The meeting was called to order by Professor Henry Price, Chair.

I. Approval of Minutes of the meeting of March 5, 1997.

The minutes were approved as presented with the following correction: Professor Gordon Baylis (PSYC) was present for the March 5, 1997 meeting.

II. Reports of Officers.

A. Report of President John M. Palms:
Thank you. You probably have read that we had a very successful Board meeting in Greenville. It's the Board of Trustees with the members of the Boards of the Education Foundation, and the Development Foundation, and the Business Partnership Board. We have this retreat once a year and it is getting better all the time--about 2 days. They are brought up-to-date on what is going on in the University and we shared the vision statement with them, which they endorsed. Then we had an invitation for all the business leaders in the upstate to come to a presentation I made a presentation on the vision of the University. A lot of opportunity for socializing and just good feelings being developed among these three groups. Very, very important. At the luncheon on Saturday, Mr. Jim Pearce, a person who has been a good friend of the University, announced that he was making a $1 million cash gift to create 5 Carolina Scholarships which would pay full scholarship for five students. And since then we have had a number of communications from people who want to do similar things--maybe not a million dollars cash but sizeable gifts. So overall I think that was well received.

The Greenville newspaper gave good coverage, and last Sunday they published an up ad piece that they had asked me to write on our desire to become members of the AAU and define what that meant. If you are interested in getting a copy of that we will be glad to get that for you. That was a good experience for us, and we are going to continue to do that each year. Next year we will probably have that same meeting in Charleston to cover that area of the state. We particularly appreciate the kind of coverage we received from the Greenville newspaper. It wasn't always like that, those of you who have been here long enough know.

Some other good news. For the first time our applicant pool is above 9,000 students. We hope to have a class of 2,700. Our SAT score is up about 10 percentage points. It is a special time now for heavy recruiting and I appreciate all of you who have been participating in recruiting Carolina Scholars, the students that are interested in our Honors College. This weekend we have Scholars Day. 1500 students who have been offered scholarships on the campus. They have outstanding academic credentials and an average SAT of 1250. So again if you are participating this weekend, thank you very much for your time.

May 1 is National Signing Day. That's when the students have to make up their minds and that's when the other schools have all given them their financial aid packages. So it is very important that we continue our efforts to recruit these very good students. In relation to that you may have been reading in the newspaper the controversy about these Palmetto Scholarships. If you recall for a number of years, we actively lobbied and campaigned to have a need-based scholarship program in the state of South Carolina. We were the only state to not have a need- based scholarship program and we felt that this was particularly important for public institutions. There was a need-based scholarship program for private colleges but none for public colleges. So when that announcement was made by the Governor that the Barnwell money would be used to create such a need-based scholarship program and a Palmetto Scholars program, we were very supportive of that and appeared with the Governor during that announcement. We agreed at that time that the money would be distributed based upon the current enrollment in the public sector versus the private sector. So the private sector would get some of this money. What we did not have a hand in is setting up the procedures for applying for the Palmetto Fellowships. We did have an academic advisory committee that made suggestions but it did not satisfy the public institutions--I mean the private institutions because there was a deadline that was set for which students had to make up their minds whether they were going to private or public. And that was necessary so that we would be sure that we weren't over expending the funds and that the distribution of the funds would be as decided on by enrollment. That has created some difficulty. There are a number of private institutions that are very anxious to get as much of that Palmetto Fellows money as possible. We are anxious to have it mostly go to the public institutions. Since it's divided by enrollment proportions. So we are having a friendly competitive battle over this and that's where all this controversy comes into play. The privates have mounted a campaign-- parents calling thinking it is not fair that they have to decide before the general time of decision which is May for most scholarship programs. We are trying to work things out. We don't care about the process as long as in the end they don't get more than 18% of this money, their fair proportion by enrollment, and the rest of it goes to public institutions. Hopefully we will be the primary recipient of those Palmetto Fellowships along with Clemson. It is really Clemson and USC trying to obtain most of that money. There is going to be a hearing I think - is it tomorrow? Next Thursday on the 9th--a public hearing with Nicki Setzler's committee listening to complaints. You will probably read some more about it in the newspaper.

Student scholars--the Provost should announce these but it is such good news I think I will take it away from you Jerry. We got 3 Goldwaters so far and 2 Fulbrights. The only other school in the state that has a Goldwater is Wofford. I don't think there is any other university maybe Princeton has 3 Goldwaters altogether. So we continue to do well. We can only nominate 4 so we got 3 out of 4 awards. Very, very good.

I mentioned to you the Vision Statement. If you haven't gotten a copy of this--we sent this out to most of the major supporters of the University. It will be on the Internet I guess next week but if you want a separate copy we will be glad to get you one.

The General Assembly--Johnny Gregory made a report on that this morning. Right now in the House version of the budget bill there is a 2 1/2% salary increase without any limitations on those with a certain salary receiving their full amount. That is about as good as we could do in the House. It now goes to the Senate and we hope to do a little bit better in the Senate. We still have the bond bill which has about $30 million in it for USC. $15 million for our campus for renovations and maintenance for our historic buildings which is important. We have not had a bond bill for years. We probably won't have another one for years. The total bond bill is $250 million. The Governor said he won't go above that. There's been a lot of lobbying to take some money away from what the allocations are so far in the House, but we believe that we are probably going to hold steady the allocation going to us. This includes the remaining money for the science building and for the renovations of some of these older buildings as well. We still have a battle to go in the Senate and we will work hard in the Senate to maintain the current bill. It's a little discouraging when you see our state of Georgia here announcing yesterday they are giving 6% salary increases to staff and faculty. And we are using that obviously to try to raise what we can expect but the lottery money in Georgia is going a long way in raising the level of support for staff and faculty at those public institutions.

I hope you will come to the Faculty/Staff Picnic on Friday the 11th and with that I will be glad to answer any questions or hear your comments about anything else that is going on at the University.

ALAN BAUERSCHMIDT (BADM) asked Dr. Palms if he had any comments on the report in the Wall Street Journal.


I just got off the phone with a reporter. I don't want to go through the whole history of the acquisition of that land. It suffices to say that after Hugo when we lost our laboratory at the Baruch Institute we rebuilt that laboratory there. At that time it was not at all certain that the availability of land was secured for a long period of time. There is a small board that was aging if not dying out and we wanted to be sure that we had all the opportunity to have some permanency on that coast. At that dedication and subsequent to it we had some discussions with the developer because this Prince George property had been taken over by FDIC and it looked like it might even be auctioned or it was certainly going to be up for sale again, and we engaged in a partnership with the developer where we would be the conduit by which they would purchase this land and instead of what a previous developer wanted to do, and that is clutter that whole piece of property with a large number of single dwellings, condominiums and golf courses, they agreed to develop it in a very responsible way with a 150 homesites. It is about 1800 acres and we would get 1200 acres to be used for research. It has some unique environ- mental properties. It has a combination of fresh water, salt water habitats. About 350 different kind of plant species there. This would be a unique opportunity for us to have permanency. The land would actually belong to us and so we engaged with them in that. A controversy centered around allowing open public access to beaches, constraints put on us by the local governments there. In order to avoid some of this, property was annexed by Pawleys Island so that we could have the opportunity to acquire this and this was done. Subsequent to that, there was a move to deannex it--give it back to Georgetown with the idea that they would cooperate with us and allow for some control-limited beach access--without just letting the public in and let them do anything they wanted to. There was an agreement made and that agreement was consummated. The land has been deeded now to us and the developers broke ground officially the other day. There are still people that are unhappy and want to continue the discussion about some of the aspects of this that to me are really not appropriate at this time. That is a very brief summary. Jim Rex has worked on this thing for 4 years and you just got the 10 minute version.
PROFESSOR ALAN BAUERSCHMIDT (BADM) asked if we could live with the public access.


We can live with the controlled public access which we have now authorized and there will be a limited number of cars that can go--I think it is under 30. You know Jerry is putting together a group of advisory faculty from Baruch, Marine Science and, the Biology Department to look at all of the land that we now have access to or own, which includes the Prince George tract, the Baruch, the Wedge, Pritchards Island and probably a tropical laboratory at Saint Croix if that works out with the legislature there, to see how we can maximize the scientific benefits of those properties and where we want to focus our attention. The idea of Prince George was to have a combination research, teaching, and educational environment, to bring school children in, also do research, and use it as a teaching facility without disrupting some of the research that is going on at the Baruch. It is a good concept. They are pressing us to have our people tell the inhabitants there what actually we are going to do, the order of priorities, and how much money we are going to spend and it is just too soon to tell all that. I am sure that Jerry could brief you on where that study stands and it is really just beginning because we had no dean of environ- mental science. We got a new head of Baruch Institute, a new dean of science and a new provost so that was our excuse.
MARGIT RESCH (GERM) wished to brag about the Fulbright students because both are from her department--Jessica Nash, who is majoring in Germa, and Karen Miley, who is majoring in international studies with a minor in Japanese. She also had a question about the hiring policy of the University in regard to spouses.


It is flexible. It is just amazing to us how this particular issue is increasingly becoming an aspect of our hiring. I would only hope that as we begin hiring and people are identified that early on in that process that the candidate lets us know that there is an issue here and not let us wait until after the search committee has decided on the candidate and then at the last minute--oh by the way there is this issue I need to address. We try to accommodate this. At the same time we have a lot of demands and, justifiably, requirements for positions in departments. There are lines that are not filled, and when you are on an ad hoc basis, without strategic planning, because of these issues that come up, it doesn't create good will among the faculty. At the same time we want to be reasonable, and when there are great opportunities we will with consultation make the right decisions. But it is hard to force positions on departments that don't need them or need a position that is not exactly in the area in which you happen to have a candidate whose spouse is interested in that particular area. So it is a difficult situation, but it is something that is going on all around the country and we are trying to deal with it. We haven't any written policies on this, we are just trying to address each particular issue with each particular search as it arises. So all I can say is make it known to the administration as early on in the process as possible. The search committee probably shouldn't have to address that, but should make the administration aware early on that this may be an issue that we would have to work towards and we can give feedback whether that is even a possibility or whether it is just out of the question. We are dealing with at least 3 of those right now. Aren't we Jerry?
I would just like to make one comment about that. I think that it is important that we ascertain if the University should have some kind of a policy. I have talked to several faculty about examining the benefits of a policy - a university-wide policy - is that something we should do? I have done that over the last 2 weeks. One of the things I would ask of you is if you know of universities who have policies let me know. I would like very much to talk to people on those campuses to see what their policy is and to see if their policy is working.
We have made all kinds of arrangements over the years - split appointments with each faculty, holding a half time appointment somewhere. That has been acceptable to some couples just so they could be together and work together. It is very difficult as far as tenure is concerned when you only have 50% of some appointment. But we will try to accommodate people. Anything else? Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
B. Report of Provost Jerome Odom:


Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all I would like to tell you that I am surprised to be standing here today. When I first talked to President Palms about the position of Provost, I asked him what his timetable was and he said, "I think July 1." And, I thought ok we can handle that. We can wind things up in the college. However, President Palms is a very persuasive individual and before I knew it July 1 had become March 16. So the last two weeks have been very hectic and have been a wild ride for me because I have been acting as a dean and a provost. I must say I have learned to appreciate the term "shuttle diplomacy". I fought the desire to, as a dean in the morning, write the provost asking for money and as the provost in the afternoon "saying that sounds like a great idea". Oh were there some money to do that with. I do want to tell you as I told the General Faculty when President Palms announced my appointment, that I am honored to appear before you today as the Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost. I look forward to working with you and working for you. I want you to know that I have always been, and still am, a strong supporter of faculty governance. It is my opinion that we need a strong and vibrant Faculty Senate for us to be able to accomplish our goals in the next five years.

This is a very busy time on our campus. There are a lot of things going on. I did want to speak very briefly to the bond bill because I think it is very important that we let our legislators know that the bond bill is important to this University. I am sure that everyone is aware that we have a substantial amount of deferred maintenance that needs to occur. As President Palms said there is about $15 million in the bond bill for that. I sent out a notice to the deans that debate would be occurring in the House on the bond bill and to ask all of the faculty to please take a few minutes and contact their legislators and impress upon them the importance of the bond bill from our point of view.

I have just a couple of brief announcements. First and most important to me is, if you have not heard there is an Interim Dean in the College of Science and Mathematics, Dr. Roger Sawyer who was Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Research in the College of Science and Mathematics has agreed to serve as Interim Dean. We will begin a search for that particular dean's position fairly shortly in the near future. I also wanted you to know that I have asked all three Associate Provosts to remain in the Provost's Office. I cannot tell you how helpful they have been to me in the past two weeks. They basically seem to accept the philosophy: "We are here to make your job easier." And, they absolutely have done that, and for that, I am very appreciative. President Palms did take my announcement of the fellowships away. One other that appeared this morning in The Gamecock we had one student in Accounting and one student in Math who were named State Farm Exceptional Student Fellows. I think it just goes to show you how hard our office of Fellowship and Summer Programs has worked under Novella Beskid. They are doing an excellent job of trying to find awards and students who are eligible for those awards.

I would tell you that today is Graduate Student Day. Many of you have attended a luncheon today for our graduate students. We had presentations and poster sessions this morning. There were 80 presentations and poster sessions. We gave ten awards for outstanding presentations. Various departments and units on campus gave another 60 awards to outstanding students. So this has been a very special day in the life of our graduate students.

Finally, I wanted to inform you of the faculty who have been awarded the Bell South Instructional Innovation Grants. These are grants that are given once a year and are particularly slanted towards teaching and research using telecommunications: Reginald Bain in Music, Stephen Buchanan at USC-Union, Janet Cambre at the Thomas Cooper Library, Robert Lloyd and Charles Kovacik in Geography, and Cheryl Wissick in Education. Our congratulations to each of these individuals. These awards are given once a year and are up to $5,000 awards.

With that I will stop and answer any questions that I can.


A. Senate Steering Committee, Professor Sarah Wise, Secretary:

PROFESSOR WISE - Carter Bays (CSCI) and Judith Rink (PEDU) were elected to the Scholastic Standards and Petitions Committee.

B. Grade Change Committee, Professor Richard Clodfelter, Committee Member:

The report was approved as presented.

C. Committee on Curricula and Courses, Professor G. B. Lane, Chair:

PROFESSOR LANE said that Professor Leroy Brooks from Business Administration wanted to address the Senate about the first point under the College of Business Administration.

PROFESSOR LEROY BROOKS (BADM) said that the college wanted to indicate an openness to work with any of the colleges or departments on campus in trying to resolve any inconsistencies that exist. He said that the college looked forward to working with other colleges in establishing minors that the students would be taking.

PROFESSOR LANE made the following editorial changes:

Page 20 under the ACCT 221L should read "(Prereq or Coreq: ACCT 222)."

Under ACCT 407 the word "Non-majors", I am informed by our Chair should be one word. Also there should be a parenthesis closed at the end of that course: ....accounting majors.)

On page 21 at the top of the page ACCT 405 there should be an addition after FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING II. (3) (Prereq: ACCT 401).

Under ACCT 404, in the course description the phrase: ...decision making... should be hyphenated. It should be one word.

At the bottom of page 21 there should be under the prerequisites: (Prereq: ACCT 403 or permission of instructor) and you should add "...or permission of instructor" on the next page to ACCT 502, ACCT 505, and ACCT 501.

On page 23, toward the bottom FINA 463 the prerequisite should read: FINA 365 and FINA 465. Delete the comma.

At the bottom of the page, FINA 465 also has a slight change in the course description. It should read: Fundamental principles underlying the employment of bank funds. Allocation of funds among the various classes of loans and investments to bank operating costs and to changing bank practices.

On page 24, MGSC 292 the last word should read: decision-making.

We have had a question on page 25 about MKGT 455. That will be withdrawn for this time and will be considered at the next meeting.

On page 26, toward the bottom third of the page, ECON 531 the description should read: Structure and behavior or health-care.

On page 27, ECON 511 should read "ECON 511 SENIOR SEMINAR". The word ECONOMICS should be deleted.

Professor Lane moved the adoption of Section I. College of Business Administration (pages 20 - top of page 27). It was approved as edited.

PROFESSOR LANE moved Section II. the proposed curriculum of Economics majors in the College of Liberal Arts, page 29, in the 4th paragraph under Progression Requirements, 4 lines from the bottom of that paragraph after MATH 141. It should read "MATH 122 or 141 and either an additional mathematics course at the next higher level or PHIL 110. It should also be added in the second paragraph as well.

On page 31, under Foreign Languages it should read: ...by achieving a score of 2 or better on a USC Foreign Language Placement Test.

Section II., the Economics curriculum on page 27 from the College of Liberal Arts was approved.

PROFESSOR MARGIT RESCH (GERM) asked why UNIV 101 is a required course. PROFESSOR BROOKS said that UNIV 101 is being used to launch into the entire economics curriculum by using it to instill some communication skills, introductory information into the business environment, etc. There is a lot we are trying to build into this course to make it an initial course to get students partly enthused and to provide an understanding of the process that they have for the next four years.

PROFESSOR CHARLES WEASMER (GINT) stated that he had a comment and a question concerning the material on page 28. Look halfway down the bottom of the page. We have three paragraphs that say: "No change." The third paragraph refers to students in other colleges. As a matter of fact this has been changed at the March meeting in response to the Committee on Scholastic Standards and Petitions who changed this to say: "Students on the Columbia campus colleges are to have a minimum GPA of 2.2 to move into business administration." The next comment for transfer students likewise was approved at that meeting.

PROFESSOR PRICE said that we will delete the reference to no change and make the necessary editorial change.

PROFESSOR WEASMER (GINT) asked if on page 34, no. 6, where it states: "All minor courses must be passed with a grade of C or better", applied to the courses in the alternative program or just part of the requirements.

PROFESSOR BROOKS said it was basically meant for BA students taking minors outside the college.

PROFESSOR WEASMER suggested that the wording should be "All minor courses approved as alternatives must be passed with a grade of C or better."

PROFESSOR WEASMER (GINT) asked about the six hours of international experience.

PROFESSOR BROOKS (BADM) said that could be throughout the curriculum.

PROFESSOR WEASMER (GINT) asked what program are we talking about when reference is made to "The program also requires."

PROFESSOR BROOKS (BADM) said we are talking about the major in BA.

After much discussion Professor Price said that the intent of the correction is clear and with the body's permission, Professor Lane and the Business Administration folks will work this out and make it no. 7.

PROFESSOR INA RAE HARK (LIBERAL ARTS) asked about UNIV 101 since the curriculum does not say it refers only to the sections for Business Administration.

PROFESSOR MARGIT RESCH (GERM) asked if students would know what is entailed when you say international experience.

PROFESSOR BROOKS (BADM) said this information would be available in the advisement office.

PROFESSOR MARGIT RESCH (GSO) on page 31, there are two asterisks before Foreign Languages, referring to the note which you just corrected. I was wondering if BA would consider eliminating both the asterisks and the note. The note is really superfluous because it describes a University admission requirement and that is already formulated on page 15 in the University Undergraduate Bulletin. It is also misleading because it gives the impression that BA requires a foreign language, but it doesn't. It is a little bit confusing because students may think that the courses they may have to take if they don't pass the placement test, could fulfill this requirement. I don't think we mean that to happen. I think the problem would be solved if we just eliminated it because the requirement is stated on page 15.

PROFESSOR LANE said we will delete the two asterisks following: "Two courses selected from the following fields: foreign languages**" and eliminate the note regarding foreign languages.

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN (CSCI) on page 31 of quantitative requirements shouldn't it be phrased in the same manner as the quantitative requirements in the progression requirements? MATH 122 or 141 and either a second MATH course at the next higher level or PHIL 110. It would also be a good idea to remove the quotes around intensive, which I do not think are used any place else in the bulletin for this purpose. Would that be acceptable?

PROFESSOR BROOKS indicated agreement.

PROFESSOR RICHARD CONANT (MUSC) asked if that was intended to fulfill the fine arts requirement.

Someone replied no.

The materials for the College of Business Administration on pages 28 through 37 were approved.

PROFESSOR LANE made on editorial comment on page 38. ECHE 550 under the prerequisite should read: (Prereq: grade of C or better in ECHE 300 and in MATH 242).

Section II, College of Engineering on pages 38 through top of page 42 was passed.

PROFESSOR LANE under III. College of Education, we are going to withdraw from consideration for this meeting EDIT 603 because of some questions that have been raised. On page 43, EDIT 652 in the course description the term "non-computer" should be one word. We move the adoption of III, pages 42 and 43 as edited.

PROFESSOR CHARLES WEASMER (GINT) EDCE 510, which excludes undergraduates, should not be listed as a 500 level course. The course should be given either a 600 or 700 number. He then made a motion to that effect.

PROFESSOR LANE said it was his understanding that even if it was 600 it could be taken by undergraduates.


PROFESSOR LANE stated the term "senior privilege" was used and that was one reason why it was given the 500 number.

PROFESSOR WEASMER said that students cannot use senior privilege for undergraduate graduation. It applies purely to the graduate program. So suggested that it be numbered 610.

PROFESSOR PRICE asked if that would not influence the senior privilege aspect of it. PROFESSOR WEASMER said that is true but it does indicate this is for all practical purposes a minimal course for undergraduates. A 500 course is an undergraduate course. 600 moves it up sufficiently.

PROFESSOR PRICE suggested that it be sent back to the committee.

PROFESSOR LANE said the only courses to be considered are on page 43.

The materials on page 43 under College of Education -- Educational Psychology and Educational Media Arts were approved.

PROFESSOR LANE under IV. College of Liberal Arts ARTS 570 was withdrawn because of some questions that have been raised. It will be considered at the next meeting. On page 44, under Geography 566 the course title should read "Social Aspects of Environmental Planning And Management." Under GEOG 569 Environment And Development, it should be crosslisted with ANTH 569. The word development is misspelled.

The proposed changes for the Department of Geography on page 44 were approved.

The materials from the Department of Spanish, Italian and Portuguese, and Department of Theatre, Speech and Dance were approved.

The minor in Medical Humanities under the College of Liberal Arts was approved with the following corrections: ECON 589C Health Economics (Prereq: ECON 221 and 222 or ECON 224) should now read: ECON 531 Health Economics. The crosslisting of GREK 230 with CLAS 230 should be deleted.

On page 49, College of Library and Information Science, CLIS 530 was approved.

PROFESSOR LANE stated that the College of Nursing requested the withdrawal of the proposed Bulletin changes related to the curriculum that were approved at our last meeting. Except for the approved changes relating to special requirements and associated expenses on page 49 and the required nursing courses on page 53. We move Section VI. with these proposed changes.

The College of Nursing proposal was approved.

PROFESSOR LANE made the following editorial changes under section VII. School of Public Health: EXSC 341 a, b, c add the prerequisite EXSC 224; EXSC 224 delete prerequisites BIOL 101, 101L, and CHEM 111; and the last line should read "Three lecture, one recitation, and three laboratory hours per week."

PROFESSOR CAROLINE EASTMAN (CSCI) stated that the proposal for EXSC 223 and 224 raises them above what is normally expected for a four-hour course.

LANE - Is someone here Exercise Science?

Someone from Exercise Science said that it should be: "Three lecture, one recitation, and two laboratory hours per week.

Someone from Exercise Science asked where the change came from to change two laboratory hours to three laboratory hours? I don't believe we requested that.

PROFESSOR LANE responded that he received an e-mail from Professor Broadwell asking for the revision and also a letter from Professor Russell Pate requesting the following statement to the description: Three lecture, one recitation, and three laboratory hours per week.

PROVOST ODOM said he would like to make an observation. For example, in general chemistry 111 that is three contact, one recitation, and three lab hours and hat is a four-hour course.

With the editorial changes, Section VII, School of Public Health, was approved.

PROFESSOR LANE stated that under VIII, College of Science and Mathematics, one editorial change to STAT 515 after the phrase ... in MATH 111 or equivalent; or ... then add this phrase ... a grade of C or higher in STAT 201 or equivalent).

With the editorial insertion, the material under VIII. Department of Statistics was approved.

PROFESSOR LANE presented the May session courses for the Senate's information. Under Experimental Courses, he eliminated MKTG 452X from consideration.

C. Faculty Advisory Committee, Professor Strobel:

No report.

D. Faculty Welfare Committee, Professor Wilcox:

Just a couple of quick updates on some things that we talked about last month. We have responded as a committee with some comments to the proposed changes to the sexual harassment policy. Our comments will be in the materials that you receive for the next meeting. We just sent that yesterday to the Provost and to Bobby Gist's office. They are essentially along the lines that I talked about last month expressing concern with doubling the time period for investigations. We weren't convinced that cured the problem while it might bring investigations within the time frame. It appeared the problem might be that they simply did not have enough investigators to handle the crunch and we thought that lengthening the time to 3 months was unnecessary. On the issue of what information is given to the parties, our major concern is that the policies simply aren't clear who gets what when.

Several of you have left messages regarding the salary compression issue that we talked about last time and I have not gotten back to all of you. The committee will discuss this at our next meeting. I will be in touch with those of you who have left messages as I do want to discuss this issue with you.

PROFESSOR PRICE said there are no reports from the Admissions Committee or the Scholastic Standards and Petitions Committee. There is no further report from the secretary.

IV. Unfinished Business.

PROFESSOR RICHARD CONANT (MUSC) asked about the progress of getting the e-mail addresses of our legislators on the web site?

PROFESSOR PRICE said that we will check on the status.

V. New Business.


VI. Good of the Order.

PROFESSOR LANE announced that we got national exposure on the Today show this morning. The chorus from Batesburg-Leesville had sung at Carnegie Hall and the director mentioned our Dr. Larry Wyatt of the University of South Carolina.


I would just like to make one observation if I could and that really has to do with the curriculum changes that we have seen today particularly in Business. It would just seem to me if we are going to make major changes and if we are going to have any item of change perhaps in the philosophy of a curriculum, it might be worthwhile for the unit that is making the proposed changes to have someone like a dean or an associate dean for academic affairs here to explain to the Senate what they are trying to do. If there is a new philosophy in this curriculum, what they are trying to accomplish. It seems to me if we are going to be a real community and a university of scholars we all need to know what is going on. We need to buy in to everybody's academic program. So that is just an observation of mine.
PROFESSOR STAN FRYER (BADM) asked if there is a possibility that the distribution policy on materials be modified slightly to provide each college with a few extra copies. He ran into the problem that some people in the college wanted the agenda materials. All of the curriculum information was not on the Web. So extra copies to colleges with special cases would be helpful.

PROFESSOR PRICE stated if a college desires extra copies, please call the Faculty Senate Office at 7-6073.

VII. Announcements.


The meeting adjourned at 4:25 p.m.



The following Senators did attend the April 2, 1997 meeting:







Aerospace Studies



French & Classics


Germanic, Slavic & Oriental Languages


Naval Science



Religious Studies

Spanish, Italian & Portuguese









Epidemiology & Biostatistics

Exercise Science

Health Administration




Computer Science



Physics & Astronomy







Lifelong Learning




The following Senators did not attend the April 2, 1997 meeting:








French & Classics




Military Science



Spanish, Italian & Portuguese

Theatre, Speech & Dance






Environmental Health