Faculty Committee Reports


Steve Hays, Chair The Committee on Academic Responsibility adjudicated one case during the 1994-1995 academic year. The case arose from the College of Engineering, and involved a violation of Rule I.A. of the University Rules of Academic Responsibility. The student's conviction was upheld, and the case remanded to the College of Engineering for a reconsideration of the penalty.



G. James Burns, Chair

The Committee on Admissions approved a change in a admission requirements for freshman beginning Spring 1996. The change was made in the academic elective course requirement, #6, which will now read:

The above change was passed by the Faculty Senate at the May 1995 meeting.

G. James Burns was elected Chair for 1995-1996.

Committee on Admissions Members 1994-1995:

Frank Berger, G. James Burns, Chair, Terry Davis, ex officio, Sara Fuller, Joseph Gibbons, Blease Graham, Donald Greiner, Jessica Kross, Steven Lynn, Patricia McNeely, and Mary Ellen O'Leary

l994-1995 James A. Hightower, Chair

The University Athletics Advisory Committee (UAAC) meets monthly during the academic calendar year. In September the chair outlined the committee's duties as stated in the bylaws of the UAAC published in the Faculty Manual. These duties are, first, to insure that each student athlete receives a positive collegiate experience which includes a challenging academic course of study. A second objective (of this committee) is to encourage faculty, coaches and students to work together toward the common goal of educating and graduating as many student-athletes as possible who will leave our University to become successful citizens in the increasingly complex society in which we live.

For the first time this year, student athletes with a voice and a vote were present on our committee.

Committee membership also includes:

  1. 6 Faculty Representatives
  2. 2 Undergraduate Student Representatives
  3. a Graduate Student Representative
  4. a student athlete
  5. a NCAA Compliance Officer
  6. a V.P. for Student Affairs
  7. an Athletics Director
  8. a NCAA/SEC Faculty Representative
  9. a member of the intercollegiate Activities Committee of the Board of Trustees
The following non-members usually attend our meetings:
  1. a Senior Women Administrator from the Athletics Department
  2. a Director of the Academic Support Programs in the Athletic Department
  3. a Representative of the Office of Public Affairs
  4. a Representative from the Office of the registrar -- when requested
Within the scope of our committee's mandated activities, we did the following in the 1994-95 academic year:



J. David Waugh, Chair

The Board of Governors met monthly with the exception of July and August. Special meetings of all or part of the Board were called as necessary.

The year included modest growth in membership overall but with some loss in corporate membership. The latter is attributed, in part, to changes in regulations concerning entertainment and lobbying.

In addition to regular meal service, several successful special events were scheduled for members. These ranged from a reception for new faculty to wine tastings and theme dinners. The special bus to and from home football games remained very popular.

Meals and receptions related to weddings and private parties account for a substantial part of total Faculty House activity and revenue. Catering services outside the House also were in demand.

A major upgrade of the kitchen facilities was begun during the year and is to be finished by the opening of the fall term. Plans were also made for certain refurbishing of the foyers and stairwells; this is to be completed during the fall term with no interruption in service.

In late June, Ms. Cathy Gustafson decided to leave her position as Club Manager to accept a position on the faculty of the College of Applied Professional Sciences. The Board applauded the outstanding work of Ms. Gustafson over the years and noted that this year she had achieved the coveted designation of Certified Club Manager (CCM). The Board is, however, very pleased that she has the opportunity to pursue her aspirations. An interim manager has been appointed and a new Club Manager should be in place by mid-October.

Many private clubs, nationally and locally, are experiencing difficulty in both membership and finances; several have been forced to close. The Board is very proud to report that Faculty House had an excellent year financially and remains in a very strong financial position.


Beverly Busching, Chair

The members appointed to the Bookstore Committee for 1994-95 were: Beverly Busching, Education, Chair; Roger Amidon, Public Health; Sarah Gable, School of Medicine Library; Alan Nairn, Geology; Karl Heider, Anthropology; Lynn Zoch, Journalism. One complaint about book orders was received. Mr. Bruce Darner, Bookstore Manager, responded.

In a series of meetings of the committee and communications with the Faculty Affairs Committee, the overlap in responsibilities of this committee and the Bookstore Oversight Committee (appointed from the President's Office) was investigated. Committee members agreed that a faculty-appointed committee is needed to insure that faculty interests are represented. The Oversight Committee is established in the contract of the bookstore with USC. It was decided that the two committees would meet together to review the performance of the Bookstore based on the established contract, and that our committee would continue to receive comments and complaints from faculty as needed.

Two members, Beverly Busching and Karl Heider, completed their terms of service, and were replaced by Keen Butterworth, English; and Steve Borgatti, Sociology. Keen Butterworth is the new chair of the committee.

1994-1995 Mary P. Caldwell, Chair

The Committee has dealt with over 275 courses and curriculum changes from the following units, departments or colleges on the Columbia campus in 1994-95.

  1. Accelerated Undergraduate Program
  2. Anthropology
  3. Applied Professional Sciences (Office Administration and Media Arts)
  4. Art History
  5. Business Administration
  6. Biology
  7. Chemistry
  8. Civil Engineering
  9. Computer Science
  10. Center for Science Education
  11. Comparative Literature
  12. Exercise Science
  13. Economics
  14. Education
  15. Educational Psychology
  16. ITE/Education
  17. Engineering
  18. English
  19. French & Classics
  20. Geography
  21. Geology
  22. Germanic, Slavic & Oriental Languages
  23. Government and International Studies
  24. History
  25. Honors College
  26. Journalism
  27. Linguistics
  28. Marine Science
  29. Mathematics
  30. Minor listing for catalog
  31. Naval Science
  32. Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science
  33. Pharmacy
  34. Psychology
  35. Spanish, Italian & Portuguese
  36. Statistics
  37. Theatre, Speech and Dance
  38. University 101
Additionally, we sent schedules to each dean and department chair both semesters outlining meeting dates of the committee and the Senate plus deadlines to get material to the committee for consideration each month.
We have rewritten the Curricula and Courses Guidelines and Instructions booklet with the hopes of getting it into the appropriate hands by the Spring Semester. However, in the meantime the Graduate Council and the Curriculum Committee began discussion on the feasibility of using one form. Until this is resolved the printing of the booklet is on hold. It will probably be distributed in Fall Semester 1995.
The Chair expresses gratitude to the following Committee members for their hours of work and diligence: Robert Castleberry; Morgan Maclachan; Caroline Eastman; Dan Berman; Kent Sidel; ad hoc member Associate Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Affairs, Don Greiner; and student members Tawnya Pamplin and Jessie Runyan.
The Chair for 1995-96 is Caroline Eastman, Computer Sciences.



Rosvelt Martain, Jr., Disability Services Paul Higgins, Department of Sociology David Bundy, Student Representative Donna Collins, Facilities Management Jeff Cargile, System Personnel Division Barbara Clark, System Personnel Division Clifford Scott, Equal Opportunity Programs Bobby Gist, Equal Opportunity Programs Dorothy Parker, Transitional Living Center Linda Saad, Housing Residential Services Tim Stello, Student Representative Deborah Valentine, College of Social Work Linda Lucas Walling, College of Library Science


The Disability Affairs Committee (committee) convened its first meeting for the 1994-95 academic year on November 3, 1994. The new Director of Disability Services, Karen Pettus, was introduced to members of the Committee. Bobby Gist, the new Executive Assistant to the President for Equal Opportunity Programs, was introduced to members at the 1995 spring semester's meeting.
The Committee was successful in helping the Department of Facilities Management to secure $1,000,000. This funding will enable the University to fully embrace the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by bring many buildings across campus up to ADA standards. Please see attached memorandum which was sent to Charles Jeffcoat on May 24, 1995. The Committee addressed other accessibility issues regarding Thomas Cooper library and automatic doors in the Russell House and Capstone. For the 1995-96 academic year, the Committee has prioritized the following accessibility issues to address:

1) The relocation of the Office of Disability from its 1625 College Street location to an accessible location. 2) Bring 900 Assembly Street building and the Blatt Physical Education Center up to ADA standards. 3) Purchase of a new Adapted van for faculty, students, staff, and public with disabilities. 4) Install automatic doors at the Capstone and in the Russell House. 5) Ensure the continued funding of ADA compliance budgets.

MEMORANDUM (Attachment refered to in report.)

The Disability Affairs Committee would like to thank the Department of Facilities Management for their continued support of the University of South Carolina and the disabled community. Because of accessible facilities and instructional accommodations, members of the disabled community consider the University the most accessible public or private post-secondary institution in the State. More than any other institution, the University has an opportunity to fully embrace the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Members of the Disability Affairs Committee (Committee) are excited about this opportunity.
As Chair of the Committee, I am writing this memorandum to document some concerns the Committee has regarding the physical accessibility of the University. Although the University has been under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act since January 26, 1992, the Committee feels there are still many buildings not fully accessible on campus. There were two main issues the Committee discussed at its last meeting: 1) the number of buildings across campus below ADA standards and possible legal liability; and 2) adequate ADA funding for your Department. The University truly has a unique opportunity to comply with provisions of the ADA and to fully embrace the spirit of the ADA. Appropriate funding is critical for the University to realize this opportunity.


Because appropriate funding is a required, the Committee is very cognizant that the University cannot fully embrace the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act without help from the State legislature. The Committee recommends the University pursue direct support, through your Department, with the Commission on Higher Education (CHE). As you know, CHE has created an ADA Task Force to review the physical plant needs of the State's thirty-three public colleges and universities. I understand you represented the University on this task force. This ADA Task Force paralleled CHE's ADA Instructional Service Task Force, which I represented the Columbia campus.
I spoke with John Sutusky, Associate Commissioner for Facilities, regarding CHE's ADA Task Force status. John said CHE decided to wait until next year to present the physical plant proposal. He said CHE voted only to present the instructional service proposal this year to the General Assembly. According to John, CHE considered the political implications of presenting two funding requests in the same year to the General Assembly. In light of the funding reductions for State agencies, CHE made a prudent decision to wait until next year. While CHE's start-up funding will be critical to fully embrace the spirit of the ADA, your Department will need an ADA budget to address accessibility needs of the University.


The second issue concerning the Committee is adequate funding for your Department. Similar to Educational Support Services' ADA budget for instructional service, the Committee believes your Department also needs its own ADA budget. The Committee will recommend the University administration establish and appropriate an ADA budget for your Department to address the physical plant needs of the University. Without an ADA budget, your Department literally has to "rob Peter to pay Paul". This ad hoc approach to ADA funding is not good fiscal management. An ADA budget would provide your Department the ability to set priorities and to fund different accessibility issues incrementally each fiscal year.
Each year there are different accessibility issues requiring funding to comply with provisions of the ADA. For example, when WIS-TV's Susan Aude Fisher spoke in March at the University's observance of Women History's month, the stage of Belk Auditorium was not accessible. At issue was an accessible and affordable ramp. Your office informed the Office of Disability Services that the Department of Facilities Management does not have an ADA budget. Eventually, your Department appropriated a $2,000 ramp. Another issue arose this fiscal year. The Law School had an on-site visit by Mr. James Lemon of the US Department of Education in response to a complaint about the building's inaccessibility. Mr. Lemon found some areas that needed to be corrected in the complaint. Both of these issues required funding from your Department. The Committee has requested me to explore the possibility of the University appropriating funding for an ADA budget in your Department. Only adequate funding will enable the University to comply with provisions of the ADA and to fully embrace the spirit of the ADA.


I realize the budget process has already started at the University, but the time is right to start the political process for next year's process. I will schedule a meeting with you this summer to start the process. An ADA budget for your Department would complement the accessibility of the University's instructional service. This is an achievable goal with the help of start-up funding from CHE. The Committee believes that the University is truly in a unique position to fully embrace the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Remember, no other institution in the State has this unique opportunity.


Alan Bauerschmidt, Chair The Committee had an active year, meeting on the second Wednesday of each month during the course of the year. Alan Bauerschmidt was elected the chair of the Committee at the August 17, 1994 meeting of the Committee chaired by the outgoing chair, Brian Fry.
At the September meeting of the University Faculty the President accepted a recommendation from the floor that the Faculty Advisory Committee take under advisement the proposed changes to the University Tenure and Promotion Procedures. This became an item on the agenda at each subsequent meeting of the Committee, from the move to support the proposed changes until the passage of the changes on April 3, 1995. The Committee assumed responsibility for shepherding the proposal through the actions decided necessary for its movement towards acceptance by the University Faculty.
At the September 14, 1994 meeting the Committee voted to approve proposed changes to the Grievance procedures in the Faculty Manual. The matter was subsequently referred to the Grievance Committee by action of the Faculty Senate, and ultimately passed.
On October 12, 1994, the Committee approved and brought forward changes in the Faculty Manual concerning the scheduling of meetings of the Faculty Senate.
Discussions concerning the role of Faculty in the handling of issues of professional and scientific misconduct were conducted at each meeting of the Committee through the course of the year without conclusion. At the December 14, 1994, meeting of the Committee the Provost brought forward recommended changes in the Faculty Manual to add reference to the University Policy concerning misconduct in research and scholarship. A motion to make the necessary changes and add languages concerning misconduct in the Manual was brought before the Senate. It is expected that the Committee will continue discussion of issues concerning professional and scientific misconduct during the course of the next year.
A report from the Chair of the Bookstore Committee recommending clarification of the role of that committee was brought before the Faculty Advisory Committee at its January 25, 1995 meeting. The Committee met with representatives of the Bookstore Committee and the Bookstore Oversight Committee to seek merger of the two committees while continuing to have certain members responsible to the Faculty Senate. This matter has not been fully resolved at the time of this report and FAC continues its interest in the issues.
At its April 12, 1995, meeting the Committee moved changes in the Faculty Manual eliminating the requirement for the approval of consulting activity by the Provost. This was forwarded to the Faculty Senate and the proposal was approved by that body at its May 3, 1995, meeting.
The merger of the Department of Media Arts into the Department of Art of the College of Liberal Arts was discussed and supported at both the April 12 and May 10, 1995 meetings of the Committee.
A discussion of the proposed administrative action to require student evaluation of all classes conducted at the May 10, 1995, meeting was inconclusive and the matter was referred back to the Chairman of the Faculty Senate.
The Committee met on May 31, 1995, in executive session and moved to support the termination of Professor Randall Chastain by the President. At its June 14, 1995, meeting the Committee considered the proposal of the Administration to establish a School of Environment. It was recommended that a study of the implications for faculty promotion be conducted, and that a joint committee of FAC and the Graduate Council be established. Caroline Strobel, George Holmes, and Alan Bauerschmidt volunteered to serve on the committee representing FAC.
During the course of the year the Committee received reports of the financial situation of the University and prepared to deal with issues of financial exigency. It also remained alert to pending legislation concerning the elimination of faculty tenure.
At the June 14 meeting, Nancy Lane was elected chair of FAC for the forthcoming year, with Alan Bauerschmidt serving as Secretary.

1994-1995 Sarah B. Wise, Chair

The Faculty Budget Committee met monthlyt during the 1994-1995 academic year. Committee members were:

Alan D. Bauerschmidt James C. Moeser,eEx officio Michael Smith Louis Terracio Marcia G. Welsh Sarah B. Wise Richard G. Zingmark

The charge of the Faculty Budget Committee includes consultation with the University of South Carolina Administration on all matters concerning the University budget, academic planning for the Columbia campus, and the financial implications of all degree programs submitted to the Graduate Council.
Monthly reports on University budget initiatives and activities were presented by Dr. James C. Moeser. Other University Officers also briefed the Committee on the University budget from their perspective. The Committee considered new funding elements of several graduate degree programs.

Representatives of the Faculty Budget Committee attended the Administrative Budget Hearings which were held in May, 1995. The Committee was also represented in other meetings which involved budgetary planning for the University of South Carolina system.

Respectifully submitted on behalf of the members of the Faculty Budget Committee.

1994-1995 David Adcock, Chair

During the Academic Year 1994-95, there were 19 meetings of the Grievance Committee. The Committee was approached 12 times by faculty requesting assistance from the Grievance Committee. These requests resulted in seven (7) formal grievance procedures.
In addition, proposed changes to the Faculty Manual which might affect the faculty grievance process were considered, and recommendations for revision were made.
To ensure fairness and consistency, the Committee developed a set of operating procedures. These are included with this report to generally inform the faculty. Each individual appealing to the Grievance Committee will be informed of these operating procedures at the time of the initial contact.

Grievance Committee Procedures:

  1. The grievance process begins with a written petition by the affected faculty member. The petition should include a clear statement of the nature of the problem, the internal steps used to seek a cure for the problem, the remedy sought, and the evidence supporting the petitioner's position. The petitioner should also submit copies of relevant documents or references to documents in files such as those for tenure and promotion. The Committee Chair will then send a copy of the petition and supporting documents to the responding party (including relevant administrative officials such as the department chair, dean, and provost). If the responding party already has the documents submitted, the Committee Chair will list the documents relied on by the petitioner.
  2. The Committee Chair will invite the responding party to reply in writing, providing its view of the nature of the problem, the evidence supporting its position, the appropriateness of the remedy sought, and any alternative remedies. The responding party may also provide references to documents in files such as those for tenure or promotion. The Committee Chair will provide a copy of the reply and supporting evidence to the petitioner.
  3. The goal of steps 1 and 2 is to assure full communication and full disclosure between the parties. If those steps suggest that further communication between the parties might contribute to a settlement or at least narrow their differences, the Committee Chair will suggest such discussions and will delay Committee action until they are completed.
  4. If a hearing is necessary, the Committee Chair will invite both sides to attend, with or without counsel as they prefer. Neither party may exclude the other from any step of the process. Both parties are free to request further evidence from the other and to request the presence of appropriate witnesses. The Committee Chair will attempt to fulfill these requests.
  5. The hearing will be orderly but informal. Normally it will involve: (a) petitioner's statement; (b) questions of the petitioner by the Committee and by the responding party; (c) witnesses for the petitioner; (d) responding party's statement; (e) questions of the responding party by the Committee and by the petitioner; (f) witnesses for the responding party; (g) closing statements by both parties. The procedure may vary as circumstances dictate.
  6. The Committee will then deliberate in private, deciding the merits and the recommended remedy solely on the basis of the testimony presented and the documents reviewed. The Committee will send a copy of its decision to both parties, as well as to the President and Provost.

1994-1995 John Lopiccolo, Chair

......... .....SEPT...OCT...NOV...DEC...JAN...FEB...MAR...APR...MAY...JULY...TOTAL



REJECTED..... ...7....15....2......4.....2.....6......6.....3.....3.....16.....64

APPROVED.... ...86....45...26.....32....16...116....179....29....32....179....740







I appreciate the hard work of other committee members: Joseph Byrd, Gail Ford, Dianne Ward and Stephen McNeill. Joseph Byrd, Engineering, will serve as chair for 1995-96. Special thanks to Jeanna Luker in the Faculty Senate office for all her help in handling the grade change paperwork.



Janet Nussbaum, Chair

The committee meets together annually and generates separate work groups to accomplish the task of student record reviews and interviews. This year 68 students were interviewed, generating 408 letters to 125 schools. The average student had 6 letters sent to various schools. Overall, 61 of the 95 students (64.2%) applying to health professions schools were accepted. Of those students applying 34 (35.7%) were women, with an acceptance rate of 64.7%.

The majority (58.7%) of health professions students applications are for medical schools. Students who were successful applicants had average MCAT scores of 26.97 and GPA of 3.505. Again this year, 17 or our students were admitted to MUSC School of Medicine with 20/44 being accepted to USC's program.

As outgoing chair, I extend a sincere note of thanks to all committee members, and especially EF Thompson, for their dedication and work on the committee.

Continuing Members:

Outgoing Members:

Welcome to new members:

Dan Barron, Chair

Please note that the documents indicated in this report as being attached are on file with the original report in the Faculty Senate Office. Space considerations make their inclusion impossible.

Members of the Committee:

Rob Coleman, chemistry; John Gardner, regional campuses and continuing education; Maria Girardi, mathematics; Thavolia Glymph, history; Don Greiner (ex officio), Office of the Provost; Walt Hanclosky, media arts; Ed Intemann, theater and speech; Jerry Jewler, journalism; Teri Kuhs, education; John McFadden, education; Carolyn Matalene, English; Ed Piepmeier, pharmacy; Suzanne Stroman, applied professional science; Lori Tombs, statistics; and Marco Valtorta, mathematics.

A. Major Activities of the Chair

December, 1994--at the request of the Provost, presented a report to the Board of Trustees on the teaching focus of the University, (see attached report, Teaching: A Major Focus of USC Faculty/Doc 1). February, 1995--met with the Council of Academic Deans to get them to encourage their faculties to complete and submit the Faculty Instructional Development Survey.

B. Major Activities and Accomplishments of the Sub--Groups of the Committee

  1. Teaching Breakfasts--Lori Thombs and Thavolia Glymph. A total of four Breakfasts were conducted which included: Kirk Fiedler and Miriam Mitchell, "An Educational Program for Entering Cyberspace," October 25 & 26, 1994; Horacio Farach, "Some Experiments in Teaching." December 1; 1995; Ed Piepmeier and Douglas Williams, "Relationship Between Undergraduate Research and Teaching," February 14 & 15, 1995; and Robert Oakman and John Bryan, "MediaLink," March 14 & 15, 1995.
  2. Instructional Development Grants--Don Greiner (Chair); Thavolia Glymph, John Gardner, Marco Valtorta, and Bill Bearden (member from outside selected by the Provost). In cooperation with the Office of the Provost the Committee participated in the selection of 10 recipients. These were: Lewis Bowman, biological sciences; Thomas Bryson, chemistry; Ronald Farrar, journalism; Alan Fried, journalism; R.B. Hilborn, engineering; Deanna Leamon, art; Michael Matthews and Bolton Kahn, engineering; Heidi Mills, education; Stephen Stancyk, marine science; and Jeffery Wilson and Carl Rosenfeld, physics and astronomy.
  3. Mungo Award--Suzanne Stroman (Chair), Maria Girardi, Rob Coleman, Ed Piepmeier, Cassie Sturkie (student), and Michael Boone (student). The Committee assisted the Office of the Provost in selecting the 5 recipients for the Michael J Mungo Teaching Awards. These were: David Cowart, English; Robert Jesselson, music: Daniel Reger, chemistry; Farid Sadik, pharmacy; and John Spurrier, statistics.
  4. Teaching Center--Carolyn Matalene (Chair), Walt Hanclosky, Jerry Jewler, and Teri Kuhs. The Committee has proposed the development of a Teaching Center to support and enhance teaching. In lieu of an actual physical "center," which appears to be beyond the fiscal capabilities of the University at this time, the Committee has submitted a request to Susan Bridwell, Director of Distance Education and Instructional Support, to initiate a "virtual teaching center" or Teaching Network (see attached letter 1 May 1995/Doc 2). It is the vision of the Committee that a person, yet to be determined, will work with the FCID and the Office of the Provost to provide many of the original services suggested for a Teaching Center by the original study team (see attached memo 20 February 1995/Doc 3). The Committee currently makes available a listserv to support faculty discussion related to teaching (see attached announcement "A Virtual Teaching Center: TEACHTR"/Doc 4) which was published in Times. The Committee anticipates working closely with the Division of Human Resources as well as continue to pursue the ongoing activities of the Committee which relate to the services expected from a Teaching Center.
  5. Needs and Resources Assessment--Jerry Jewler (Chair), Johnny McFadden, and Ed Intemann. The Committee, with funds from the Office of the Provost developed, tested, and mailed a survey to every member of the teaching faculty on the Columbia Campus of the University (see attached survey/Doc 5). The Department of Statistics is currently analyzing the data, and the Committee will provide a completed report in the early fall. Included in the survey was a request for information related to facilities improvement and an opportunity for faculty to volunteer to become a peer mentor by having his or her name put into a data base which will be shared electronically via the Teaching Center listserv and Web Site (under construction).
  6. Teaching Evaluation--Marco Valtorta (Chair), Lori Thombs, and Dan Barron. At the request of the Office of the Provost, the Committee has requested information related to faculty evaluation (see memo 25 March 1995/Doc 6.) A report from an analysis of this information will be available in the early fall. The Committee encourages the 1995-1996 Committee to hold an open faculty forum to discuss this topic prior to the Committee recommendation to the Provost.
  7. President's Annual Report and other PR--Teri Kuhs (Chair), and Dan Barron. The Committee worked with the Office of the President to dedicate the Annual Report to teaching. With great appreciation to that Office, the Report was given that focus.
  8. Mentoring Program--Bill Bearden, Dan Barron, and Maria Girardi. The Lily Teaching Fellows Program funding ended this year. The Committee, working with Dr. Bill Bearden, business, attempted several options for continuing that program under a different title. Turned down by the Department of Athletics (see letter and attached proposal 15 March l995/Doc 7), the Committee continues to work with Dr. Bearden to foster the development of a similar program which will complement the success of the Lily Program.
  9. Carolina Chaired Professorships. The Committee Chairperson met with the Secretary of the Board of Trustees to encourage the Board to continue its funding of the Carolina Chaired Professorships. It is anticipated that funding of these Professorships will come as the Capital Campaign progresses.
Other Activities of the Committee
  1. The Chair met with the Classroom Enhancement Task Force which was to plan for renovations in Gambrell and Humanities. Working with the Dean's and Department Chairpersons, Ina Rae Hark, Humanities, and Matt Miller, Mathematics, were selected to represent the Committee and the faculty interests and concerns related to the renovations.

Robert M. Weir, Chair

1. The committee met monthly throughout the year with the vice provost and dean of libraries and the director of public services. Other heads of divisions also met with the committee when their areas of expertise were under discussion. The committee wishes to thank all of them for assistance throughout the year.

2. Library officials supplied and the committee forwarded budget figures for fiscal 1995. (They appear in the April Senate Minutes.) Here, the committee wishes only to note that the total library budget is up nearly 5% over fiscal '94 budget, in part because of monies made available through the Futures process. 80% of these funds have been allocated toward strengthening collections. However, serials--for which allocations are up approximately 12%--continue to present a serious challenge to a budget that has no surplus. How best to deal with the rising cost of journals has been one of the chief areas of discussion during meetings between members of the Library Committee and various departments.

3. During the spring semester, members of the Library Committee and the director of public services for the library responded to invitations to visit fourteen departments representing a wide variety of disciplines. Convenient access to an adequate range of serials proved to be a continuing source of concern. Accordingly, the library will henceforth circulate a list of pending serial cuts to all departmental library representatives, so that-- hopefully--no serial essential to one department will be inadvertently cut by another without adequate consultation.

The library is also considering alternative methods of providing access to particularly expensive titles. One approach might be to drop current subscriptions to the bound volumes and use the campus computer network to make their tables of contents available to all faculty members. The library could then provide users with copies of desired articles through inter-library loan or a document delivery service. The initial reaction to this approach by most departments was quite positive.

Whatever methods are finally adopted, the Library Committee understands the administration's reluctance to continue increasing the allocation for serials published in the traditional format, and it therefore endorses the search for satisfactory alternatives.

4. Space to house collections remains a continuing problem but one that appears on the way to solution. The University will construct a nearby off-site facility with approximately 10,000 square feet of stack area affording efficient storage space. Planning (with faculty membership in the steering and other committees overseeing the project) is already well underway. Although few if any library administrators and faculty members would choose to house materials in a storage facility if money were no object, the experience of other universities suggests this is the most satisfactory, cost-effective alternative.

5. The committee calls attention to several other items of note as well as one development that appears to be cause for concern: A. The Government Documents area is being renovated and reorganized according to plans endorsed by the committee. The much-needed improvements will include several new microform reader/printers.

B. As was announced earlier (in the April Faculty Senate meeting), the library now ranks twentieth among libraries belonging to the American Association of Research Libraries in the size of its government documents collection and eighth in the efficiency of its interlibrary loan department. This is the first year that it has had two departments in the top twenty since it became a member of the Association. C. At the committee's request, the library administration is exploring the feasibility of providing a small faculty lounge in Thomas Cooper. D. Less heartening to members of the committee than the above, recently released results from the College Student Experience Questionnaire administered in 1993 indicate a substantial drop in the frequency with which USC students use the library as a library (not merely as a place to study). They rank well below national norms in categories such as looking up references cited in assigned reading materials, etc. Stimulating intellectual curiosity is of course a major part of the faculty's job, but helping students to satisfy it is also a large part of a university library's function. Sufficient funding to make Thomas Cooper a convenient, undergraduate library--where students may browse the stacks and find multiple copies of standard works--as well as a first-class research facility, remains a high priority.

Professor Churchill Curtis (Applied Professional Sciences) has been elected chair of the Library Committee for 1995-96. The outgoing chair thanks members of the committee for their cheerful cooperation and diligent work.

Loren Knapp, Chair

During the academic year 1994-1995, the Patent and Copyright Committee (PCC) considered, and made recommendations to the Provost on, 13 disclosures submitted by faculty, staff and students at the Columbia campus. Many of these inventions and discoveries have potentially long range value to the research and medical community, to education and teaching, to the individual faculty or staff member whose ongoing work they represent, and to the University community as a whole. The Office of Technology Transfer and the Legal Department are proceeding with the patenting and/or licensing of a number of these intellectual properties.
The PCC has also been involved in reassessing the standard equity to inventors in those categories in which the University has provided significant assistance. During the 1993-1994 fiscal year, the PCC recommended that the standard equity for patents be increased from 30% to 40% for the inventor. The administration acted favorably on that recommendation. This year, the committee recommended that the disclosure process for copyrights be made congruent with that of patents, and standard equity for copyrights be increased to 40% for the inventor or creator of the work, with 20% each to the University, College and Department.
In addition, the committee recommended that the University's Software Policy (#1.39 of the USC Policies and Procedures Manual) be removed from the jurisdiction of the Legal Department, and be included under the patent and copyright policy outlined in the Faculty Manual. This was done in an effort to centralize the receipt of disclosures of all-classes, and to streamline the process by which they are handled. Among the discussions for the 1994-1995 fiscal year that will continue into the new year are redefining the role of the PCC in terms of policies and procedures, and in developing a system-wide policy to deal with the processing of patents and copyrights. Centralization of these procedures will be a key issue in determining how to coordinate the growth of patent and copyright applications, and efficiently and fairly deal with intellectual properties. It is the intention of this committee to insure that the interests of the faculty, staff and students involved in discovery be protected and secure during the process of their disclosure.

Committee Composition for 1994-1995:
Elected: Vance Cowden, Law; Donald Keating, Engineering; Sally Weinrich, Nursing; Marsha Baum, Law; Chris Kozma, Pharmacy; Loren Knapp, Biological Sciences. Appointed: Ardis Savory, SPAR; Russell Putnam, Legal Department; William Littlejohn, OTT.

Leon Ginsberg, Chair

The Committee, which consists of David Adcock, Department of Radiology; David Cowen, Humanities/Social Sciences Computing Lab; Leon Ginsberg, College of Social Work; Alan Nairn, Department of Geological Sciences; John Rich, USC/Aiken; Dan Ruff, USC/Salkehatchie; Ardis Savory, Sponsored Programs and Research; and Robert Weyeneth, Department of History, met twice during the 1994-95 Academic Year. At its fall meeting, members Ginsberg, Savory, and Weyeneth, were in attendance. At its spring meeting on March 30, members Adcock, Cowen, Ginsberg, Nairn, Ruff, and Savory were in attendance. During both of its meetings, the Committee reviewed current research and training grant activity between the University of South Carolina and its regional campuses and the Savannah River Site, which is channeled through SCUREF (South Carolina Universities Research and Education Foundation.) At its spring meeting, the Committee discussed its mission, which is to "...continuously review the relationship between the University and the consortium formed with Clemson University and the Medical University of South Carolina, and between the University and the Savannah River Laboratory. The committee shall be charged with making periodic recommendations concerning policy governing these relationships and shall have access to all information needed to fulfill this charge." The Committee asked that the University Senate reaffirm its mission and that the faculty senates at the involved regional campuses similarly reaffirm the Committee's mission. There was some discussion of modifying and expanding that mission to include advocacy for the development of projects with and for SRS. The Committee did not agree on any such change in its mission but suggested that the University Senate and related governance bodies at the regional campuses might want to examine such modifications. For the current academic year, the Committee has no recommendations concerning policy governing USC's relationship with SCUREF or with the Savannah River Site.



Thorne Compton, Chair

The University Committee on Standards and Petitions met ten times between August 22, 1994 and June 20, 1995. The meeting dates in 1994 were August 22, Sept. 15, Oct. 17, and Nov. 17. In 1995 the Committee met on Jan. 19, Feb. 23, Mar. 23, April 18, May 2, and June 20.

Members of the Committee were:

Richard Uray was elected Chair in June 1994. On Jan. 19, 1995 he resigned because of ill health. Prof. Compton was elected to succeed him for the spring semester.

Student Petitions

Two petitions were received from students appealing decisions made at the College level. The Committee decided one was without merit and dismissed it. The second was heard and approval was recommended.

Other Actions and Proposals

  1. The Committee reviewed, suggested amendments in approved and recommended to the Senate catalog changes proposed by the College of Nursing, The College of Pharmacy and the South Carolina Honors College.

  2. The Committee considered and approved with amendments a proposal from the Office of the Provost and the South Carolina Honors College to create an Accelerated Undergraduate Program which would allow highly motivated students to begin graduate study while completing their Undergraduate degree.

  3. The Committee spent a great deal of time discussing proposed changes in the system for academic suspension. It disapproved a proposal from the Council of Assistant and Associate Deans to change our current 24 deficit system to a "divisor system." It was decided that the "divisor system" would not solve the current problems (students allowed to continue in school too long), and would create other problems. (See Appendix 2)

  4. Considered a proposal from Student Government to extend the drop and add dates. This proposal was amended to extend the add date from 5:00 PM to midnight of the last add day. The Faculty Senate approved the proposal as amended.

  5. Discussed and approved an amendment to the Academic Forgiveness Policy. The Senate referred this amendment back to the Committee.

  6. Discussed at length the impact of an Academic Transition proposal. This proposal is still in the process of development.

  7. Approved a change in language in the University's Admission policy.

  8. Discussed but did not approve a proposal to exempt from petition the current policies on Academic Forgiveness and Graduation with Honors. While the Committee agreed that this might make these policies stronger and easier to enforce, it might also interfere with what are currently seen as responsibilities of the Faculty.

  9. The Committee will begin the process of reviewing the report of the Assessment Advisory Committee in September. It will also continue to pursue alternatives to the current system of Academic Suspension.

I would like to express the appreciation of the Committee to the staff of the Faculty Senate; Fran Speach and Diane Dunkley of the Department of Theatre, Speech and Dance; Associate Provost Greiner; the Assistant and Associate Deans; and the network of faculty and staff who are committed to improving the academic standards of our institution.

Table 1. Committee on Scholastic Standards and Petitions 1994-95 Summary of College Petitions and Standards


Appl Prof Sci.. 41.........33........ 0 ....... 8....... 0

BADM............66.........18........35........13....... 0

Cont. Ed ....... 6..........6.........0........ 0 .......0



Health..........47......... 0........28........19........0


(Lib Arts).....396........141.......178........74 3

JOUR ...........29 .........6........15.........8........0

MUSC........... 26.........15.........3.........7........0



SCI MATH.........1..........6.........3........11........0

SCHC............ 0..........0.........0.........0........0


TO: University Standards and Petitions Committee

FROM: Thorne Compton

DATE: February 23, 1994

RE: Suspension System Recommendations

The problems we were asked to address in reforming the University's academic standards were:

  1. Students are allowed to continue in the University until they fall so far behind that it is extremely difficult for them to enter the major of their choice or to complete a degree.

  2. There is not an adequate safety net to catch students who find themselves falling into academic difficulty.

  3. Divergent standards among the Colleges have created a class of students who pursue academic programs because they qualify for them rather than because they are motivated to study these areas.

  4. A class of students has been created who qualify to pursue a degree, but who do not have a reasonable chance of completing an academic program.

  5. The current suspension system is unduly complicated and difficult to explain to students.

Solutions which have been proposed by the Assistant and Associate Deans and by members of this Committee solve some of these problems, but no one proposed system solves all of the problems without creating some new difficulties.

The "100 Divisor" system. There are two possible ways of applying this system. The first is to suspend on the basis of the cumulative and yearly GPA. This system would suspend approximately 20% more students as the present system, and the distribution would be significantly different.

It would actually suspend a smaller percentage of students in the Freshman and Sophomore years (48.03%) than the present system (51.66%). A negative consequence would be a decline in tuition by approximately $500,000 on the Columbia campus.

Using the same divisor by applying it only on the cumulative GPA would result in suspending approximately 20% more students than we presently do and suspending them later.

It would suspend 44.77% in the first two years versus the present system's 51.66%. On the Columbia campus there would be a decline in tuition of approximately $150,000.

Using the same system as above but using a divisor of 75 would suspend significantly more students overall, but a smaller percentage during the first two years. Applying the 75 divisor for cumulative and yearly GPA would result in doubling the number of students suspended, but suspend them later than the present system (44.84% in the first two years vs 51.66% in the present system). The decrease in tuition on the Columbia Campus would be approximately $725,000.

Using the 75 divisor only on the cumulative GPA would increase the number of suspensions on the Columbia campus by approximately 70% but also suspend them later (43.34% in the first two years vs 51.66% in the present system). The decrease in tuition in Columbia would be approximately $550,000.

The "divisor system" may well be easier to explain and understand, but it appears not to give students an earlier warning. Both the 75 and 100 divisor systems would suspend more people and would result in a net loss in tuition. While tuition loss is not an issue with which this is charged to discuss, it is a context in which decisions are made.

Neither the present system nor these proposed systems actually address getting academic assistance to students, nor do they necessarily solve the problem of "academic boat people."



J. Thomas Davis, Chair

In accordance with the policy as stated in The Faculty Manual (1987), College committees on scholastic standards and petitions are required to submit "an annual report on the number of petitions received and the disposition of each to the University committee by September" (page 20).

College: Continuing Education

Academic Year: 1994--1995

Type of Information and Number

Total petitions received--6

Type of petitions

Early Reinstatement from Suspension-- 0

Relief from Admissions Requirements-- 0

Relief from Progressions Requirements-- 0

Relief from Graduation Requirements --0

Other-- 6

Type of action taken

None-- 0

Approval without conditions--6

Conditional approval-- 0



Harriett S. Williams, Chair

Harriett S. Williams Celso DeOliveira Shirley Kuiper Ralph Morgan David Berube Carolyn Matalene

Dennis Pruitt, ex officio Richard Bayer Carl Stokes Amy Griffin Byron McKie Carrie Sicora J.J. Gentry Sheila Swanson Rhonda Green

The Student Affairs Committee met three times during 1994-95. During the fall meeting, ex officio member Dennis Pruitt presented an overview of major issues facing students and the division of Student Affairs. We discussed these issues, none of which required our action. Committee members requested that the second meeting focus on student media. Chris Carroll, Director of Student Media, met with us in November to give an overview of student media's operations and budget. He then answered questions of committee members and noted suggestions to convey to student media editors.
Our final meeting was March 20, during which we heard a report from the Student Fee Receipt Task Force, a group of faculty, staff, and students who had been working for eighteen months to suggest how to re-engineer the student activity fee. Members of the Task Force who met with us were Jerry Brewer, Woody Carothers, and the following student government officers: President Amy Bigham, former treasurer Brad Holt, 1995 Treasurer Jermaine Britton, and Senate Finance Chair John Martin. This Task Force, appointed by the Vice President for Student Affairs, had as its mission to:

  1. Review the status of the activity fee in meeting the needs of the institution and student organizations.
  2. Review the manner of allocating activity fees.
  3. Ensure the allocation of fees is done in a manner which will meet the tests of higher education institutional standards and current case law on the use of mandatory fees.
  4. Review the management practices and procedures for activity fee accounts to ensure the maximum utility of funds.
  5. The Task Force reviewed all information on the current activity fee process and surveyed peer institutions in the Southeast to collect activity fee information to provide comparison data. Their recommendations were to increase the funds collected through the activity fee to $1,700,000, an approximate $700,000 increase. Furthermore, all graduate students taking nine or more hours and all undergraduate students taking twelve or more hours would be required to pay. (Formerly, graduate students taking nine hours had the option not to pay the fee, yet they still had access to all student events and recreational services.) Finally, Student Government will allocate funds to organizations based on those organizations' plans for events, rather than simply allocating money to the organization based on prior budgets.
    After an extensive hearing and questioning of the Task Force members, the Student Affairs Committee endorsed the recommendations and thereby sent the recommendation forward. The Task Force proposal was presented by Amy Bigham to the Student/Trustee Liaison Committee and then will be presented to the full Board of Trustees at the June meeting.
Dr. David Berube will serve as Chair of the Student Affairs Committee for 1995-6.

John McFadden, Chair

The Tenure Review Board did not convene during the 1994-95 year because there were no faculty cases to review. Therefore, the board has no activity to be included in the university's annual report. Thank you for your attention.


1995 Lowdnes Stephens, Chair

Actions regarding the following activities of the University Committee on Tenure and Promotions (UCTP) were summarized in a four-page memorandum to the Faculty Advisory Committee dated November 6, 1994. The memorandum is included as part of the report of the Faculty Advisory Committee (see Faculty Senate Minutes, November 18, 1994):

That report was a mid-year report to the faculty and this report covers actions of the committee during the spring and summer 1995.

Summary of Tenure and Promotion Voting Record, 1994-95

UCTP's consideration of candidates for tenure and promotion is reflected in the ballots completed by panel members and by each eligible UCTP member who attends the meeting of the committee of the whole at which a case is discussed. These ballots and the justification statements on the ballots collectively reflect the votes of UCTP members.

The UCTP considered a total of 98 cases for tenure and promotion during the year. In 98% of those cases the vote of UCTP (";Yes,"; defined as one more ";yes"; than ";no"; vote, or ";No,"; defined as one more ";no"; than ";yes"; vote), the Provost and the President was the same. In two cases the UCTP supported candidates not supported by the Provost or the President. The level of agreement between UCTP and the Deans was 83% and between UCTP and the Unit (faculty votes) 72%.

General Faculty Vote on T & P Changes in Faculty Manual

UCTP brought three recommendations to the general faculty for first ";reading"; on May 3, 1994, and explained its rationale at the September 7th general faculty meeting (see minutes dated April 21, 1995). Letters were written to deans and T&P chairs inviting a dialogue on these recommendations; members of UCTP attended several departmental faculty meetings during the year to discuss these recommendations and proposed amendments. The Faculty Advisory Committee recommended a process for getting faculty input which involved filing amendments with the Office of the Secretary to the Faculty. After extensive consultation with members of UCTP, the Provost, the Faculty Advisory Committee, the Parliamentarian, Deans and Department Chairs, and several faculty members, the UCTP chair wrote a letter November 15 to President Palms requesting that he call a special faculty meeting to consider the UCTP recommendations and amendments to them. President Palms called a Special General Faculty meeting for April 3, 1995. The Secretary to the Faculty sent a memorandum to all faculty on February 24 announcing the special meeting. His memorandum included the recommendations of the UCTP and amendments submitted to the Secretary to the Faculty. The faculty met in the Law School auditorium on April 3 for three hours and voted on these recommendations and amendments. The results of that vote are summarized in the minutes circulated to the faculty April 21, 1995. Recommendation 1 was approved with the following replacing paragraph four:

The University is committed to achievement in all three areas of its mission. Collectively, the faculty profile of the University and of any academic unit should reflect a record of high quality teaching, research, and service, but because it is recognized that the strength of any university lies in its diversity of talents, not every faculty member need demonstrate exemplary achievements of promise in each of them. Promotion and tenure will generally be awarded, as long as the evidence presented shows that a candidate's research/scholarship/performance accomplishments are excellent and the candidate's teaching and service is also strong, or if a candidate's teaching accomplishments are excellent and the candidate's research/scholarship/performance and service accomplishments are also sufficiently strong to meet the requirements for promotion.

It will be unusual and exception to award promotion and tenure merely on the basis of strong performance in only one of these areas. In every instance, the record of teaching, research (scholarship or creative performance), and service shall be thoroughly documented,in compliance with UCTP guidelines, with unit criteria regarding what constitutes high quality to serve as the basis for such decisions.

Several methods of evaluation should be used, and the record should be thorough enough to indicate not just past performance, but a reasonable likelihood of continued excellence.

Recommendation 2 was approved without change. It recommended deleting the ";relevant data"; list on page 30 of the Faculty Manual and inserting there this paragraph:

A candidate and the academic unit should follow UCTP guidelines for putting files together. These guidelines include among other things that the unit is responsible for 1) providing a synthesis of evaluations of the candidate's teaching performance and a summary of supporting evidence in the file; 2) providing assessments of the candidate's performance from appropriate referees employed outside the University.

Recommendation 3 called for changing the last sentence of the first paragraph in Amendments and Transitional Provisions on page 32 and adding a paragraph between the first and second paragraphs in this section. The last sentence of the first paragraph was approved with this amendment:

No change shall be made in the University-wide tenure and promotion regulations except by vote of the full voting membership of the University faculty or by direction of the Board of Trustees. In no event shall any change in tenure and promotion regulations be made retroactively for faculty hired before January 1, 1995, unless the faculty member chooses otherwise.

The additional paragraph recommendation was approved without change:

Faculty members hired into the tenure track after January 1, 1995, will be responsible within their probationary period for meeting the unit tenure and promotion criteria and University standards in effect at the time of their hiring. For all subsequent promotions the faculty member will be responsible for meeting unit criteria and University standards in effect at the time of their application for that promotion.

Subcommittee Actions

UCTP approved minor revisions in the tenure and promotion guidelines of one unit, recommended additional changes in guidelines submitted by two other units, and visited with two other units concerning their proposed guideline revisions. UCTP received proposed revisions from one other unit and will work with the unit on those revisions next year.

Timely review of revised guidelines submitted to UCTP is a problem the Subcommittee on Criteria and Procedures is working on over the summer. Bob Oakman, chair of the subcommittee in 1994-95, is working with Jeanna Luker of the Faculty Senate Office, to schedule meetings with units that have not yet had any feedback from UCTP (School of Music and Department of Educational Leadership and Policies).

The UCTP wrote a letter to each unit T&P chair on September 15 asking that s/he send a copy of the unit's current T&P guidelines to Jeanna (so we could compare what is in UCTP files with what the units regard as their most current guidelines) and to let us know if they were awaiting feedback from UCTP (a tracking form was included). This year we assigned 12 members to the criteria and procedures subcommittee. Next year, the intention is that each subcommittee member will be assigned five or six units to contact to determine if they need any assistance from UCTP.

The Subcommittee on Internal Rules, chaired by Nancy Wolfe, brought several recommendations to UCTP this year which the committee of 24 accepted. One recommendation called on the chair to notify the Provost, Deans, Chairs and Unit T&P chairs that UCTP would delay voting on files that lacked evidence needed to determine if the candidates meet unit standards and criteria for tenure and/or promotion, until that information could be obtained.

This year three units were asked to provide evidence and a synthesis of evidence on teaching effectiveness. They did so and the files in question were reviewed and voted on two weeks later. The procedure calls for the panel chair (files are initially reviewed by three panels) to notify the UCTP chair if panel members vote to delay review of a file on grounds of insufficient evidence.

The panel chair clarifies what kinds of documentation are missing and requests that the UCTP chair contact the unit directly to determine if the evidence can be provided.

The subcommittee also recommended that UCTP advise the Office of the Provost not to request age and place of birth on any tenure and promotion forms. UCTP accepted the recommendation, advised the Provost and he has accepted the recommendation.

The subcommittee also coordinated requests from unit chairs for three general counsel opinions on tenure and promotion matters. (NOTE: These opinions are attached to the hard copy of this report which is in the Faculty Senate Office and was part of the printed agenda for the September 6, 1995 General Faculty Meeting.) In one opinion counsel concludes that the ";goldenrod"; booklet (A Guide to USC- Columbia Tenure and Promotion Procedures (last revised November 1, 1990) is indeed interpretive, not a controlling authority. In another opinion counsel concludes the Ethics, Government Accountability and Campaign Reform Act of 1991 precludes a faculty member from voting on the promotion or tenure application of his or her spouse. Three faculty units asked UCTP for an opinion on this issue. In another opinion, counsel argues that the Faculty Manual precludes allowing just full professors to vote on the adoption of criteria for promotion to full professor.

UCTP voted at its March 29 meeting to establish an ad hoc committee next year to revise the so-called ";goldenrod"; booklet to reflect changes in internal rules, the vote of the General Faculty (on April 3) to change the language in the Faculty Manual on tenure and promotion, and to include the three opinions from general counsel this year.

Grievance Hearings

The chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee invited written response to faculty grievances of tenure and promotion decisions and attendance by the chair of UCTP at grievance hearings during the summer 1995. The chair has responded in writing to each of these grievances and has attended one hearing to date.

Leadership and Committee Membership in 1995-96

Tom Borg, Medicine, was elected chair of UCTP for 1995-96.

More than 300 colleagues cast ballots in the election of members to the 1995-96 UCTP. The chair of UCTP notified each candidate of the results in a memo May 11. The five candidates with the highest number of votes will serve three-year terms beginning in 1995-96. They are:

The President has appointed two members who were on the ballot this year (Professor Matthew Miller, Mathematics, and Professor Ralph White, Chemical Engineering) and another colleague who was not on the ballot (Professor Laury Christie, Music).

Three other members who were on the ballot this year stood for a UCTP election to fill a seat vacated by an elected member. Ron Wilder (Economics) was elected by mail ballot (to 1994-95 UCTP members) to complete the last year of Ann Bowman's (GINT) term. Professor Bowman received a Fulbright Award and will be in Denmark next year. Each candidate for this vacant seat was notified of the election results on July 11.

The Faculty Manual (p. 29) says; "No more than three elected members may be from any single college or school except the College of Humanities and Social Sciences (Liberal Arts now) which may have up to six elected members."; The following table reflects the college affiliations of the 24 members who will be on the UCTP in 1995-96: On each line the first number is the year the term expires, the second item is the College/School, the third item is the number elected and the fourth is the number appointed.

96.....Business Administration.....1.....0

97.....Business Administration.....1.....1

98.....Business Administration.....1.....0

96.....Applied Prof Science........1.....0

97..... Education..................1.....0



96.....Liberal Arts................1.....0

97.....Liberal Arts................1.....2

98.....Liberal Arts................3.....0





96.....Public Health...............0.....1

97.....Public Health...............1.....0

98.....Science and Mathematics.....1.....1

96.....Social Work.................0.....1



Richard G. Zingmark, Chair

The Committee on Faculty Welfare met at least monthly during the Fall and Spring Semesters of the 1994-95 Academic Year and more frequently when business required it.

The Committee dealt with several major issues during the year...some new and a few the committee felt obligated to track that were left over from last year:

  1. The Faculty Senate resolution (Dec. 93) to change the language of our non- discrimination policy to include the phrase 'sexual orientation' is still on hold with the Board of Trustees until President Palms receives information about the policies of other academic institutions.

  2. The policy statements concerning sexual harassment, passed by the Senate in May 93, did not require Board of Trustees approval and was administratively inserted into the USC Columbia Campus Policies and Procedures Manual. Subsequently, a system wide sexual harassment policy was adopted and promulgated by the other USC campuses.

  3. The committee considered the final report of the provost's Salary Equity Task Force of Jan 95 and prepared a resolution that was submitted to and amended and passed by the Senate (Mar 95) designed to prevent the conditions of salary compression and salary inequities in the future. The Faculty Senate and Faculty Welfare Committee should continue to track the progress of the administration's enactment of the policies and procedures mandated in the resolutions.

  4. The committee considered the faculty's desire to receive increases in compensation for teaching summer courses and submitted a report to the Senate (Apr 95) recommending that the percentage of the 9 month salary used to compute summer pay (15%) be raised to bring USC in line with other southeastern universities (20%) by Summer Session I, 1996. The Faculty Senate and Faculty Welfare Committee should continue to track the progress of the administration's actions in this matter.

  5. The committee continued to consider faculty wellness issues. Professor Harriet Williams chaired a subcommittee that developed a questionnaire regarding the awareness of and the needs for health and wellness programs at USC. The results of the survey are currently being compiled and analyzed by Dr. Williams and a doctoral student in Public Health. This subcommittee will continue to function in 95-96.

  6. The Senate (Apr 95) requested the Welfare Committee to look into the procedures necessary to unionize the faculty. The request came too late in the year for the committee to consider it carefully. Next year's committee should act on this judiciously.

  7. A number of other matters brought to the committee by various faculty members were dealt with by the chair in cooperation with appropriate university offices.

The committee elected Eldon Wedlock (Law) as its chair for the 1995-96 Academic Year.

This page updated 22 September 1997 by the Office of the Faculty Senate,
and copyright 1997, The Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina.
URL http://www.sc.edu/faculty/senate/95/annual/annual.html