Faculty Council Business Meeting
Tuesday, February 25, 2003, 12 noon
Esther M. Cohen Dining Room, Cohen House

Present: John Zammito (Speaker), Ed Akin, Stephen Baker, Steven Crowell, Chandler Davidson, Deborah Harter, Tom Haskell, Lynne Huffer, Hannah Landecker, Bob Patten, Herb Ward, and Jennifer West. Absent: André Droxler, Scott McGill, Julia Morgan, and Mark Wiesner.

Guests (Honor Code ad hoc Committee): Ron Sass (Chair), Kevin Arceneaux, Patricia Bass, Lisa Cassedy, Linda Cooper, Carlos Garcia, Don Johnson, Lauren Kern, Kathleen Milazzo, Allen Matusow, Joan Shreffler, James Sullivan, Duane Windsor, and Joel Wolfe.

(1) Minutes (2/11/03 and 2/20/03): The minutes were accepted as written.

(2) Honor Council Proposal (discussion with Honor Code ad hoc Committee): Zammito welcomed the members of the Honor Code ad hoc Committee, and he provided an overview of the issues that Council would like to discuss with them.

Sass gave to Council his committee’s draft plan, and he described it as a “running” draft document, and he said that they will continue to add information to it as the process moves forward. Sass then stated that after his committee has completed its reviews, they will send a series of recommendations to Zenaido Camacho.

Zammito said that the Faculty Council is very interested in working with Sass’s committee to resolve the concerns involved, and that many of the statements in Sass’ committee’s plan reflect what the Faculty Council has in mind. Zammito stressed the importance of not putting students in harm’s way by sloppiness or poor management of those matters. Faculty Council will encourage the faculty to do everything in its power to make explicit, procedurally appropriate requirements (as they see them for their classes) under the Honor Code.

Sass said that he will do everything in his power to ensure the students handle the Honor Code, but the faculty should have a larger role in the process. He stated that he would place that role at the first level of appeal above the Honor Council. Sass then said that the faculty is very much more familiar with students than is the administration—with a few exceptions. He emphasized that the faculty owes it to the students and to the administration to serve as a buffer group for the students. Sass said that his committee would try to complete their report by the end of the semester.

Patten emphasized that we are in a political process. He said that if the Honor Council constitution is to be voted upon, it makes a big difference to have one quarter of the “enrolled-students turnover” by the fall. He stressed that it would be very useful for Sass’s committee to make recommendations on these particular issues sooner, rather than later. Patten said that he feels very committed to what the Honor Council is doing right now.

Crowell asked Sass if the Honor Council proposal was a part of the Honor Code ad hoc Committee’s charge. Sass replied that the Honor Council’s proposal did not go to his committee. He stated that he agreed to chair the Honor Code ad hoc Committee before he was aware of the proposal and before he knew about the situation that was taking place. Sass stressed that his committee’s deliberations could include the Honor Council amendments, but the committee’s charge goes far beyond the Honor Council’s proposal. He said that they are involved in a historical process of reevaluation, and that he thinks the last one was in 1987.

Sass said that in his committee’s plan, education is a very large issue and special attention should be paid to certain groups. He emphasized that if you can sell the coaches, it is easy to sell the athletes; and if you can sell the faculty of the Jones School, it is easy to sell the members of that school; and if you can sell the people in departments teaching pre-meds, it is easy to reach the pre-meds. Sass stated that the Coach could say, “If you get involved with the Honor Council, I don’t care how it comes out, you are off the team.”

The Speaker said that President Gillis requested that the Faculty Council provide him with their appraisal of the Honor Council proposal. He then stated that it would be very helpful if Sass’s committee, with deliberation and without undue haste, could take a stand on the proposal this year. Zammito reiterated that Faculty Council is going to respond to the Honor Council and to the President, this semester, to ensure that this matter is resolved.

Sass replied that it was obvious that Faculty Council’s role was to respond to the Honor Council and to President Gillis, regarding the Honor Council’s proposal. He repeated that his committee did not receive such a charge. Sass said that he could see the Faculty Council arriving at an opinion and then asking the Honor Code ad hoc Committee if they agreed. Sass emphasized that he would like to work with the Faculty Council in that manner.

Haskell said that he saw no reason why the Honor Code ad hoc Committee could not go ahead and address the issues piecemeal, over a period of time. He then asked Garcia if he could specify anything that the Faculty Council should consider. Garcia stated that he had some ideas about those issues, but he was not sure this meeting was the place to talk about it. He said that some of those comments would come with his lawyer hat on and that at another time, he would be glad to talk with the Faculty Council about those issues.

Haskell stated that at a university, even controversial issues are to be handled in public. He said that a failure in making your views public means that you are checking out of the debate and losing your right to be a part of the process, and if the legal counsel has a statement to be made, it should be public.

Garcia said that he has never seen the proposal and that the President’s Office was trying to weigh the other side of the equation. Zammito said that he was a little surprised by that comment because Zansitis had access to the proposal—he had read it and had given his opinion of it. Garcia disagreed because he had discussed the matter with Zansitis and Zansitis hadn’t seen it either and that all they knew came from the Thresher report. Patten said that if that was true, it signified an incredible problem. He said that we then had developed a system where things were not sent to Counsel by the President, or things got tied up in the Counsel’s Office because Counsel had some objections—thus, the General Counsel’s Office became a roadblock or an excuse for inaction. Patten said that he would like to see the issue resolved this spring.

West stated that she thought it was the Faculty Council’s responsibility to address the situation and fix it this spring. She also said that a lot of the younger members of the faculty feel that they have had issues in their classes, which they do not know how to address.

Baker agreed that Faculty Council had something on its plate from the Honor Council and from President Gillis, so it had to address those matters. He then asked if there were any “second thoughts” that the Honor Council would like for the Faculty Council to consider as they read the proposal. Shreffler replied that the final language regarding the board of appeal with faculty representation has been slightly amended, but otherwise there were no substantial changes.

Zammito emphasized that the Faculty Council has to take a stand and it will do so. He said that he will welcome sustained collaboration with the ad hoc committee in regard to the Honor Code, whether or not the Sass’ committee has its full proposal prepared in time this spring. The Speaker expressed that if the Honor Code ad hoc committee will not have their view on the Honor Council proposal ready in the spring, his hope is that they will tell the President that they do not wish for him to wait authorize the student vote on constitutional amendments until their report is completed. Sass reassured Faculty Council that, at the least, his committee will advise President Gillis if that is the case.

Zammito thanked the guests for meeting with the Faculty Council and said that their counsel will be requested again.

(3) Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m., and the next Faculty Council business meeting is scheduled for March 25, 2003, 12:00 noon, Cohen House, Esther M. Cohen Dining Room.

Ellen Butler
Secretary