1. Professor Hack Ezell, Chair of the Faculty Council, called the meeting to order at 11:05 AM.

2. Members in attendance: Professors Alford, Barrett, Berlingheri, Brannan, Carter, Davis (for Feurtado), Durgun, Epple, Ezell, Greenawalt, Hoyle, Lipovsky, Rushing, Hewett (for Siskind), Toubiana, and G. Williams.

Members absent: Professors Gay, Hutchisson, Thompson, Watson, and White.

Guest: Professor Cohen.

3. Approval of Minutes The minutes were amended to specify Prof. G. Williams as attending. The minutes were approved as amended.

4. Prof. Ezell proposed that Faculty Council take a position of opposing the current practice of mandatory attendance by cadets at athletic events during evenings followed by class days. Prof. Greenawalt moved to adopt the motion, __________ seconded. The motion passed unanimously, with the stipulation that it first goes to Gen. Mace.

5. Morning PT
Prof. Ezell explained the Health and Physical education Department's position opposing the current corps-wide morning PT (attached). RPED 110 is a remedial, non-credit course designed to bring cadets up to physical standards. The proposal would not eliminate company PT runs.

Prof. Alford said that other military schools have morning PT with 85% of students meeting the standards. Prof. Barrett discussed the purpose of morning PT. If it is to meet physical standards, then the proposal makes sense, but if it is to build esprit-de-corps, then we might be interfering. Before going forward, FC should meet with the Commandant.

Prof. Koob said he PTs with students three time per week and he finds that it wakes one up. Some students use the sleeping problem as a way to get out of it and to cover mismanagement of time. The military considers PT a means of building esprit-de-corps, and it needs to include everyone. He also expressed concern with the way that morning PT is managed.

Prof. Greenawalt said we should not micromanage and faculty is not against PT, but the timing affects classes. Prof. Williams said students choose to come here and should learn time management. Prof. Hewett noted that morning PT is on Thursday, after Wednesday leave, and Monday, after the weekend. The sleeping problem may not be related to PT after all.

Prof. Ezell suggested that FC instruct him to talk with Gen. Mace and express Faculty Council's concerns.

6. Subcommittee report on Review of Core Curriculum Report Prof. Ezell said the report was well received by Academic Board. They are discussing the items one by one. The VPAA wishes to continue discussion within Academic Board and for Faculty Council to continue its committee work and reinstitute the core curriculum oversight committee. The Core Curriculum Review Committee looked at individual courses but did not perform an overall review. They were given a difficult task with no assessment plan in place. The oversight committee would be tasked with putting an assessment plan in place. Any changes would come to Faculty Council for review.

7. General Order 12
Prof. Ezell began the discussion of the decision-making process leading to General Order 12. Faculty Council is not a faculty senate. If we accept that the VPAA, the President, or the Board of Visitors will act as decision-makers, all other bodies make recommendations. The Faculty Manual stipulates that if Academic Board and Faculty Council agree on policy, it goes forward to the VPAA for a decision. If an item is sent from FC to Academic Board and Academic Board disagrees, the item goes back to Faculty Council. If there is still no agreement, both parties go to the VPAA for a decision.

Prof. Ezell discussed with GEN Poole the option of sending General Order 12 back to Faculty Council for discussion. GEN Poole turned down the suggestion, but recommended that FC amend the document and send it to Academic Board. Prof. Greenawalt said this would be agreeing to a suborning of faculty manual policy. Prof. Lipovsky said semantics work only if we accept the document, and this is an illegal document. Prof. Ezell said Faculty Tenure and Promotion Committee has rejected the document. Professor Ezell also said that Dean Metts' "clarification" (that this will never happen again) is not without merit, but the violation occurred before that. Prof. Ezell outlined Faculty Council's two options:
(1) Reject the document, or (2) accept the clarification - which keeps FC in the loop for change.

Prof. Barrett said we need to reject the document and the entire faculty needs to be made aware of the situation. Prof. Lipovsky said that rather than amending the document, FC should re-submit the document approved by all bodies concerned. A motion was made by Prof. Lipovsky and seconded by Prof. Greenawalt to return the document developed by the Joint Task Force, based on input from the Academic Board and Faculty Council and approved by the faculty, in accordance with Faculty manual procedure, to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The motion passed unanimously.

8. Adjournment