Academic Council Meeting April 21, 2006 Approved

Council Chair, Charity Johansson, called the meeting to order at 2:45 pm.

Members Present: Skip Allis, Anthony Crider, Michael Calhoun, Gerald Francis, Charity Johansson, Leo Lambert, Maurice Levesque, Jana Lynn Patterson, Doug Redington, Barbara Rhoades, Fred Rubeck, and Sharon Spray.

Guest Present: Victoria Fischer Faw and Anne Bolin, P&T Committee; Tom Green, Budget Committee; Mary Wise, Elon Honor Code Revision Committee; and Gabie Smith and Leigh-Anne Royster, Sexual Assault Prevention Committee.

I. Approval of the March 17, 2006 Minutes: The minutes of the March meeting were approved with the following amendments:  Under III. B., second paragraph, a sentence should be added “… contracts for adjuncts. Significant discussion regarding voting rights for the adjunct representative ensued, but no formal action was taken. Some members indicated…”  Under III. E. second bullet: delete “…the structure of…”

II. Feedback from Faculty Meeting: A. Academic Council Priorities Survey: Chairperson Johansson reported that Council received approximately 120 responses to the priorities survey. She distributed the survey results and asked Council members to sign up for a priority category to collate and code in preparation for the spring AC retreat. B. Dr. Lambert commended Chairperson Johansson for the good job she did at the faculty meeting.

III. Current Business A. P&T Proposal: Chairperson Johansson introduced guests Victoria Fischer Faw, former chair of the P&T Committee and Anne Bolin, P&T representative. They went over a recommendation from the 2005-2006 P&T Committee that was defeated in a previous AC discussion. The P&T Committee recommended the following bylaws revision:

That faculty should not be elected to service on the Promotions and Tenure Committee the first year after their own evaluation by that body, so that the committee members who participated in that evaluation can cycle off the committee.

Professors Faw and Bolin said the rationale behind the proposed change was to ensure that anything discussed would remain confidential, and members of the committee would feel empowered to discuss freely in the meetings, particularly when referencing past decisions. They then opened the floor for questions.

Comments from Council:  One of the reasons for the recommendations was to avoid placing newly elected P&T members in an awkward or compromising situation, as it could jeopardize confidentiality when discussing related issues from the previous year.  Some AC members felt that specific tenure/promotion cases from previous years should not be discussed. 1  Dr. Francis stated that P&T members would likely be discussing process but not individual decisions.  The problem is that candidates cannot listen to deliberations from their own case. It would create an awkward situation if someone got tenured and was not promoted, and might jeopardize the perceived integrity of the P&T process.  There was some question as to whether this should be a bylaws change or a suggestion to be considered by future nominees.

After review of Faculty Handbook wording and much discussion, Council voted 4 to 3 to approve the proposal from the P&T committee and forward it to the faculty for discussion and vote. [Following the meeting Council members agreed via email to postpone presentation of the proposal to the faculty until the fall rather than voting on it at graduation this spring.]

B. Budget Priorities Report: Chairperson Johansson introduced guest Professor Tom Green to discuss the 2006-2007 budget process and priorities.

Professor Green provided Council with a written report from the Budget Committee. Professor Green reported that the Budget Committee had four meetings: 11/08/ 05, 12/30/05, 01/12/06, and 02/03/06. At these meetings, the committee explored possible models for tuition increases as well as costs related to students’ participation in study abroad, selected a final model to recommend, and discussed the upcoming budget forums..

Professor Green reported that student scholarship was Academic Council’s number one budget priority for 2005-06. He said that there was an increase of 245K in the budget this year for scholarships, 100K for minorities and gender equity from tuition increase, and 874K in additional scholarship fund from tuition increase. A question was asked how the committee decides scholarships. Dr. Francis stated that donors, admissions, and budget requests from departments decides scholarships. The distribution is maintained at an equitable level unless otherwise mandated by a donor. Dr. Lambert stated that the categories were broken down by need, merit, athletics, discipline, and gender equity. Dr. Francis stated that next year should be the last for 100K minority. Dr. Lambert then announced that the Business School had just received a one million dollar endowment.

Professor Green reported that Academic Council’s number two priority was salary. The committee recommended a 6.75% overall salary pool, with 2% base pay and the remainder merit. Professor Green described a sliding scale that was used to address salary compression at the assistant professor rank.

Professor Green stated that the committee recommended equal increases in institutional and individual contributions to meet the rising cost of health insurance, continued funding of the faculty workload initiative, and funding of additional full-time faculty positions.

The inclusion of a dean on the committee was questioned. Dr. Francis responded that it was necessary to have someone else trained in the budgeting process to take over in the committee if the provost was unable to fulfill this responsibility.

Professor Levesque commended the committee on the work that they have done with the budget. Chairperson Johansson thanked Professor Green for his work.

2 C. Budget Priorities Survey: Professor Spray suggested, based on her experience with the survey last fall, that Council distribute an open-ended response survey next year at the October faculty meeting after a budget priorities discussion at the September faculty meeting. A Blackboard survey for those who were unable to attend the faculty meeting would be made available after the October faculty meeting. Although this format would mean more work for Council in sorting and coding data, it would allow faculty to be more specific with budget considerations. Council agreed.

D. Law School Integration: Professor Redington reported for the Law School Integration committee. He had circulated a 4-part proposal of bylaws and non-bylaws changes, along with a list of integration priorities for next year. President Lambert had some concerns about the proposal as sent from the committee. Professor Redington offered an amended proposal, which led to some discussion.

Comments and Questions from Council:  Current policies and procedures in place mandate that the Law School curriculum must be approved by the Curriculum Committee and receive a favorable vote from the faculty before it can be formally instituted. At the same time, Law School accreditation suggests that the Law School curriculum should not fall under the auspices of the university committees.  Are Law School faculty members subject to Faculty Handbook guidelines?  Should Law School faculty serve on faculty standing committees?  Should the Law School have representation on Academic Council?  Integration of the Law School with the rest of Elon University is desirable, but may not be practical in some aspects, particularly faculty governance. Curriculum Committee and Promotion and Tenure Committee decisions are particularly problematic.  Integration is a “two-way street”, and should include opportunities for non-Law School faculty to integrate with and affect the Law School if true integration is to succeed.

After much discussion it was determined that a temporary solution exempting the Law School from standard curriculum approval guidelines must be established for the Law School to move forward with its first entering class.

Professor Redington made a motion that Council accept this plan of action in spirit and volunteered to help draft a statement allowing the Law School to be exempt from standard curriculum approval guidelines. Council approved. The statement will be drafted by Dr. Redington, Dr. Peeples, and Dr. Francis and reviewed by Council. If approved, it will be brought to the faculty at the May Faculty meeting.

E. Evaluation of Teaching - SETs: Possible recommendations for mandatory use of SETs every term, guidelines for the Unit I, and more focused use of the Unit I were briefly discussed. There was consensus that we would not move forward with any recommendations at this time. Council voted to table this issue.

F. University Ombudsperson: Chairperson Johansson shared a report from Mike Sanford in response to Council’s inquiry regarding the status of the ombuds process and his workload. In his letter, he noted that the fall was very busy; the spring was busy as well, but manageable. Professor Sanford also noted that administration approved the title change from “university” to “faculty” ombudsperson last fall, and he recommended that the university consider establishing a university 3 ombuds position that would serve faculty, staff, and students. The report remarked on the importance of formal IOA training and factoring in of workload demands for the staff ombudsperson. Professor Sanford will submit his detailed annual report this summer, summarizing ombuds-related activities for the period June 2005-June 2006.

Chairperson Johansson asked Council to think about whether we would want a University Ombudsperson or a Faculty/Staff Ombudsperson and the possibility of redefining the position and responsibilities of the position as a goal for the 2006-2007 academic year.

G. Environment Committee: Updating Council on the status of the Environment Committee, Chairperson Johansson recommended that it become a permanent committee and continue efforts toward all forms of conservation. Dr. Lambert agreed and plans to establish it as a permanent committee, looking at a long-term strategic plan broader than their current work. Chairperson Johansson suggested that committee structure and policy be developed over the next year and asked that Academic Council have a representative or liaison on the committee.

H. Hiring Process of Associate Dean of the College of Arts & Sciences: Council members raised a concern with the hiring process for the Associate Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences. Council members were clear that there was not a problem with the person chosen for the position, only with the process of defining and filling the position. It was commented that we now have two appointed associate deans in which faculty had no voice in the hiring process. Council wanted to know how this appointment policy came about and expressed further concern that this type of decision made without appropriate input undermines a commitment to shared governance. It was reiterated that no one had a problem with the person selected, only the perception of a closed administrative hiring policy.

Dr. Francis responded that it was a budget process request, and if there were a mistake, it was an honest one. The position and appointment came concurrently and the Dean did consult with several department chairs.

Concerns were expressed that none of the process was out in the open and that faculty were not made aware of what the job responsibilities of the Associate Dean would entail. Dr. Lambert stated that he and Dr. Francis would talk about this and that the message from Council was received.

Dr. Lambert also reported that he has formed a task force to look at Cummings High School and has invited Deborah Long to serve as Faculty Administrative Fellow, working on the Cummings High School initiative. He believes Elon has an obligation to help lead this effort. The appointment will be made next week.

I. Diversity: In response to Academic Council’s goal of monitoring diversity efforts on campus, the Chair distributed to Council a copy of the 2004 report from Academic Council’s ad hoc committee on faculty diversity. The group talked about attracting and retaining minorities on campus. A question was raised about whether we support the minorities we recruit and why we are losing them. Dr. Francis stated that we lose minorities for various reasons; e.g. P&T, spouse, etc. He said we could look at the study and determine any possible ways to improve hiring and retention.

J. Social Honor Code: Invited guest Mary Wise reported for the Social Honor Code Committee. She presented a report from the committee chaired by Maurice Levesque. One of the recommendations from the committee was to consider combining the academic honor code and social honor code into an “Honor Pledge”. In the fall of 2005, Dr. Francis and Dr. Jackson 4 appointed a committee to review social honor code policies and procedures. The overall charge to the committee was “To develop a plan to bring greater awareness to the social honor code and the importance of character development and personal responsibility as essential elements of an Elon education.” The report stated that the committee has met regularly this school year and has come up with three primary recommendations. Because work to implement and publicize the recommendations for the fall of 2006 will need to be completed during the summer, the committee offered these initial suggestions to faculty for their review and consideration:

1) Adopt a pledge that unites the academic and social honor pledges into one pledge, “The Elon Pledge,” and integrates integrity into the culture of Elon. 2) Hold an annual ritual, or ceremony, in which each first year student commits to upholding The Elon Pledge, and the upper-class students, faculty and staff through their representative reaffirm the academic community’s commitment to the ideals of the pledge. 3) Start the fall with a campus campaign to raise awareness of the pledge and expectations to uphold it.

Dr. Wise explained the rationale behind the committee’s decisions and asked for feedback from Council. She also stated that the committee would like feedback from faculty, possibly at the May Faculty Meeting.

Comments from Council:  Concern that the wording of the honor code was too vague.  Anticipation of opposition from faculty.  No objection to combining the two pledges.  Value of a simple, memorable code.  Reminder that the pledge needs to be brought before the SGA.

After discussion, Council agreed that the wording of the pledge was a good “code of conduct” for life, but does not specifically address academics. Lack of academic reference and specificity will most likely lead to faculty opposition.

The group reached consensus that the proposal should not go forward for discussion at this time and requested that it be sent back to the Social Honor Code Committee for modification reflecting Council’s concerns.

Dr. Wise asked if we should still have the formal signing. Council members suggested that we have the formal signing in the fall using the current pledge.

IV. Updates and Announcements A. Spring Report: Professor Allis reported that all but three standing committee reports had been submitted. The Chair will send the reports to Council by email when they become available.

B. Peer Mentoring Follow-up: The Chair stated that the committee was approved and that a voluntary mentoring program would be started. She said that Peter Felton suggested that we do a survey of probationary faculty to see what works and what has not worked. The Chair stated that

5 she would like to see a formal invitation from Peter’s office asking for mentors. Time will be allotted at the Council retreat to process the dynamics of the original proposal.

C. Sexual Assaults Prevention Updates: Invited guests Gabie Smith and Leigh-Anne Royster with the Sexual Assault Prevention Committee talked about the goals of the Sexual Assault Prevention Committee. Professor Smith said that the committee was formed in late spring and first met in the summer of 2005. They also met several times in the fall, had brainstorming sessions on how to create a safe campus environment, and continued to meet in the spring of 2006. They are working on how to move forward with and incorporate ideas. They continue to support men and women who have experienced sexual /relationship violence. Their goals are to find ways to report data accurately, to protect those involved, to increase awareness in the departments, and to explore ways to increase their visibility on campus. Leigh-Anne Royster has created a brochure that will be distributed next week. They are also looking at job title change, physical space and office. They also talked about doing research in Social Sciences. Dr. Lambert stated that he noticed that tomorrow’s “Run for Respect” does not have any athletics staff registered. He commented that the new football coach would be a good addition to this committee. The committee will make a presentation at the next Faculty meeting.

D. Family Work Policy: Professor Crider reported for the Family Work Policy Committee. He stated that the committee has been working this past year looking at issues from last year’s committee. Issues continuing from last year include leave of absence for fathers, on-site day care, and elder care. The committee has looked at peer institutes such as Duke, Chapel Hill and Davidson College as examples. They found that eldercare was best at Duke, and they found that Bright Horizons had the best on-site day care. Some of the requirements for these types of programs are facility dependant and cost prohibitive at this time. The proposed leave for fathers policy was discussed intensively with numerous questions asked. Questions of equity still remain a point of concern. Dr. Francis stated that individual judgment must be a factor in each specific case. He said that he would like to take the report to the Faculty for discussion.

E. Academic Summit Update: Tabled until next meeting.

F. Elections Update: Council discussed balance of candidates on each committee, non-returning faculty and made appropriate adjustments to slate of nominees.

G. Adjunct Issues: Tabled until the next meeting.

H. Spring Trustees Meeting: Tabled until the next meeting.

Dr. Francis and Dr. Lambert were excused at 5:45 pm so that Council could select nominees for standing committees.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:15.

The next meeting will be May 6, 2006 from 9-3:30 pm in Moseley 215.

Respectfully Submitted,

Bernice Foust Michael Calhoun

6