No cases were referred to the Faculty Committee on Academic Responsibility during the 1995-96 academic year. Therefore, no meetings, either adjudicatory or business, were held within the past twelve months.
Members: Frank Berger, Jim Burns, Chair, Mary Caldwell, Terry Davis, ex officio, Joseph Gibbons, Blease Graham, Donald Greiner, Steven Lynn, Paul MacKenzie, Patricia McNeely, Mary Ellen O'Leary
The Committee on Admissions reviewed fifty-nine files Fall 1995, Spring 1996 and Summer 1996. Of the fifty-nine students, thirty-four students were accepted and twenty-five students were denied admission.
As the Committee does each year, it will evaluate undergraduate admissions requirements.
Jim Burns was elected Chair.
Submitted by Dr. Patricia G. Moody, Chairman
The University Athletics Advisory Committee (UAAC) met monthly during the academic calendar year. At the September meeting, the Chairman outlined the duties of the committee as stated in the bylaws of the UAAC. The major duties of the committee are to ensure that student athletes are provided challenging courses of study and that each student athlete has a positive collegiate experience. A second major duty of the UAAC is to encourage faculty, students, and coaches to work closely together toward the common goal of educating and graduating a high percentage of student athletes. Third, the UAAC works with coaches, faculty, and the athletic department staff to produce graduates who will become successful citizens in their individual communities.
`In addition to the normal activities of the committee, this year the UAAC participated in the work and events which supported the athletic department's efforts to become certified by the NCAA. Several members of the UAAC served on subcommittees for this process. Chairmen of each subcommittee met with the UAAC and made progress reports. The Chairman of the UAAC was interviewed by members of the NCAA certification team. The entire committee met with the team when they were on campus.
The UAAC participated for the first time this year as co-sponsor of the Scholar Athlete Reception. Each student was invited to select the professor who had most impacted his or her academic success. Those professors who were named by the athletes were invited to participate in the reception as Gamecock Faculty All-Stars. The UAAC Chairman wrote letters to all the selected faculty members and to their Deans.
The UAAC toured the new athletic practice facilities adjoining the coliseum and the new football offices at the stadium. Dr. Mike McGee and his staff were most generous with their time and efforts in responding to all requests made by the committee.
Dr. McGee attended almost all meetings and scheduled coaches from the major sports, as well as several new coaches, as requested. Among the coaches who reported to the committee and outlined their programs were: Brad Scott (football); Eddie Fogler (Men's Basketball); Nancy Wilson, (Women's Basketball); and Kim Hudson (Women's Volleyball).
Dr. McGee made an annual report on the overall status of the Athletics Department to the UAAC at the April meeting.
Harold White made an annual report to the committee on the status of the academic support programs.
Valerie Sheley was appointed by the President to serve on the committee. She reported several times during the year, including an end-of-the-year report.
Dr. Susie VanHuss, NCAA/SEC Representative reported at all meetings. The UAAC reviewed and made recommendations regarding pending SEC and NCAA legislation.
The Registrar, Richard Bayer, and Barbara Blaney furnished academic information on all athletes for the committee to review for the 1995 summer session and fall semester and the 1996 spring semester.
Chris Massarro, Associate Athletic Director, reported to the committee about the new seating arrangement for faculty and students for the Fall, 1996 football season.
The Chair of the UAAC attended meetings of the Board of Trustees Intercollegiate Activities Committee, attended monthly meetings of the Faculty Steering Committee, attended numerous USC athletic events, and attended banquets and other student-athlete functions.
The committee elected Dr. Fred Medway as Chairman of the UAAC for 1996--97.
Committee membership includes:
Committee Membership 1995-96: Sarah Gable, Medical Library; Alan Nairn, Geology; Roger Amidon, Health Administration; Lynn Zoch, Journalism & Mass Communications; Steve Borgatti, Sociology (on sabbatical); Keen Butterworth, English, Chair
During the fall semester the Chair of the Committee established liaison with Mr. Bruce Darner, the Manager of the University Bookstore, and with Dr. Richard Wertz, Chair of the Bookstore Oversight Committee. Both expressed their willingness to work with the Faculty Senate Bookstore Committee in regard to complaints received from the faculty.
The Committee received two complaints during the late summer and fall semester: one from the Department of French and Classics; the other from the Department of Statistics. The Chair presented the main points of complaint to Mr. Darner and discussed them with him in a private meeting. Subsequently, Mr. Darner replied formally to those complaints, explaining procedures and the reasons why mistakes had been made in ordering texts. He also indicated what action he would take to minimize such errors in the future. The Committee met on February 15 to discuss the complaints and Mr. Darner's response to them. The Committee felt that Mr. Darner's response and action were sincere and adequate.
The Committee received no complaints during the spring semester.
The Committee was to meet again, jointly with the Bookstore Oversight Committee, in April; however, the Chair, Keen Butterworth, was hospitalized with a back injury. Consequently, Dr. Wertz was unable to make arrangements for the joint meeting.
Sarah B. Wise, Chair
The Committee members of the Faculty Budget Committee for the 1995-96 academic year were: Nancy Lane; Martin C. McWilliams, Jr.; James C. Moeser, ex officio; Henry Price; Charles Tucker; Winona Vernberg, ex officio; Eldon Wedlock; Sarah B. Wise, Chair
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 and Dr. Winona Vernberg. 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 as well as letters of intent.
Representatives of the Faculty Budget Committee attended the Strategic Planning Hearings which were held in March and April, 1996. The Budget Committee was also represented at the administrative budget sessions which were held in May, 1996.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Faculty Budget Committee.
During 1995-96 the Committee on Curricula and Courses held meetings at least monthly, including two summer meetings. Meeting schedules were distributed to units each semester. Most of our time was devoted to consideration of specific course and curriculum proposals, but we did consider a variety of more general issues, which are discussed in more detail later.
We presented a report to the Faculty Senate at each Senate meeting. These reports included recommendations for 56 course deletions, 68 new courses, 254 course changes of various kinds, and 16 experimental courses. In addition, 13 curriculum proposals were presented. These included a new interdisciplinary minor in Environmental Studies offered through the School of the Environment. With the exception of a few items which were withdrawn by the proposing units, all recommendations were approved, sometimes with minor changes, by the Senate. The details can be found in the Faculty Senate agendas and minutes.
During 1994-95 the Committee worked on the revision of our guidelines. This effort was placed on hold at the end of the year so that an attempt could be made to develop new forms that could be used for both graduate and undergraduate courses and curricula. An ad hoc committee with representatives from the Committee, the Graduate School, and the Council of Assistant and Associate Deans was charged with this task.
This committee developed a new set of forms for both graduate and undergraduate courses and curricula, and these forms were adopted during Fall 1995 by both the Committee on Curricula and Courses and the Graduate School. The use of these new forms removed the annoyance and inconvenience of keeping track of two different sets of forms. In addition, we think that the new forms are easier to use.
The Committee wanted to include a permanent email address in the Guidelines and Instructions. We proposed the establishment of a Faculty Senate email addresss and worked with the Faculty Senate Office and Computer Services to set this up (email@example.com).
During the preparation of the revised Guidelines and Instructions, we found it necessary to clarify a number of issues. In addition to those already mentioned, these included the relationship of credit hours to class meetings and the inclusion of minors in the Undergraduate Bulletin.
Part of our charge is to review courses and curricula for possible obsolescence. We worked with the Office of the Registrar in the preparation of a listing of all courses in the University course database. The listing contains the effective date and date last offered for each course; it is sorted by designator. Each unit has been asked to review the relevant portions of this listing for courses that should be considered for deletion. A copy of the entire list may be examined in the Faculty Senate Office. A number of courses with an H suffix, which is no longer used to designate Honors courses, have been deleted administratively by the Office of the Registrar at the request of the committee and with the concurrence of the South Carolina Honors College.
An additional issue investigated by the Committee was the use of the term "selective" in curriculum descriptions. A search of the Bulletin text by University Publications located two uses of this term (College of Criminal Justice and School of the Environment). The Committee feels that the use of this term in the appropriate context is reasonable and that rigid vocabulary control is unneeded at this time.
There are a number of areas of current work; we anticipate that at least some of them will be completed during 1996-97. These include review of special topics courses, adoption of designators, coordination among campuses, electronic handling of proposals and other committee business, electronic course information, duplication of courses, and the impact of technological change.
The Committee developed a procedure this year for the review of special topics and experimental courses in response to concerns about potential problems with these types of courses. This procedure has now been reviewed and should be implemented starting in Fall 1996.
A new procedure for the proposal and adoption of new designators (also called acronyms) is under development; this effort also involves the Office of the Registrar, the Graduate School, and Computer Services. A draft procedure has been developed and is under review.
It became clear as we were working on the revised Guidelines and Instructions that there was a need for improved coordination and communication among the different University of South Carolina campuses. The Committee is now attempting to identify and resolve specific problem areas.
The Committee has moved to increased use of electronic communication during the past year. The new forms request an email address in addition to other contact information. Most submitters are providing this information, which has made it easier for us to request clarifications and minor revisions. We hope to continue to move in this direction and to provide forms and other information in electronic format at some time in the future.
A suggestion from a student member led to our consideration of additional course information in a form that would be useful for students. This information might consist of extended course descriptions, course syllabi, and possibly even sample assignments and exams. Information of this kind is already available from a number of units; some is in paper format and some in electronic format. However, it is not available for all courses, and the information that is available is not well coordinated. We are continuing to look into the provision of this kind of information in a more coordinated fashion and are working with other groups and offices in this effort.
A continuing issue for the Committee is the review of courses and curricula for duplication; this is one of the specific charges to the committee specified in the Faculty Manual. Although some overlap of interests and coverage is inevitable, we must ensure that closely related courses and curricula complement rather than duplicate each other. The Committee will be examining several specific areas in which potential problems have arisen. A long range consideration, especially as we approach the millennium, is the potential impact of technological change on our educational mission. Books and blackboards are being supplemented by multimedia presentations of various kinds, and distance education is growing in importance. These issues will be examined in more detail by the Committee and other groups, although the nature of that examination is yet to be determined.
I would like to thank the members of the committee for their hard work and dedication to a task central to our mission as a university:
Robert Castleberry, Psychology, USC Sumter; Alexander Gilchrist, Thomas Cooper Library (replacing McDade); Donald Greiner, Associate Provost; Laura Hall, Student Member; Karlene Kosanovich, Chemical Engineering (substituting for Wilson); G. B. Lane, Music; Hiram McDade, Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology (resigned Fall 1995); Spencer Platt, Student Member; M. Kent Sidel, Journalism and Mass Communications; John Scott Wilson, History (on leave Spring 1996); John J. Winberry, Geography
I would also like to thank the Faculty Senate staff for their contributions. Peggy Pickels has provided the continuity and expertise essential to the successful functioning of the Committee. Jeanna Luker has provided additional support as needed.
I would also like to thank the Faculty Senate members and attendees for their careful consideration and often thoughtful discussion of the proposals we presented to the Senate. Their participation made our efforts a truly collegial enterprise.
I would particularly like to thank the many members of the University community who took the time and effort to develop and submit the numerous proposals we considered this year. Our courses and our curricula are dynamic and must be regularly reexamined and revised if we are to continue to meet the needs of our students and our state. Our charge as a Committee is to coordinate this effort, but almost all of the essential work is done before the proposals reach the Committee.
G. B. Lane, Music, will be chair for 1996-97. Alexander Gilchrist and I are completing our terms and rotating off. The new members are Karlene Kosanovich, Chemical Engineering, and Janet Nussbaum, Nursing.
Respectively submitted, Caroline M. Eastman, Chair
DISABILITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE 1995-1996 ANNUAL REPORT
Rosvelt Martain, Jr., Educational Support Services ; Paul Higgins, Department of Sociology; David Bundy, Student Representative; Donna Collins, Facilities Management; Jeff Cargile, Human Resources; Barbara Clark, Human Resources; Bobby Gist, Equal Opportunity Programs; Linda Saad, Housing and Residential Services; Tanya Harrel, Student Representative; Deborah Valentine, College of Social Work; Francisco Sy, College of Public Health
The Disability Affairs Committee met on Thursday, November 2, 1995. Bobby Gist reported on the ADA complaints that had been brought against the University. A report was also given on the decision to not build a connector between Thornwell and the Osborne Administration building. The ADA does not require a preexisting two-story building such as Osborne to have an elevator.
Information about ADA Training Seminars, Accommodating Americans With Disabilities, was disseminated. Four workshops to help faculty and administrators understand the ADA and its application to the University were planned during the Fall 1995 semester.
At the time of the fall meeting, the space for the relocation of Educational Support Services had not been identified. Several locations were being considered.
Rosvelt Martain reported to the committee that the cost of the service contract with the South Carolina School for the Deaf and Blind for interpreting services for on-campus events was reduced. The projected cost for providing interpreters for campus events including classroom instruction, graduation, etc. is $72,000.00.
Members of the Faculty Advisory Committee for 1995-96 were Jane Aiken (LAW, elected to replace Randy Engle), Alan Bauerschmidt (BADM, secretary), George Holmes (MED), Nancy Lane (FREN, chair), Caroline Strobel (BADM), and Sandra Wertz (MART). Provosts Moeser and Vernberg served ex-officio. The committee met thirteen times between August 23, 1995, and June 24, 1996; an additional special meeting with President Palms was held on February 22, 1996. All members attended regularly. The committee dealt with many matters of varying importance.
The committee was charged with several other matters during the course of the year that have not been acted upon. The chair takes full responsibility for the failure to follow through on these requests.--The Chair of the Senate asked that FAC amend the Senate by-laws to provide for the removal of senators and committee members who have excessive absences.--The Senate chair requested that FAC initiate a rationalization and streamlining of committee structure. This initiative should also accommodate the motion from Professor Berube about the re-constitution of the Student Affairs Committee. --Finally, the chair has not followed through on a request to study the USC and Regional Campuses Faculty Manuals with a view toward bringing them into closer line with each other.The chair wishes to thank all the committee members for their conscientious and time-consuming work. The chair especially wishes to acknowledge the excellent work of Peggy Pickles and Jeanna Luker, who make faculty governance on this campus possible.
The primary activity of the Faculty House Board this year was the search for a new general manager. After a protracted search, the Board hired Mr. Jeffrey Narr of New Orleans. He assumed his duties in July. His impressive credentials augur well for the future success of the Faculty House. The Board also expresses its gratitude to Ms. Linda Thompson, who served as Acting General Manager for a much longer time than had been originally forecast.
Other initiatives during the year included some remodeling and redecorating of the facility and having the Faculty Advisory Committee recommend a change in the composition of the Board of Governors and in the duration of members' terms. The latter initiative was brought before the Faculty Senate on April 24, and, after being amended by that body, passed. The precise wording of the changes will be found in the minutes of the April 24 Senate meeting.
The year began with a membership of 2300 (as of September 13, 1995). On August 9, 1996, the total was 2237. Net income through April 30, 1996, reported at the final meeting of the Board, was $53,485.57, off 13% from the very successful 1994-95 season.
Serving on the Board this year were Mike Dickson (PHARM), Chair; Peter Becker (HIST), Vice Chair; Paula Feldman (ENGL), Secretary; Pete Denton (BADM) and John Finan (VP for Business and Finance), Treasurer; Charles Jeffcoat (Facilities Management), Building; E.J. Newby (Development), Membership; John Gregory, Ombudsman; Richard Wertz (Business Affairs), Administrator; Tim Rast (C&G Accounting), Fiscal Officer; David Waugh (ENGR), and Marcia Welsh (MEDC).
Respectfully submitted, Ina Rae Hark (ENGL), Incoming Secretary
The large majority of grade changes were justified by our CTE code (Computation or Transcription Error). The Committee hopes that when a faculty member discovers these errors that the entire class grades are re-evaluated, not just an isolated student who may have discovered the error. Also, now that the new Faculty Manual will state that ALL grade changes (even those from College petitions) must be approved by the Grade Change Committee, college administrators are reminded to send all justifying documentation to our Committee for review and approval of these unusual circumstances. Failure to include the documentation will delay action on the grade changes.
A change was made to the faculty manual to clarify the fact that grade changes recommended by college petitions still had to get final approval from Grade Change Committee.
The Faculty Grievance Committee received fifteen formal grievances during the 1995-96 academic year, in addition to several informal inquiries that never rose to the level of formal grievances. Thirteen of these involved denial of promotion, tenure, or both. Of those thirteen, the Committee recommended approval of four petitions, recommended denial of four more, remanded four to the department or to the University Committee on Tenure and Promotions for reconsideration, and recommended extension of the tenure period in the remaining case.
The other two grievances involved one faculty member's complaint about salary decisions and other departmental actions, and another faculty member's complaint about an annual evaluation. In each case, the Committee recommended reforms in departmental procedures.
The Committee has no practical way to determine the final results in the cases it hears. Because the Committee has no formal role once it renders a recommendation or remands a file, that may not be a serious flaw in the system. On the other hand, there is reason to believe the Committee's recommendations carry very little weight with the Administration. The Committee received further information about the President's action in nine of the thirteen tenure and promotion cases. In each case the Committee found merit to the grievance. In only two of those nine did the President concur, and one of those was virtually conceded by the Administration at the hearing. In other words, the Committee's action had some impact in only one out of eight controverted cases.
Even more frustrating was the "boilerplate" language of the President's denials after a favorable Committee action. Most of his letters simply repeated his earlier conclusory statement that the candidate did not satisfy the criteria. In sum, it appeared to the Committee that its work was usually for naught. If the grievance process is to become anything more than a brief stop on the way to court, the new committee examining the tenure and promotion process should examine ways to ensure that the Faculty Grievance Committee's recommendations are given serious consideration by the Administration.
During the application year 1995-96, 109 students applied to 118 different institutions, and in this process, more than 508 letters of recommendation were mailed. Eighty-six of these students were interviewed by the current Health Professions Advisory Committee. Of the 109 who initially applied, 99 completed the application process. Of these 99, 53 were accepted to professional schools: medical (41), dental (10), optometry (1), physician assisting (1). The average MCAT score for those accepted to medical school is 28.1 versus the average of 22.4 for those not accepted. The average GPA for those accepted to medical schools is 3.6. Both the MCAT Scores and GPA for those accepted show increases over last year. This report should not be considered as conclusive because decisions for some students who applied are not yet known.
Walter Hanclosky, media arts/art, (Chair); Bill Bearden, business administration; Rob Coleman, chemistry; Alan Fried, journalism; John Gardner, regional campuses and continuing education; Maria Girardi, mathematics, Don Greiner, (ex officio), office of the provost; Laura Hall, student representative; Jerry Jewler, journalism, Carolyn Matelene, english; John McFadden, education; Ed Piepmeier, pharmacy; Marco Valtorta, mathematics, Gail Wagner, anthropology; Harriett Williams, provisional year, Steve Whisnant, physics.The Faculty Committee on Instructional Development is comprised of seven standing and/or task sub-committees representing the areas of Teaching Development Grants, Mungo Teaching Awards, Teaching Breakfasts, Mentoring Programs, Teaching Center Development, Teaching Evaluation and Needs Assessment. The following annual report will be presented through the accomplishments of these committees.
From an outstanding pool of nominees ten finalists were selected. After all of the candidates were investigated and interviewed the 1996 winners are :
The past year has been an active time for the Committee on Libraries of the faculty of the University of South Carolina.
The University community is at various levels to continue past efforts--both as to asset expansion and personnel maintenance. Clearly, also, these efforts have not been totally successful.
Colleagues, we have real library problems! Great effort has been exerted, but much more is needed! I realize that rebuilding older buildings or new library facilities is not "sexy," in comparison to new fraternity buildings, but, "bottom line," this is crucial--and now!
I am pleased to inform you that Dr. Allen D. Bushong was elected to serve as chairman for 1996-97.
R. Churchill Curtis for the Committee on Libraries
During the academic year 1995-1996, the Patent and Copyright Committee (PCC) considered and made recommendations to the Provost on, 17 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 continued to reassess 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. Last 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. In the 1995-1996 fiscal year that recommendation was still being considered by the committee, and should be acted upon by the faculty senate in the near future. 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 is also in the process of being implemented and should aid in the committee's efforts to centralize the receipt of disclosures of all classes, and to streamline the process by which they are handled by the Office of Technology Transfer.
Among the discussions for the 1995-1996 fiscal year that will continue into the new year, under the leadership of a new chair, are the redefining of 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 outcome of growth of patent and copyright applications, and to efficiently and fairly deal with all types of intellectual properties. It is the intention of this committee both in the short-term and over the long run to ensure that the interests of the faculty, staff and students involved in dis covery be protected and secure during the process of their disclosure.
Committee Composition for 1995-1996
Elected: Sally Weinrich, Nursing; Marsha Baum, Law ; Chris Kozma, Pharmacy; Loren Knapp, Biological Sciences; John Van Zee, Engineering; James McNamee, Medicine.
Appointed: Ardis Savory, SPAR; Russell Putnam, Legal Department; William Littlejohn, OTT.
The committee held its two meetings, one each semester, during the academic year.
Its primary activities were reviewing Savannah River Site programs and activities with the help of Dr. Ardis Savory. Dr. Savory assisted the committee in understanding the directions SRS has been taking in recent years and some of the possibilities for changes in the relationship between SRS and the University of South Carolina.
At its fall meeting, the committee examined the possibility of recommending its elimination as a University Committee. After extensive correspondence and discussion, the committee determined that it was worthwhile to the University, especially those associated with or interested in the Savannah River Site, to maintain itself. A twice yearly review of SRS activities and programs as well as a discussion of the University of South Carolina's relationship to the site appeared to be worth the small expenditure of time and money that are required.
At its spring meeting, the committee determined that it would not select a new chair to replace me, even though my term is expiring. The committee decided that it would be best to wait until new members are appointed and to provide all members with an opportunity to participate in an election of a new chair at the fall meeting of the committee.
In summary, the committee has continued its efforts to review the Savannah River Site and the association between it and USC. It also took an affirmative position on the maintenance of the committee as an entity of the University of South Carolina.
I have enjoyed serving as chair and I hope that the committee has made a useful contribution to the University.
Total Petitions Received 8
Type of Petition Other 8
Type of Action Taken Approval without conditions 8
Established procedures for investigating Student Affairs. Scheduled a study of the proposed Greek Village for October and the Student Government Finance Committee for November.October 28
The Greek Village meeting concluded without any action by the Student Affairs Committee. Many reservations regarding minority access were assuaged by Greek student leaders and VP Pruitt.November 27
5 members were in attendance. Without a quorum the meeting was canceled. Apologies went out to those who were asked to present materials on the Student Government Finance Committee.January 29
Whereas the mission of the University Student Affairs Committee is unclear (see p. 16, Faculty Manual),
Whereas issues relating to Student Affairs are already resolved by standing advisory committees and special task forces -- e.g., advisory committees on admissions and housing and the recent Task Force on the radio station,
We are RESOLVED: The University Student Affairs Committee should be eliminated as a University standing committee and the description of the committee dropped from p. 16 of the current faculty manual. The motion passed 8-0.April 23
The University Faculty voted unanimously to eliminate the University Student Affairs Committee.April 24
The Faculty Senate sent a recommendation to the Committee on Faculty Affairs to consider establishing a faculty committee to review issues in student affairs.
The University Committee on Promotion and Tenure (UCTP) has two principal functions: 1) review promotion and tenure recommendations from individual units following the Provost's recommendation and 2) approve promotion and tenure requirements of individual units. The UCTP reviewed 90 decisions concerning promotion and tenure for the 95/96 academic year. There was almost unanimous concordance with the President. On only 3 votes of the 90 decisions was there disagreement. The concordance between Units, Provost and the UCTP was similar to previous years. The number of candidates for Promotion to Professor was half of the previous year and decisions were more favorable in these cases compared to the other ranks. The UCTP had an overall 87% agreement with the President and Provost with similar percentages between UCTP and Provost and Provost and President. The UCTP agreement with the President was 98%. The percentage agreement between Units was variable and tended to reflect differences in criteria for the different Units. These differences largely stem from disagreements about what the criteria mean and/or interpretations of various descriptors (or lack of descriptors) for the individual criteria for the Units. However, a clear trend was evident in those Units which had well defined criteria, there was close agreement between the Unit, UCTP, Provost and President. No precise statistical analysis was made for individual units.
The subcommittee of the UCTP, chaired by Professor Johnson, had an unusually large number of criteria to review. The UCTP reviewed over 12 different unit criteria; however, only 6 were approved by the committee and 6 were returned to the specific unit for reconsideration. This subcommittee met almost on a weekly basis with individual unit chairs and the committee. The current procedure for review is slow and cumbersome despite the efforts the Provost's office, the individual unit committees and the UCTP. Frequently approval is a multi-year process which results in frustration and misunderstandings. The greatest contibutor to delays in approval relate to timing of the submission. The UCTP cannot handle criteria reviews during the spring semester while it is also doing the review of individual files. This often results in a year (or more) delay in the process. It is hoped that the President's Ad Hoc Committee on Promotion and Tenure will address this problem. The UCTP is attempting to streamline their internal process but other measures must take place.
The overall analysis of the past 3 years of statistical data performed by Dr. John Richards indicated same level of consistency in the decisions among the UCTP, Provost and President. Dr. Richards has done an excellent job in this work which was above and beyond his participation as a committee member.
Members of the committee have faithfully and diligently carried the duties of the UCTP as described by the Faculty Manual. It has been a personal pleasure to serve on this committee with these esteemed colleagues.
The members of the USC Tenure Review Board at the end of the 1995-1996 Academic Year were:
This matter involved an appeal of a tenure revocation. It was raised by Randall Chastain, formerly a faculty member in the University of South Carolina School of Law. Following procedures outlined in the University of South Carolina Faculty Manual, the appeal was brought before the Tenure Review Board in July 1995. Legal representation for the Tenure Review Board was provided by Gwendolyn L. Fuller, Associate General Counsel for the University of South Carolina. USC President John Palms was represented by Walter H. Parham, General Counsel for The University of South Carolina. Randall Chastain was represented by Desa A. Ballard, an attorney with Ness, Morley, Loadhold, Richardson, and Poole. Since the appeal was initiated during the summer, many members of the Tenure Review Board were not immediately available. This included the Board's Chair, Professor William Jacoby. Therefore, the Board began taking action in August 1995, about three weeks after receiving the initial information about the appeal. In addition, several of the regular committee members could not be contacted at this time. Therefore, Faculty Senate Chair Marcia G. Welsh appointed three temporary members, whose service was limited to the duration of the Randall Chastain appeal.
These appointed members were:
- Frank Berger (Biology)
- Henry Chappell (Economics)
- Subhash Sharma (Business Administration)
Professor Jacoby worked closely with Ms. Fuller in order to prepare for a Hearing on the appeal of the tenure revocation, again, following the procedures described in the Faculty Manual. A Pre- Hearing Conference was held on August 4, 1996. In this conference, Professor Jacoby and Ms. Fuller met with Ms. Ballard and Mr. Parham, in order to work out the timing, procedures, and other details of the Hearing. The Tenure Review Board met several times during late August and early September 1995, in order to work out schedules and details with Ms. Fuller.
After some negotiations and at least one postponement, the appeal Hearing was scheduled for September 27-28, 1995. There was also a Pre-Hearing scheduled for September 14, 1995. However, neither of these meetings were necessary, since Randall Chastain withdrew his appeal on September 12, 1995. The USC Tenure Review Board's involvement in this matter ended at this time.
There was no other business that came before the University of South Carolina Tenure Review Board during the 1995-1996 Academic Year.
The Chair of the USC Tenure Review Board would like to thank all members for their service during the past year and particularly for their willingness to address the potentially difficult matters that arose before the Board during that time period.
The Faculty Welfare Committee met six times during the year. It presented two resolutions to the Faulty Senate, one condemning harassment on the basis of sexual orientation and the other to invite the University lobbyist to attend the November meeting of Faculty Senate for briefing on legislative goals for the year. Both of these were passed in substance by the Senate.
The Committee also discussed a number of matters and gave the administration input on a number of issues which arose during the semester. Among these were:
That pay for teaching in May Session be equivalent to teaching in one Summer Session, which we reiterated should amount to 10 % of nine-month salary, as approved by Faculty Senate resolution in 1995. The administration remains disinclined to seek to raise the limit on extra compensation beyond the present 15 % cap imposed by state personnel regulations;
That consideration of unionizing the Faculty should not be undertaken at this time;
That a permanent Salary Equity Review Board was not necessary; that existing faculty governance structure was the appropriate mechanism to use for monitoring salary equity issues;
That Faculty Senate Steering maintain a list of Senate resolutions and the status of their implementation (or not) by the Administration, and;
That the Provost's office return to the formula contained in the Faculty Manual for the computation of the number of sabbaticals allowed a department or college in a given year. The Provost's office agreed to do so.
The Committee also enlisted the assistance of the Division of Human Resources to develop data on the prevalence of a number practices at other campuses in the nation. The practices asked about were: Availability of Child Care and Elder Care; Tolling the "tenure clock" to attend to family crises; Phased or semi-retirement; Availability of a wellness programs. A compilation of the data gathered is attached to this report and will serve as a basis for reviewing University and State policies on these matters, with an eye to recommending changes as warranted.
The Chair of the Committee, in consultation with the Committee, also investigated and responded to the following matters:
Questions over the tenure and promotion process and the role of the UCTP;
A dispute over the adequacy of restrooms planned in the Sumwalt renovations (improvements in negotiation among affected parties);
A request to increase the amount of information available to faculty on the pay stubs (forthcoming);
A number of parking issues (no improvements or successes);
The availability of ID cards for spouses and dependents (already available for spouses; not recommended for dependents); and
An inquiry over the implementation of new sexual harassment policies.
Professor Robert Wilcox of the Law School was elected Chair for 1996-97.
The committee submitted a table summarizing the welfare items at 21 other instutions. A copy of this table is available in the Senate Office
Summary of Findings Spouse Employment Programs
22 schools contacted (3 have responded to all questions)
10 have spouse employment assistance programs
6 do not have such a program
6 have yet to respond to my query
Universities with spouse employment assistance programs include: Arkansas, Duke,UNC, NC State, Kentucky, Penn State, Iowa, Nebraska, Oregon and Tennessee (awaiting to talkto Oregon)
As faculty recruiters in departments across campus are finding, dual career couples arehaving a negative impact on efforts to bring new faculty to Columbia. The inability to offersalaries that represent substantial increases in income also has entered into this equation,enhancing the importance of a recruited faculty member's spouse finding suitable employment. National statistics show that 85 percent of relocations now constitute lateral transfers notpromotions.
Several universities are attempting to address this issue by establishing programs to helpspouses of recruited faculty in their job searches. An especially successful program is in place atthe University of Iowa. Two years ago, the Dual Career Network was formed and staffed with afull-time professional within the Provost's Office. In the first year, the Dual Career Network wasinstrumental in placing 41 individuals -- four times the anticipated placements. Theseindividuals were placed with 28 different businesses in nine towns at salaries totaling $1.1million. The Iowa program has used work study student support for clerical support. A requestcurrently is pending to fund a one-half time assistant.
At Iowa, the program coordinator only works with spouses of faculty and staff beingrecruited and spouses of faculty/staff who have been on campus for less than two years. Shedoes not work with spouses of recruited faculty who themselves are looking for a tenure trackfaculty position. The medical school takes up about 50 percent of her time and would likeassistance with post docs, residents and interns with whom she doesn't work. At any given time,she has 40 to 50 active files and 15 inactive that may suddenly reactivate. If she doesn't hearfrom a "client" every two weeks, the file becomes inactive. The biggest cost is her salary. Shealso travels extensively through the region to maintain an active network of employer contactsand maintains a library of all local papers and various help books on topics such as conductingjob searches, preparing resumes and successful job interviews.
Like Iowa, the University of Tennessee has a Dual Career Assistance Program located inAcademic Affairs. The program coordinator reports to an associate vice chancellor . It is not asaggressive as the Iowa program, with the coordinator working with 10-13 clients at a time. Theprogram has placed three spouses in the past seven months. It works with faculty and seniorlevel administrators, sending a letter and brochure to promote the service to new faculty who'vecome on board. The program also incorporates "welcome to the community" information.
Unlike Iowa and Tennessee and other spouse assistance programs that are operated aspart of HR Employment offices, the program at the University of Kentucky is operated throughthe Career Planning Center. It is limited to working with spouses of tenure track faculty only atthe Lexington campus for 12 months. The program receives about $5,000 per year in non-recurring funds, which the coordinator feels is not enough to adequately do the job, which isassigned _ of a full-time professional staff member and _ of a staff assistant. The programworks with 35-50 couples per year. Because of the time involved in the program and lack offunding support, Student Affairs is considering dropping the program from its Career PlanningCenter offerings because it detracts from the mission to help students find employment. At the University of Arkansas, the program is known as the Family Employment Programand it was started in December 1993 and is a "town/gown" effort that involves 150 employers(companies such as Wal-Mart). It serves professional staff and faculty. It is funded via localSHIRM (NWArkansas HR Organization) for $2,000 p/year, the university pays salary of oneindividual in HR to coordinate part-time; monthly operational costs about $200 p/month (2,000used for publications/printing). It may serve 30 clients at a time; takes about 25 hours p/week todo job after initial setup, which is time intensive; largest expense is printing a directory; Wal-Mart assisted by providing computer and printer for the office
A Spouse Employment Assistance Program has operated at four NC universities since1985 and includes 35 companies from the Research Triangle area. The program is used as arecruiting tool for new faculty and upper management candidates who will be relocating to theResearch Triangle area. The network companies share job listings, job telephone lines and referresumes. In 1990, 150 spouses were referred through SEAP.
Called Spouse Relocating Assistance Program at UNC, the program providesemployment information, referral services, and relocation support to spouses of faculty or staffcandidates as well as for new hires. As indicated by all services, this one does not guaranteeemployment, but rather is designed to provide access to local employment information andreferrals, as well as ongoing support for 12 months following relocation.
Specific services include individual consultation to assist with job search and relocationmatters; information regarding employment opportunities in the Triangle area; referral toTriangle area employers who participate in the program; assistance with job search within theuniversity; ongoing support during the first year of relocation, as needed; comprehensive packetcontaining information about Triangle area resources to make relocation and transition to the areaeasier; relocating spouse workshop, and spouse relocation assistance program newsletter.
Spouses of new faculty or staff who have relocated within the past 12 months, or of finalcandidates for faculty and staff positions who are relocating from outside the Triangle area areeligible. Departments initiate contact on behalf of their candidates. Service are provided at no cost.
In talking with the individuals operating these programs, I learned that other universitiesare researching the possibility of starting similar programs -- Ohio and Yale are two such universities.
This page updated 22 September 1997 by the Office of the
and copyright 1997, The Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina.