1. Executive Committee. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee will meet with the President on Thursday, February 17, 2000. A meeting has been scheduled next week to review the LANdesk software. Upcoming Faculty Senate meetings will include discussions with Dr. J. Nilsen and with Vice President L. Hencken. An upcoming Graduate Forum event will focus on the role of the Council for Faculty Research.
2. Elections Committee. A question has arisen concerning the eligibility of military personnel teaching in the ROTC program to run for and serve on committees whose elections are supervised by the Faculty Senate. The following points were brought out in the ensuing discussion:
• The ROTC program offers courses with academic content for which academic credit is awarded, and the officer in charge of the program, LTC Seffren, has the title "chair". In one of the most recent changes in the Faculty Senate constitution, the chairs were made eligible for faculty elections in order to insure closer cooperation and integration in governance, precisely the reasons that LTC Seffren has expressed an interest in serving on committees.
• The individual teachers in the ROTC program work for the US Army as part of their assignment. Although the title "chair" is used to describe LTC Seffren, he was not appointed by the Dean, nor is he subject to the usual process of reappointment by the Dean (with its implications that the teachers in the ROTC program are not necessarily consulted with regard to the reappointment). Moreover, neither he nor any of the individual teachers in the ROTC program are tenured or in tenure-earning positions. Further, they are not members of the bargaining unit.
• There is a great deal of turn-over in the ROTC positions which may produce an increased need for costly special elections if these individuals were elected to the committees whose elections the Faculty Senate conducts.
• There is a replacement process for committee members who resign or otherwise depart that seems to function well; usually there are alternates who could serve.
• The Faculty Consititution uses the term "chair" and explicitly enables individuals holding this title to run for election and serve on some committees. Changing the constitution on this or any other issue would require a vote by the faculty at large.

• Why or why not is it in the best interest of the institution to let this individual vote or serve? One factor bearing on this issue might be the role of Unit B faculty, who are not authorized to serve on some committees on the grounds that service is not required of Unit B faculty but it is required for advancement by Unit A faculty.
• In general, chairs of academic departments hold tenure; when chairs are hired from the outside, in almost every case they are granted tenure by the Board of Trustees soon after their arrival, as one of the conditions of their acceptance.

1. Nominations Committee. Bud Fischer volunteered to replace Gary Foster as the Faculty Senate representative on the Textbook Rental Advisory Committee. Two faculty members, David Carpenter and Hank Davis expressed interest in serving on the search committee for the Vice-President of Business Affairs. A vote was conducted to determine the Faculty Senate’s representative: Carpenter: Allison, Benedict, Canivez, Coons, Foster, Irwin, Tidwell, Young. Davis: Best, Eberly, Fischer. David Carpenter was therefore reappointed as the Faculty Senate’s representative on the VPBA Search Committee.
2. Faculty Student Relations. Gary Kelley reported on a meeting of the External Relations Committee held on 2/7/2000. The City of Charleston’s comprehensive plan includes making the area north of Lincoln Ave. into a historic district in the City, with implications for zoning and student residences. The comprehensive plan also envisions the creation of a commerical and residential district along Grant Ave. between 7^th and Division Streets. It was noted that the City’s and University’s plans for this area may be different.
3. Other Committee reports. A question arose concerning the cost of the Lexus-nexus database system currently in use in the Library. There was agreement that this system, although costly, is highly useful especially given the library’s current dispersed state.0

2. Graduate Student Textbook Rental. The motion was amended to read as follows:

• Our graduate stipends are already low, and now we’re asking students to pay for this cost, which is being placed on top of the fees that graduate students already pay.

• A purchase system for graduate students may have some students renting and others buying in the same upper-division undergraduate class that graduates may take for graduate credit.
• Students who go to graduate school understand that they are undertaking, and making a commitment to, serious academic study. Even with additional costs, our tuition is reasonable and so we will remain competitive.
• Is it reasonable to suggest a rental system for undergraduates and a purchase system for graduates? Why not have the same system for everybody?
• The cost of books apparently varies tremendously by discipline; in some areas of the sciences, textbook purchase would be a particularly heavy burden for the graduate students. We can be sensitive to this situation, but nevertheless argue that it is not in our academic best interests to maintain the textbook rental system because of it. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to study the feasibility of increasing funding levels for graduate students.
• One way of attracting high quality students to graduate programs is to control the variables that we can control, such as making the program attractive enough that students will perceive its value, even if the textbook cost incurred is high.
• It’s important to keep in mind that this motion is intended as a kind of pilot to see if it can be implemented, and how it might work out if a purchase system is implemented. It’s important to note that there are several somewhat "hidden" costs of the rental system for graduate students, such as the "transport fee" that off campus graduate students pay even when it is the professor who transports the books.
• The Faculty Senate has noted these concerns before, but the situation remains the same. It might be wise to contact other important constituencies such as the Council on Graduate Studies, and the Graduate Student Organization. These committees may be disenfranchised by premature action on our part.
• In suggesting a purchase system for graduate students, we may not be taking into account the substantial debtload that our students have incurred in their undergraduate education. It’s consistent with our values to suggest that graduate students build a professional library, but doing so may be impractical for most of our graduate students.
• A purchase system could be a way of creating some economic equity. Students currently pay the textbook rental fee even when they are taking only thesis research hours. This cost would go away under a purchase system.
• The Graduate Student Organization has had the opportunity to address these issues, but has not yet formulated its definitive policy. Provisionally, it might be noted that students may not necessarily buy all their books under a purchase system, while it’s also the case that the rental system may enable some individuals to get an advanced degree.
• The mission statement of the university stresses accessibility of our educational services. This important goal is seemingly compromised by the adoption of a purchase system, although our most important issues remain academic quality and integrity.
• Regarding the issue of other constituencies, the Faculty Senate focused on the desirability of hearing from others who have a clear stake in this issue, such as CGS and the Graduate Student Organization. Although it seems that we have all the information we need to make an informed decision, our recommendation may be strengthened by the attainment of a consensual viewpoint of other groups. The summative suggestion is to delay voting until next week

2. Faculty Senate motion commending the UPI negotiation team. The motion was amended to read as follows:

• The motion is exclusionary and divisive. Other, unnamed people, worked hard on behalf of the university as well. The motion establishes an unwelcome "us vs. them" mentality.
• It’s true that we don’t want people to think that we are taking sides, but it should nevertheless be possible to thank those who worked hard.
• In thanking the faculty who worked on our behalf, we are thanking our constituent group.
• It’s not necessarily the case that unnamed individuals worked hard on behalf of the faculty, and in any case, the motion is intended as a recommendation rather than as a litmus test.

2. Fall Forum/Faculty Development. Discussion focused on visibility, opportunity, and recognition of research.

1. Spring Survey. A consensus indicated that the findings of the previous survey should be shared with the faculty prior to gathering any additional input or data.
2. Retirement Reception. A preliminary discussion indicated the Faculty Senate’s willingness to host this event later this Spring.

Respectfully submitted

John Best, Acting Recorder