Faculty Forum
From the Faculty Commons for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Western Carolina University
Cullowhee, North Carolina
Vol. 24, No. 7
February 2012
Thirteen and Counting
The Public Policy Institute Continues Serving the WCU and
Western North Carolina Communities
Todd Collins
Assistant Professor and Interim Director
Public Policy Institute
Department of Political Science &Public Affairs
In the past thirteen years, much has changed in the world. We’ve had three different presidents, numerous scandals, two
major wars, and several natural disasters. In 1999, music artists were fighting to keep their music off the Internet; now
it’s the way most music is purchased, as “record” stores have largely gone the way of parachute pants and 8-track players.
Back then, you didn’t have to worry about whether you were wearing clean socks when you went to the airport. Since
1999 we’ve also seen the addition of many new verbs to our lexicon, such as “Googling,” “DVR-ing” and “texting”
(YKWYR).
Western Carolina University has changed since then, as well. New buildings have gone up and older buildings torn down.
A main road through the middle of campus has disappeared. We have new leadership at many levels and across the
colleges. Our student body has grown and we’ve all felt the pinch of budget issues.
However, one thing that has continued at WCU over this period is the Public Policy Institute (PPI). Started in 1999 by
Dr. Gordon Mercer, the PPI serves as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that focuses on civic engagement, applied
research, and community outreach. Bringing his expertise and his policy experience, including work at the federal
level, Dr. Mercer has always sought to be in the forefront in addressing pressing and future issues. For example, the first
policy summit in 1999 focused on anti-terrorism policies. This program brought regional and statewide attention to these
issues, well before terrorism was thought to be a prominent domestic threat. From emergency preparedness, to fighting
methamphetamine crimes, to food scarcity, the PPI has brought community leaders, citizens, and service providers
together to help solve problems in our region. The PPI has also served in a consultant role, providing services to local
government agencies on policy alternatives and program evaluation. As with Dr. Mercer’s original vision of the PPI,
we have sought to foster engaged citizenship with an academic (as opposed to agenda-driven) focus.
On campus, the PPI has also continued to serve the WCU community. We have connected undergraduate and graduate
students with civic learning projects where they gain hands-on experience and try to solve real-life problems. In the past,
we have been able to assist faculty in supporting their research efforts. The PPI has sponsored guest lectures, coordinated
activities for the annual Constitution Day, and served as a partner with the American Democracy Project, a national
organization that fosters efforts across universities to help students become well-informed and engaged citizens.
This spring will be no different for the PPI, as we continue serving groups on and off campus. Several of our projects are
in conjunction with the WCU Poverty Project. In December we began a state-wide survey of county governments
concerning their poverty-related programs. We hope to release the results of this survey soon. We are also hosting a
policy forum for local government agencies and nonprofits with the specific focus of creative and innovative ways to deal
with poverty issues during difficult economic times. We hope that this will serve as a good networking event to stimulate
public and private relationships in solving these difficult issues. This forum will be held on March 9 th in the Ramsey
Center hospitality room.
Outside of poverty related projects, the PPI will continue its diverse collection of activities. On February 20 th, former
N.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Orr will speak on the issue of paying student athletes. This event will be held at 4:00
p.m. in the UC Theater and is open to the public. The PPI will host the American Youth Congress again this spring,
bringing high school and middle school students to campus on March 31st to participate in legislative simulations. We are
also coordinating with the NC Center for Women in Public Service to have a forum for women who are considering
running for public office and to encourage women to step into the public leadership arena. We hope to help host this
event on the WCU campus in April. Currently, we are surveying the student body to assess their opinions on the Iraq and
Afghanistan conflicts and policies concerning terrorism. The results of this survey will be made public in early February.
In addition to the student survey, we are also again partnering with the Smoky Mountain News to do a public opinion
survey of Jackson County. This survey will focus on several issues as we head into the May primary elections.
We never know what the future may bring. Perhaps in the years to come our shoes will once again be free from TSA
suspicion. But, one thing we hope to continue at the PPI is providing programs and services that are beneficial to the
WCU and WNC communities. We invite YOUR ideas about new and innovative ways we can continue this important
mission.
_____________
Responses to the January Faculty Forum
Jacque Jacobs’ response to Jayne Zanglein’s January article entitled A New Year’s Resolution for WCU could easily
have stood on its own as a featured Faculty Forum article, but since we’re booked through this academic year, including
another Special Edition for mid-February, we decided to go ahead and run it in the responses section, since it continues
this timely discussion of collegiality. Thank you, Jacque, for your thoughtful commentary.
To Invoke Collegiality or Not?!
Submitted by
Jacqueline E. Jacobs, Ph.D.
Professor (retired) Educational Leadership and Foundations
Department Head 1/2006-6/2009
Jacque.Jacobs@gmail.com
Dr. Zanglein’s article in the January issue of The Faculty Forum addressed a number of ongoing challenges to the future
of higher education, and WCU, in particular. The issues specific to student preparedness and technology infrastructure are
critical to high quality education for the students served. But, paramount to a quality education is the quality of the faculty
and environment in which the faculty serve.
At the hiring level for faculty, quality is determined by academic credentials, past performance in the job and what the
search committee/administration perceive as the individual’s ability to contribute to the organization. Except for the most
egregious actions of a candidate in an interview process, it is almost impossible to judge the candidate’s potential
“collegiality.” Anyone who has ever served on a search committee and later experienced a “non-collegial” colleague knows
the truth of that. Additionally, once a faculty member is hired, there are often things that occur in the
department/college/university environment that result in a faculty member standing up for him/herself or others in a very
public way. These actions are often branded as “non-collegial.” To call them such is the prerogative of any individual. But,
to eliminate a faculty member at tenure or to deny promotion on personality brings me to the point of responding.
There are two issues I wish to address. First, is the “club” and second is the responsibility of the individual and the
administration related to collegial behavior.
It is with pride that most academics make reference to “the academy.” If it is the academy faculty wish to maintain and
support, then by definition it is the academic work of the faculty that must be considered. I have never expected that it was
part of my academic work to “like” everyone with whom I work: or, for that matter to even “like” how they behave. We
have also heard the term “the good ole boys (or gals)” and know well that the reference speaks to a closed group that
perpetuates its own beliefs and philosophies by limiting access. The only criterion applied is whether one “fits” with the
group as defined by the group. Some of us are even old enough to know when access to “society” or “groups” in our
country was based on the black ball system. Each “member” of the club was given two marbles, one black and one white.
With no accountability for their choice, each member placed the marble of his/her choice in a bowl. If there was one black
marble (a “no” vote), the applicant was denied entry: never to know why or how s/he might have gained access. These
votes were almost always based on such arbitrary criteria as “birth right” “looks” “spouse” “religion” “race” “gender”, etc.
The concern for me here is whether the faculty and administration can ensure that invoking collegiality as a “criterion” for
continued employment or tenure/promotion can/will be administered with clear expectations and due process. I will be
amazed, but pleased, if clear, measurable criteria can be applied to defined expectations of collegiality. And, oh by the way,
will those same “standards” of collegiality also apply to tenured, full professors and administrators?
The second point I wish to address is the responsibility of individuals and administrators regarding collegiality. It has been
my experience that for most people, the concept of collegiality is embedded in the societal notion of civility. I recommend
that Porath & Pearson’s (2004) article, “On the Nature, Consequences and Remedies of Workplace Incivility” be
considered in your discussions. It is my opinion that each person is responsible for his/her behavior. We are not required,
nay not even compelled, to “like” the people with whom we work. We should be, in my opinion, expected to behave civilly
towards them. This however, should not be confused with being required to “agree” or “acquiesce” to the will of others. As
a faculty member and administrator, I have dealt with people who exhibit uncivil behaviors. As a colleague, I felt it was my
responsibility to address them with the person exhibiting uncivil behavior as it affected me and did so. If I behave in an
uncivil manner, I expect someone to point it out to me and tell me that my behavior is outside the norms of the community
in which I work. I believe the greatest responsibility lies with administrators to both create and support a climate of civility.
As an administrator, I addressed the specific behaviors (e.g. someone verbally attacking a colleague in a meeting) with the
offender and suggested alternative strategies for handling similar situations. I encouraged and lead discussions with our
department on what we expected of ourselves and each other as colleagues in the workplace. After all, if collegiality is
about how we behave in the workplace, we have to know what we expect of ourselves and each other.
When Dr. Cipriano was brought to campus several years ago, there was no action taken regarding collegiality following his
workshop with department heads. Why? It may be because he pointed out that collegiality is a professional, not personal
criterion, relating to the performance of a faculty member’s departmental duties. And many realized the struggle to define
and enforce collegiality. Dr. Cipriano points out in his book “Facilitating a collegial department in Higher Education” that
while the courts have held that collegiality can be used as a criterion for continued employment and even tenure/promotion,
there must be clarity in what is expected as collegial behavior and there must be documented evidence that a faculty
member has violated the expectations and has not corrected them. It is clear to me that administrators have a responsibility
to work with faculty to set expectations for collegial behavior and for administrators to address non-collegial, and uncivil,
behaviors and work with faculty/administrators to correct them.
If the WCU faculty and administration are to fairly define collegiality and to use collegiality in determining continued
employment or tenure/promotion, then I submit that it is first the responsibility of the administration to serve as a model of
collegiality and to lead open and frank discussions of what collegiality is and means to faculty and administrators at WCU.
All of us know that it is difficult enough to fairly assess a colleague’s work in teaching, scholarship and service (yes, even
for departments that have point systems), but it will require serious, due diligence to establish criteria for collegiality fairly
across campus. It will be imperative to ensure that reprimand or dismissal on the basis of collegiality doesn’t become a
codeword for silencing faculty voice. If it does, the students will be the ultimate losers because faculty will be more likely
to fear questioning ideas and promoting new thinking for fear of reprisal. I hope that with the leadership of Chancellor
Belcher, WCU will become a more collegial campus where uncivil behavior is clearly the action of an individual and not a
response to the actions of general incivility in the workplace.
References:
Cipriano, R. (2011). Facilitating a Collegial Department in Higher Education. San Francisco:
Jossey Bass.
Porath, C.L., & Pearson, C.M. (2004). On the Nature, Consequences and Remedies of Workplace
Incivility: No Time for “Nice”? Think Again. University of Southern California Marshall School of Business:
Monograph Series.
___________________
News and Notes from the Faculty Senate
By Erin McNelis
Chair, Faculty Senate
The Faculty Senate met on Thursday, January 26 and will continue business at their overflow meeting on Thursday,
February 2, from 3 – 5 p.m. in the UC Multipurpose Room. Given a slate of twenty-five faculty who volunteered to
represent faculty on the new University Budget Advisory Committee, the Senate voted to appoint the following to the five
faculty positions:
Brian Gastle (A&S)
AJ Grube (Business)
Mary Jean Herzog (EAP)
Becky Kornegay (Library)
Phil Sanger (Kimmel)
The Faculty Senate is very appreciative of all faculty members who volunteered to serve on this committee, and
particularly those who will represent the faculty as the University participates in this new open budget hearing process.
Provost Lofquist has shared the timeline and process for the budget review and hearings in Academic Affairs in her report
to the Faculty Senate, and other divisions are developing or have developed their process as well. The hearings are
intended to be part of an educational process as well as an advisory process, and everyone is encouraged to be engaged …
contact members of the University Budget Advisory Committee or the Chancellor’s Leadership Council and get involved
in the discussion.
Reports to the Faculty Senate included a review of the IT Survey results and a request for feedback on the faculty’s top
priorities for IT to address. Questions for Beverly Collins, Senior Faculty Assembly Delegate, related to a proposal for
another performance funding model from General Administration as well as Tom Ross’ recommendations for tuition and
fees. A summary of the January 20 Faculty Assembly meeting, as well as a full set of notes and supporting material, can
be found at the WCU Faculty Assembly Delegates Update page linked from of the Faculty Senate web site.
Chancellor Belcher updated the Senate on several important issues:
(1) The stand-alone Engineering B.S. degree for WCU that the Board of Governors will be voting on at their next
meeting.
(2) The likely consolidation of all Asheville area WCU courses to one location in Biltmore Park by Fall 2012 (Provost
Lofquist and Vice Chancellor Edwards will be hosting an Open Forum on this Tuesday, January 31 at 1 p.m. in the
Mountain Heritage Center).
(3) The advisory group formed to provide feedback on the Millennial Initiative and plans for a campus listening tour with
Chancellor Belcher and Steve Warren (chair of the advisory group) regarding the Millennial Initiative.
(4) The appointment of Dr. AJ Grube as the next Faculty Athletics Representative; (5) a tuition and fees update.
(6) An open invitation to ask questions or address issues faculty are concerned about (such as issues brought up at faculty
caucuses), including requests to visit colleges or departments.
Chancellor Belcher also followed up on a request for information on the salary study, and Mary Ann Lochner and a small
group, including Henry Wong, have set a date to get this timeline in place.
In last week’s meeting, the Academic Policy and Review Council presented modifications to APR 17 to incorporate the
curriculum proposal guide and to include the new SACS substantive change policy; updates to the policies and procedures
for curriculum development and revision (Section 14 of the Faculty Handbook) addressing timely review and correcting
titles for Correction Development Librarians; and endorsing the Council of Deans re-visioning goals for commencement.
Other senate council resolutions, as well as review of the spring faculty caucus issues, will be addressed in the overflow
meeting on Thursday, February 2. Council resolutions to be discussed include a resolution on faculty workload as well as
clarifications and updates to Section 4 of the Faculty Handbook brought to the Collegial Review Council by members of
the campus.
For additional information about Faculty Senate business, please check the Faculty Senate folder on the University share
(H:) drive as well as the Faculty Senate web site. A new page has been added to our web site that lists future senate
council agenda items so faculty can be informed of business items prior to their arrival at the full Faculty Senate. If there
is a council agenda item of interest to you, please contact one of the council members (each college has at least one and
often two representatives on each council) or the council chairs with your feedback. As always, you are welcome and
encouraged to contact Erin McNelis with your ideas and comments as well. In one final related issue, please be on the
lookout for an Employee Survey sponsored jointly by the Staff and Faculty Senates coming in February. We are looking
for ideas that will enhance the everyday experience of individuals who live and work in the WCU Community.
____________
Editorial Notes
By Vera Holland Guise
Faculty Fellow
Coulter Faculty Commons
YES, our mail bag continues to fill every month, and we
couldn’t be more pleased! So, this is a perfect month to say you’ve won
our hearts! At the Faculty Commons we’ve been discussing the renewed interest and participation in The Faculty
Forum and wondering to what we might credit it. Is it because faculty has been frustrated with these issues a long time
and now feel re-energized and hopeful that a change in administration might be a new opportunity for change? Any good
organizational theorist will tell you that changes in administrations can prompt new energy in any organization. Is it
because we’ve worked harder to ensure that faculty is confident they can speak and write freely and that we will publish
frank discussion as long as it is professional and well-written? Is it because we’ve opened the door to anonymous
comments? Perhaps it’s a combination of all these things, but whatever the cause(s), we’re pleased with the new interest
and energy and glad to serve YOU through The Faculty Forum. We renew our commitment to continue working hard to
make The Faculty Forum all that it can be as a venue by and for faculty at Western.
Below are the direct links, which will be active on Monday. We want to thank Sue Grider for helping us with this task in
the absence of Jon Benton, our regular support staff person, who is away due to a death in his family. Our sympathies go
to Jon and his family.
To access the article as a PDF, click here.
Click here to go to the most current Volume of the Faculty Forum.
The direct link to the main Faculty Forum Webpage is: http://www.wcu.edu/7480.asp.
To access the Wiki and make a comment online, follow: https://media.wcu.edu/groups/facultyforum/
Happy Valentine’s Day!