal. You cannot discriminate against people because they have red hair but there is not a policy that is written there. You may choose to, but it is not legal.

PROFESSOR SABIA - I believe that if red haired people were commonly discriminated against we might well want to discuss it as a possible policy.

COLONEL CAMPBELL - There are places where they are but I am not going to advocate for a policy that states it.

CHAIR WILCOX - Is there further discussion?

UNIDENTIFIED PERSON - Call the question.

CHAIR WILCOX - Another hand if somebody wants to do that they can. Yes.

PROFESSOR ERIC HOLT (SIP) - You have glossed the previous committee's arguments in favor of it. You also mentioned that the President at one point had mentioned reasons to not support it. Could you summarize those as well?

PROFESSOR SABIA - I could but the President is here and I do not know that it is my place to speak for the President. But yes I could and you can look it up in the archives as well. So I don't know what else I should say.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Certain accreditation associations have pressured us to adopt this particular phrase in our non-discrimination clause. I wanted to be sure that this had some meaning. No state organization, no state institution, no state agency has adopted this statement because there is no power of legal coverage or risk management involved. If somebody were to sue us on such grounds, we could not get legal costs paid for. We have no funds to protect ourselves. So, it doesn't have the legal status in federal and state law that enforcement would require. All the other phrases in that statement, as far as I know, have the power of the law, and we are covered by that. So, I want it to be a meaningful statement if we are going to adopt a statement like that. I believe that we do not discriminate at this institution. I have been here almost 11 years and have seen no evidence nor any indications that we discriminate. But, we also do not have a law that protects us. I can't issue an executive order like the President of the United States can.

CHAIR WILCOX - Did you have a question sir?

PROFESSOR RICHARD DICK (NAVAL SCIENCES) - Yes. You know the aspect of unintended consequences sometimes. Words do have meaning. Words push people into action. Obviously, you know in the military; I think most everybody is probably pretty well aware of our policies regarding homosexual activity, or for that matter if you want to define, it sexual orientation. Now, obviously depending on who you hear the information from, you can either believe it is a giant witch hunt and that is what we spend our time doing. Or, it is a fact that when somebody is found to engage in homosexual activity we find it incompatible with military service according to law and the uniform code of military justice. Consequently, you do have individuals at the University who are subject to the uniform code of military justice. Most of these student are, some faculty, by definition, including retired members of the military, anybody who is drawing a pension, anybody who is in the reserves, or anybody who basically is subject the uniform code of military justice would find themselves in the same legal situation, as anybody in the state who engages in this type of activity. So I see us for some reason deciding to put words in a policy that would have absolutely no meaning.

PROFESSOR WILCOX - If there are no further comments, are we ready to take a vote? The motion has been put before you. Restated, it is a resolution that the faculty urges the that University Equal Opportunity Policy EOP 1.00 be amended to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. That is the motion. All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. Sounds to me as if the motion has carried. We have been asked for a show of hands. All in favor signify by raising your hand. Sarah if you will help me count please. Does everybody who has their hands up a Senator? Okay, one came down. We have 48 in favor. All opposed. Motion carries by a vote of 48 to 14.

There was a motion that the outcome of the vote be included in the report to the President on this subject. Is there a second to that motion? Is there discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. We will include that in the report. Any further business from Welfare?

PROFESSOR MACK - Yes, I think it is. Does this go forward then to the Board of Trustees or does it go forward to the President first and then?

CHAIR WILCOX - I intend to send it to the President since it was to change a policy which is in the President's province. I will copy the Student Senate since they had requested this and they, I believe, intended to go forward to the Board, and they can take a copy of the resolution from this with them. That is my sense of how to do it.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Mr. Chairman, I will receive this and take it under consideration and do everything I can possibly do to see that it is endorsed by the Board of Trustees.

CHAIR WILCOX - The students are the ones that asked to have it on the agenda for the Board. So if they are going to pursue that we will join them at that point.

PROFESSOR MACK - We will get a report on the outcome?

CHAIR WILCOX - We will follow up with that.


PROFESSOR SABIA - It is my understanding that the December date has been changed and that I think that they will be meeting in March, I believe, the students with the Board.

CHAIR WILCOX - We will forward it to them.

E. Committee on Admission, Professor James Burns, Chair:


F. Committee on Scholastic Standards and Petitions, Professor Marja Warehime, Chair:


G. Faculty Budget Committee, Professor Al Leitch, Chair:

PROFESSOR LEITCH - I have a few comments to make. First of all, let me talk about the budget cut that we had this last go around and where the money came from. The total cut was $6,863,711. What you might not know is that 52.8% of that cut came from unallocated monies, resulting from more students and some money that was set aside from last year. 29.32% was from different departments. 17.88% was from tuition increases. In terms of the tuition increase highlights, there was a 4.9% raise in undergraduate resident tuition and 1.8% raise in undergraduate non-resident tuition. There was the same increase for graduate students and the Medical School increase was 9.1%. In terms of the selected cuts, most of that was in the paper. The larger colleges such as Engineering, Science and Mathematics, Liberal Arts, and the Moore School of Business all had a ½% cut.. There was some comment at the last Faculty Senate meeting about administrative costs. It is worth noting that most of the administration cuts were 1½% . There were some areas where the cuts were 0%. They were energy, utilities, scholarships, library books, and apparently police and public safety.

In terms of our current activities with respect to the Budget Committee we were asked to look into the relative amount of faculty and staff at the last Senate meeting. We did look into that. You can look at this a number of different ways. One way is to look at A funds. In other words where were the funds actually spent this last year. If you look at A funds specifically for the colleges, not the central administration or branch campuses just the colleges, 84.36% was spent on instruction and 15.64% was spent on academic support and that includes the library. This includes the deans, the associate deans of the colleges, department staff, lab technicians and people like that. This breakdown was based on how individuals were classified by Human Resources and we all know we can count things a lot of different ways. Many faculty and staff were actually funded by funds other than A funds. So I took it upon myself to look at this from a different perspective. In other words, how many people were actually classified as staff and how many were actually classified as faculty for the colleges. I compared these numbers with the Budget Office and they agreed with the numbers that I am about to present. This excludes the Medical School. I took the Medical School out because the Medical School really tilts the percentage toward staff. In terms of personnel, 67% were faculty and 33% were staff. If we add temporary personnel that changes that number. Temporary people are adjuncts and part time staff. If we add the temporaries in that changes the percentages to 63% faculty and 37% staff. If we look at the dollar amounts without the temporaries we have 80% faculty and 20% staff and if we add the temporaries in we get 77% faculty and 23% staff. I think in part this answers some of the questions that were raised at the last Senate meeting.

Lets look at upcoming activities of the committee the kinds of things we are going to be doing this next semester. The Provost usually consults with us on many budgetary issues as they arise. In other words as budget issues come before him and the university he tries to consult with our committee.

In January we as other committees will be reviewing the SDI report with respect to broad financial and budgetary issues. We will comment on these issues and we plan to do this before the next Faculty Senate meeting.

Also in spring, members of our committee will participate in the budget hearings. Each dean comes before the University and talks about their budget plans and we attend those meetings. It is not our role to get involved in how the deans managed their various colleges. However, we can ask questions. One of the questions that we are going to be asking this spring is "what are you doing to reduce your overall staffing with respect to your unit or college?" The Provost has agreed that this will be an issue that we will be probing at the hearings.

Also at the end of these budget meetings, we will meet with the Provost and comment on to the budget proposals for the various academic units.

I just wanted to bring you up to date because we apparently have not had a report from the Budget Committee in awhile. So I wanted to indicate the kinds of things that we are involved in.

CHAIR WILCOX - Other questions?

PROVOST ODOM - I would like to make one comment. The South Carolina Honors College is also not in the cut at all.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON (ENGL) - What if any does the Faculty Senate have as far as determining budget considerations? Do we just make recommendations or since we are responsible as I understand it for delivering the teaching to students it would seem that we do have in fact some budgetary rights? Is that correct or not?

PROFESSOR LEITCH - What we do is we sit in the hearings each spring.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - Okay. Who's hearing?

PROFESSOR LEITCH - These are the hearings that different deans, and various heads of different units have with respect to how they are going to spend their money next year, what their long range plans are, and how they plan to cut their budgets. We participate in those hearings and we make comments as a faculty on what we think of their proposals.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - But they are not bound to, they can thumb their nose at you right?

PROFESSOR LEITCH - No they are not bound.

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - But is it a fact that the Faculty Senate does have some powers as far as determining the budget of the University? Is that correct or incorrect?

CHAIR WILCOX - The Senate certainly has to my knowledge not exercised any such power. I don't know that there is a document which delegates these things other than some common law of university governance. The Senate's role has actually improved rather dramatically in the last few years in this regard of being an active participant at least in the budget process. But no the faculty has not ever exercised any decision making authority. That has been delegated, to my knowledge, by the Board to the administration. That is my understanding of the working policy. Any other comments before he flees?

PROFESSOR ROLLINSON - Is your report going to be in the minutes next time?

CHAIR WILCOX - That report will be part of the minutes. Everything said in here is part of the minutes. That is one of the importance of everyone being identified so we can have good minutes here.

H. Other Committees:


IV. Report of Secretary.

No Report.

V. Unfinished Business.

CHAIR WILCOX - With respect to some unfinished business at our last meeting, we had a report regarding Academic Discipline and one of the suggestions that was made was the possibility of publishing in The Gamecock or some other suitable manner reports of academic disciplinary matters that have been disposed of. I have received a copy of a letter that Dennis Pruitt has sent to The Gamecock editor asking that they do carry that stuff in the future as sort of an academic discipline crime report. There has been some effort to follow up on that recommendation from the last meeting.

VI. New Business.

CHAIR WILCOX - The first item of new business is we are going to distribute to you a one page document that is a proposed schedule that the Steering Committee has adopted for consideration by this group of the SDI Committee report which will begin at the end of next month. I have put it in writing for you to have and to review, in part because I want people to be on board with the process. I want a good understanding of what we are going to try to do, and we will need the cooperation of each other to make this work in some sort of efficient manner. The thing that the body needs to keep in mind--one of the great concerns that a number of you have expressed to me already--is the timing of things. To be sure that if we are going to spend our time reviewing this and making recommendations that we are able to do so in a timely manner where those recommendations can actually influence the outcome. We have intentionally deferred the consideration of specific possible recommendations until after the committee has completed their work in fairness to them, because they have in fact modified their proposals up to the very end. But their work is coming to completion. It will be complete by the 19th of the month, when they issue their report to the President and at the same time they will provide a copy to the Faculty. At that point we need to be prepared to move as quickly as possible if we are to be meaningful participants. I think there is certainly a willingness of the President's Office to have faculty involvement and to listen to us, but there is also a reality that if these decisions are going to effect particularly next year's operation of the University we don't have all spring to think about them. The committee has done its work very hard this fall and it would not sit well for us to wait and take it up on our time. So we are going to have to push forward as quickly as we can. Recognizing the report is being issued as Christmas break begins, realistically most of our work will not begin until classes resume in January.

This proposal is that the Senate Steering Committee will meet immediately after the 19th, study the report as quickly as it can, and allocate various recommendations to standing committees of the Faculty Senate--for the purpose of those committees coming back with their own recommendations, but simply to insure that there is enough information for this body to have a meaningful discussion of a particular recommendation. And, if the committee does, in its deliberation, feel that there is some advice we can give it--and particularly I am going to look to the Budget Committee on this one--because there are some significant budget changes being proposed in this document--it may offer that advice. We may well need some advice of people who are used to looking at the budget as to exactly what some of those changes mean. So the committees will meet those first two weeks of classes in January to get the information we need as a full body to deliberate. Also during that time I am going to propose that the senators from each college meet as a smaller group to discuss the application of this report, particularly the issues that they feel may effect their colleges. And, a real function of this meeting is to try to define the issues as best we can. What none of us want to do is sit in here for hours on end listening to a very discrete turf battle being fought out that really is a relatively small part of the big process. So one of my hopes is that in the college meetings we can work out ways to address the issues that are moved forward as larger issues in the big group. Also we will then meet the 30th of January that is a week before our normal Senate meeting. So if you will please make that change in your calendars. I think it is very important that the faculty be meeting in January to undertake this report. It is our misfortune that is going to be handed to us the 19th of December, but we have to respond and then try to take it up. There is some importance at least psychologically to our beginning consideration formally on the 30th. We will then meet. I do not intend to meet until 11:00 p.m. I think we will meet until we are tired of meeting. Which may be an hour and a half or two or whatever the body feels. And, we will adjourn and resume the next Wednesday and meet again when we are fresh. My anticipation is that it may take us a couple of weeks. I am hoping it won't take us more than about three but I won't be surprised if it takes us three weeks of meetings. At the body's pleasure, if we get to the point where we want to meet longer we will, but I think there is nothing to be gained by the crowd thinning out because we are all tired and want to go home. So we will try to meet efficiently at that point.

You will note in number 4 on the material you were given the purpose of the oral debate will be to discuss whether these recommendations further the two primary stated goals of the SDI Committee. I urge you to go onto the Provost's web page, look under committees, and under that look under SDI Committee. You will find there a couple of things. You will find these two goals stated, I believe, on that page and you will also find the ten factors that you looked at in evaluating programs as to such things as external demand, the necessity, to that type of thing. There are some smaller items but we are going to focus on the debate do these recommendations in fact serve the strategic objectives that have been laid out. There is room for that in talking about details certainly but we want to keep the discuss as best we can and moving along. That will in all likelihood deny everybody the chance to be heard on every point about everything they might want to be heard about. To compensate for that we will accept written comments on any aspect of the report. Whatever aspect. It can be from we don't like the goals they had, to this is a really stupid idea because it doesn't make me the president of the University. If you want to say it you will have a chance to say it in writing. And, not only you but I hope you will relay this back to your colleagues as any of them can say this. We will accept this from any faculty member. That way we will have a record both of the debate in here, which we hope will be productive and a larger record of all comments that people feel are important. If it becomes necessary due to volume and it is possible to do it we will try to provide some executive summary of all that when we turn the report in. We feel it is important that everybody have the chance to at least be heard in writing. So that is a part of this proposal.

Finally, when all is done after we have met three weeks or whatever it takes and we have reached a point of completing discussion of the document, the body will then entertain resolutions from the floor on any aspect of the report that you care to offer a resolution. We do not put any limits on the resolution. It can be you don't close my college, to we adopt the report and think it is a wonderful thing. That will be wide open for resolutions and we will take them then in due course as they are proposed. We feel that gives everybody the opportunity to be heard. It will hopefully allow us to manage the debate in a way that we don't spend as much time as the committee has had to spend on this. And, ultimately, if there is action to be taken, we can determine what that is the at the end of the day. Because quite frankly I don't know myself without having seen the report what action we might want to take so it leaves that option open. But we will discuss the whole report before we take action.

And, finally when it is all done I will forward it all most likely to the Office of the President. There may be parts that need to go to other persons within the University but my plan would be, since the report is made to the President and the President is going to be working with the Board on recommendations, that it is appropriate for us to forward our comments and our views on it to the President. And, that will be done as quickly as possible in February after we have completed our debate.

Are there any questions on this? I want very much for people to feel like there is a chance to be heard on this.

PROFESSOR MACK (ART) - My question is on point 3 how are the Senators from each college going to be convened?

CHAIR WILCOX - I think that that will probably fall upon me to convene you all and to sit in the room with you and to tell you a little bit about what I am looking for and see if I can give you some guidance on that. So I am looking at probably having a busy time there.

PROFESSOR MACK - My second point is that I know the SDI report will be one of the major factors considered by the Board of Trustees. But I also understand, at least rumor has it, that there is an outside group whose report may even weigh more heavily in the minds of the Board of Trustees. This outside group will we have any opportunity of addressing their observations?

CHAIR WILCOX - At this point what I have been told, and I have not asked that specific question, but certainly in my discussions it does not sound to me like that report is coming to us. The Board has sought advice of this group, and I think certainly, to the extent that we become aware of things, we can exercise our prerogative to comment on those things. But no, I do not believe that that report will be submitted to us. And, that is one of the concerns of this process that I have talked to the Provost some about. What is the inner relationship between the so called Washington Advisory Group and this report and the actions that the President and the Board ultimately will want to take. I think that the SDI Committee is working very hard to try to coordinate its report with theirs to some extent. But my understanding, and you all can correct me on this, is that they are not reporting to us. They were hired to report to the Board or the President, so we are going to have to play that one by ear. Other questions or comments?

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN (CSCE) - I have two procedural questions about the SDI process. When will the report be available to faculty members in general? And will normal Senate business be suspended until this process is complete or will some provision be made for handling more routine matters?

CHAIR WILCOX - Two good questions. The first question is we will get a hard copy of this report. We will probably also get hopefully an electronic form but it may not make it unto the web until we get back from Christmas. It may not be up there during the Christmas break. Hopefully, it will be up immediately after the Christmas break. There will be a copy available in the Faculty Senate Office but frankly during the holidays that's when they close a lot of the time. I will have a copy if anybody wants to come get a copy and make a copy, I will have a copy during that period. I will be happy to share it with you. I don't think there will be a broad paper distribution, just because of the bulk of copying something like that for every senator, but it should be available on the web by the time classes begin. As to the second question, no we will not suspend our regular business. What we will do at what would have been the regular February meeting on February 5th or 3rd or whatever it is we will have a very hopefully brief business session for example curricula and courses changes that need to be made. We will undertake those at that point and then resume our debate. But it will be handled as expeditiously as we can at the first week in February meeting. If there are no other comments, we will proceed under this plan and our next meeting. Please note then there will be a called meeting in January 30th. Is there any other new business for the body?

VII. Reports of Officers.


Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will make my remarks brief, and then I will be glad to answer any questions or receive your comments on any of the issues that were discussed today.

I want to commend Jerry once again and also the faculty who have spent long hours engaged in the Strategic Directions and Initiatives Committee. As all of you can imagine, it was not an easy job reviewing all of our programs. I can assure you that almost every program in this University has been looked at and assessed and evaluated in light of what we have been doing the last 10 years and of the goals we have set with the Board of Trustees about our objective to be a premiere university for this state.

We also have graduation on Monday. We will award 2,456 degrees: 6 associate degrees, 1,151 baccalaureate, 10 law degrees, 11 graduate certificates, 462 master's degrees, 18 specialist degrees, and 136 doctoral degrees. I encourage you to come and see your students walk across the stage. We are giving an honorary degree to Treasury Secretary Evans. It ought to be a good time.

The Bicentennial is coming to a close on the 19th of December. A time capsule on Friday will be buried at 3:00 in front of McKissick to be opened in 2051, convocation for the Closing Ceremony will be in Rutledge on December 19 at 11:30 a.m., the procession to the State House will follow immediately thereafter, and at noon, the closing ceremony will be held at the steps of the State House. We would appreciate your participation in that.

That is my primary report. We live in a great time of uncertainty here at the University but also in the nation. We hope that people are going out to the malls and helping the economy of this state. In a week or so, within 10 days I believe, the governor must give us his proposed budget for next year. I understand he is doing everything in his power to protect higher education and education in general. That will help us some in the final decision-making process as to what we do with the SDI recommendations and then we will report. I will be glad to take your questions or your comments.

PROFESSOR CHARLES ALBER (GERMANIC, SLAVIC, AND EAST ASIAN LANGUAGES) - The dean of Liberal Arts has more than once told the assembled departments of foreign language that the administration "does not take us seriously".

Is that true? Are you not aware of the crucial role that languages have played in the MIBS program?

PRESIDENT PALMS - The answer to your first question is absolutely not true. We would not be spending so much time trying to analyze budgets and needs otherwise. I am very much aware of the role that languages play and the importance of the MIBS program. But, I believe that the study of languages has its own value regardless of MIBS. Certainly in the events of this year, 11 September, brings out even stronger the need to increase emphasis on cultural, international studies, and languages.

PROFESSOR RANDY MACK (ARTH) - Back to this Washington group, I know nothing but rumors that I have heard. What I am wondering about is we keep talking about the SDI report and yet I've been told by a variety of people or at least rumors have circulated that the Washington group will have the heavier influence and what I've heard in terms of rumors about the Washington group is not terribly encouraging.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Well, let me just give you some reflections. Initially, we brought the Washington group in with the concurrence of Bill Harris and his recommendations to look at and evaluate our whole research enterprise, particularly what we needed to move to the next level of our goals set by the Board of Trustees. At a retreat last year, the Board adopted a goal to move from $123 million in research dollars to $175 million in the next three or four years. This group was brought in to assess where we are, what areas of research we have been successful in competing for funding from the NIH and the Department of Defense and DOE, etc. When we started this SDI process, it looked like we were going to have to respond to a possible 15-percent cut on this campus last year. The suggestion was made that this group helped us out once and that perhaps they could help us again by giving us a little broader perspective as to whether the university is on the right track toward AAU-status. About that time, they also met with the Board of Trustees and listened to the Board of Trustees about their 11 or so goals set at the retreat last spring.

In addition to the SDI committee and the Washington Group, we also had the reaccreditation of the whole university. That final report we received from SACS also contains recommendations and suggestions. We also have professional accreditation groups coming in to review the colleges and who make recommendations and put demands on us. Our colleges have to meet those to stay accredited. We have visiting teams for departments who make recommendations as to strategy. We hired departmental chairs and deans based upon those strategies, and we just cannot suddenly redirect those efforts.

We agreed that at a certain stage of SDI and near the committee's end, we would share the SDI recommendations with the Washington group. As we do with everything else, we will talk through these and listen to all the rationales and hopefully come up with a document that meets the recommendations and approval of both groups. I am anxious to include the rest of the faculty who have not had an opportunity to have an input on this issue. The input of the faculty is most effective in governing a discipline or a department. While we are all busy, there ought to be an opportunity -collectively as a faculty not just as a department- to look at these recommendations to see if they are in the best interest of the entire university. We hope to do that. I am going to listen to all of that. While we know that the final course of action will not please everyone, it will be a collective consensus, and something has to be done. We are going to have to go ahead and endorse some of the recommendations to the Board and implement some of these recommendations. You have a board member on the SDI committee. Hopefully, we won't have to do things too drastically, but the economy of the state demands that we tighten our belts for a while and work to improve our resources probably over a longer period of time than we had first thought. A long answer to your question.

PROFESSOR MACK - I guess what worries me and worries others is that the Washington group was brought in for one purpose with some expertise in that area of course but then their role has been expanded to include the entire university beyond purely research mission. People are worried that that group will have a greater impact on the decision of the board than the collective discussions of the SDI and Faculty Senate and whatever.

PRESIDENT PALMS - Well, I can understand some of those anxieties. I just happen to have more trust in the faculty body. I have trust in the SDI process and the authority that it is garnering. The committee members were willing to set aside their own departmental interests, and I believe the primary credit should go to that committee under your provost that serves with your pleasure. So, we will see. Nonetheless, all members of the Washington advisory group have substantial experiences. Of course, there is a chancellor there of the outstanding scholars, and their assessment will have some value. But they won't be nearly as informed as our faculty and our SDI group. That's already been pretty evident in some of our initial observations about what is going on at the university. The Washington Group is not fully informed.

PROFESSOR KIRSTIN DOW (GEOG) - In your comments about faculty involvement in discussion of recommendations you said you were going to hear from many faculty, I would like to clarify, are you going to make available opportunities for broader faculty discussions?

PRESIDENT PALMS - In this group, we are going to be working with chairman of the Faculty Senate, and he is going to allocate to the various committees' issues that will be in the report (although it will still be in draft form) to give the faculty the opportunity to come to a larger meeting (maybe even the Senate or a faculty meeting in general) to discuss and receive input both in written form or on the web, etc.

PROFESSOR DOW - You are not proposing open meetings like you had for input in to the SDI process?

PRESIDENT PALMS - Well, there will be meetings like this of the entire faculty for input, but we are somewhat constrained by time. There is also a search committee that is actively looking for a president, and they would like to have some of these issues resolved before the finalists are identified and before they come to the campus so that they can talk about the realities of the resources that will be available to that president when he or she takes office. So, we are talking in the February or March time frame. It's important that we have something completed. The budget in the state legislature will not be finally approved until June, but we will know as it passes through the House and goes to the Senate roughly where we stand with the economy of the state. All that is going to come together. Anything else? Thank you very much.

CHAIR WILCOX - Thank you , Mr. President. The Provost.


Thank you, Mr. Chair. Let me first of all just go back to this hiring freeze. When we instituted this hiring freeze - I'm sorry the 4% cut that Al talked about but the hiring freeze was one thing that we also instituted, as well as a caution to the deans to examine expenditures on travel, equipment, etc. This hiring freeze has been particularly painful I think to this university this year because we went through this exercise last year. What we have done is to tell the deans that any positions that they felt were mission critical and they could justify as mission critical that they could send those forward to me. I would read the justifications and make a recommendation to move ahead or not move ahead to the President. Many of the deans have done that already and many of the searches are continuing and we will continue to examine openings with respect to the criticality of missions of various units within the university. That has been one effect of this 4% cut that we felt we had to do, but at the same time that we needed to examine very carefully what various units on campus were doing. Just so that you are aware even though we won't know for a couple of weeks what the governor is proposing we are still hearing from the Budget and Control Board through various sources that we may see another 1 to 2% cut this year in late January or early February. We also were hearing numbers in the 10% range cut from the base budget to start the next year on July 1st , 2002. So we simply have to be ready to act when these things happen.

Very briefly, just to let you know that searches are on going right now with respect to deans and other positions. We have a second visit from a prospective dean candidate for Social Work on Friday. That search, by the way, is chaired by Joan Stewart. We have on-going searches and all committees seemed to be working well in Law, chaired by Larry Faulkner; Journalism and Mass Communications chaired by Mary Ann Parsons. Dean of Libraries chaired by Fred Roper. We are also searching for a director of the University Press and that search committee is chaired by Matthew Bruccoli in the English Department.

To reiterate what Rob basically said with respect to the SDI committee, we have been working all semester. We started in mid-August. Our goal was to have a report to the President before the Christmas break. We are meeting and writing at the same time almost. We had a meeting of a small committee that I have assigned as a writing committee yesterday. They met almost all day except when we had a meeting of the entire committee yesterday from 2 o'clock until 5 o'clock. We will now continue working on putting together a draft of this report. We do plan to get this to the president by the 19th of December. As Rob said, we will deliver a copy to the Faculty Senate Office at that time and, if possible, we will try to get it up on the web. If not we will certainly do it as soon as we return from the holidays.

In Rob's discussion, I think that he very correctly pointed out that we have listed two goals primarily having to do with research and productive scholarship and the quality of the students at this institution as two major goals. I would urge you to look at the Provost's homepage and look at the strategies that we hope to use to come to the conclusions that we have come to. I think that those will need to be understood as well. The thing that has also guided this committee as we have moved forward have been the goals of the Board of Trustees. The President mentioned those goals that were adopted by the Board at a retreat. Those are listed on the Board of Trustees homepage if you want to examine those again. Those were broad over-reaching goals for the University and we have continually looked at those goals as we have had our meetings and discussed various actions this semester. That concludes my report. I will be happy to answer any questions.

PROFESSOR ALBER - (GERMANIC, SLAVIC AND ORIENTAL LANGUAGES) - I have several statements to make, then I will ask you a question. On September 25th the dean of Liberal Arts announced to the assembled faculty of the three foreign language departments that she was considering merging the three departments into one, as they were more than a decade ago, but that she would not impose something on the faculty that was unwanted. Later in the same meeting, the chairman of the German Department called for a referendum, but the dean refused. Still later in the meeting, in response to a request from the floor, the dean promised to return with a more concrete proposal for faculty consideration. She never did. On November 27th the dean announced that the merger would, in fact, take place. After some debate she was asked if the proposal had SDI approval, and said that it did not, and that approval was not necessary. As of today, a transition team has been appointed to begin the process. My question to you is, given your own preference for faculty participation in university governance and the established procedure for budget cuts already in place, is this authoritarian method of operation one that the USC administration endorses?

PROVOST ODOM - Let me just say that Dean Stewart and I have talked about a number of changes that might be made in her college just as I have discussed with other deans changes that they might make in their colleges. Chuck, I understand and my own feeling would have been, and I'm certainly not second guessing someone, but a referendum would have probably been worthwhile to let the faculty speak their opinion. At the same time, I believe fully that our deans have a good knowledge of their entire college. They have a good knowledge of budgets that are involved. They certainly know the pain that they have already felt and will feel further with further budget cuts. Every dean on this campus as well as vice presidents are going to have to look to take measures that are not going to be accepted by everyone. I understand that and I am sorry that we are at this point We have to take some measure that will improve this university and at the same time will let those parts of the university that have higher priorities flourish. Any other questions?

VIII. Good of the Order.

CHAIR WILCOX - If you will hang on for one second, there is a matter for Good of the Order. Many of you will be familiar with this individual. I want to share with you the news that Peggy Pickels, who has long been the right hand of many senate presidents, as well as assisting all operations of the Faculty Senate Office, including helping out with the tenure and promotion materials, and in helping Jeanna get those things ready, has announced as of last Friday that she is retiring at the end of this year. Peggy began her career in state government nearly 30 years ago at the South Carolina Supreme Court, and I think the prospect of having yet another lawyer to work was more than she could bear and she has chosen to retire. But we are certainly indebted to Peggy for the many years of hard work, and we wish you very well in your retirement. (Peggy received a standing ovation from the senate.) We will miss you, and we will have you back.

A couple of announcements. Is there anything else for the Good of the Order before I make several announcements?

IX. Announcements.

PROFESSOR COMPTON - Briefly I would like to that President Palms for reminding all of us for the convocation and procession to the State House and our final Bicentennial event on December 19th . I hope all of you can come to that. We will have a full academic procession in regalia and I hope you can all be a part of that. It is really important to demonstrate - it gives us an opportunity to demonstrate to the state government who we are and that we are here and that we are central to the importance of this state. If you can't come if you would give us a call at 777-1801. Try to remember the phone number any way. Or if you can come if you could give us a call at 777-1801. You will probably remember the phone number any way and let us know if you are coming it helps us in our planning. So thanks very much and I look forward to seeing you December 19th.

CHAIR WILCOX - Helping in planning means that you will have a seat if you call. So it is well worth calling.

PROFESSOR ROBERT FELIX (LAW) - I find the President's answer to Professor Alber's question encouraging. To make the statement that foreign languages are taken seriously is itself a sign to academic administrators and the interested faculty. The events of September 11th prove graphically to us to the importance of foreign languages, if only based on the report that failures of intelligence were in part caused by failures of language competence. I think the president's observation regarding area studies as a context for the presentation of foreign languages a thoughtful part of his answer. Moreover I think the challenge to the interested faculties and their administrators is one that should be taken seriously. You can't expect the president of the university to present a language program. The people that are charged with administering and presenting have to do that. Not only the events of September 11th but practical considerations of the International Commerce remind us of the axiom that " you can buy it in your language, but you have to sell it to him in his". Let's hope that the fate of the future of foreign languages is not one to be described as the "Walrus and the carpenter meet the foreign language oysters."

CHAIR WILCOX - Thank you, Professor Felix. One other announcement. I have been asked to announce that the Russell House Bookstore will be offering a 10% discount next Monday on clothing and gift novelty items there for Christmas shopping. If you bring your id's you will be fine. They will also have coffee and danish there in the morning from 9:30 to 11:30, so they say come and bring your book list with you. They will feed you. I will be at the dentist during those two hours so I will think kindly of you eating coffee and danish. Are there any further announcements?

Are there any further nominations for any of the committee seats that were open? If none the two who were nominated are elected. We will leave open the Academic Responsibility for our next meeting.

We will meet again on January 30th at 3 o'clock, I believe right here. Thank you.


This page created 29 January 2002 by the Office of the Faculty Senate and Computer Services.
Copyright 1999-2002, The Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina
URL http://www.sc.edu/faculty/senate/01/minutes/1205.minutes.html