University of North Carolina at Asheville


Minutes, February 14, 2008



Members:   C. Bell, G. Boudreaux, K. Cole, L. Dohse, P. Downes, J. Hartsfield, B. Haas, M. Harvey,

                  H. Holt, K. Krumpe, A. Lanou, J. McClain, C. McKenzie, M. Moseley, D. Pierce, B. Sabo,

                  B. Wilson, J. Wood; K. Whatley. 


Visitors:      P. Catterfeld, L. Friedenberg, A. Hantz, J. McKnight, G. Nallan, E. Katz, G. Kormanik,

                  B. Larson, P. McClellan, A. Ponder, M. Ruiz, S. Schuman, A. Shope.




I.        Call to Order and Announcements

          Dr. Downes called the meeting to order at 3:20 pm and welcomed Senators and guests. 

          - Tribute to Kathy Whatley

          Mike Ruiz said he remembered 1982 like it was yesterday.  Kathy Whatley was his dream candidate and the first that he recruited for the university.  She has been a marvelous colleague, an outstanding scholar, an experimental nuclear physicist, a great teacher (from introductory courses to the quantum physics course), a Feldman winner, a Teaching Award winner, and then had the great ability to be an administrator.  On the one hand, we are going to miss Kathy, but on the other hand she has a great opportunity ahead of her and we are very happy for her.  She won’t be teaching the astronomy lab anymore so he won’t be able to tell the astronomy students that Kathy Whatley, as a nuclear physicist, is the closest we have to a rocket scientist!  A round of applause followed. 

          The Senate presented Kathy with a UNCA pen and paperweight for her new desk so she will not forget us.  The Senate will miss her and is pleased with her opportunity.  A round of applause followed.     


II.      Academic Policies Committee Report 

         Dr. Bill Sabo reported for the Academic Policies Committee.

         First Reading:  [Approved without opposition by APC]

         The following documents were distributed for First Reading:

         APC 28:   Change to the narrative for the Honors Program; Delete HON 492.

         APC 29:   Change requirements for Honors Program

         APC 30:   Delete POLS 150

         Second Reading:  [Approved without opposition by APC]

         APC documents 16 -- 27 were considered for Second Reading:


          APC 23 and APC 25 from Art History were discussed.  Dr. Wood had two concerns: 

·         In APC 23 there is a movement from Non-Western Art History to more specificity which he liked -- African, Asian and Latin American Art History, though it seems overly ambitious. 

·         In APC 25, he wanted to call attention to specificity – it is a kind of marking impulse – to mark what kind of art something is.  That impulse is correct in “Modern Art and Modernism.”  But “Art Since 1945” (about Western Art, or American Art, or European Art?) is unspecified.  It is a small point but it is important in the spirit of what the department is trying to do.  Some categories of art are marked and other categories of art are unmarked.  He was not objecting to the proposals but this distinction is an important one to make in our academy and he wanted to call attention to it.   


          Dr. Sabo said that APC talked at length about the labels and the general use of the categories in the proposals.  The question of whether Modernism is an era or whether it is an era in certain places has been problematic.  This was fully discussed and the proposals represent some modifications from their original request.  Dr. Wood was heartened to hear these issues were discussed. 


         APC 16:  Add the option for Special Topics in Portuguese

         APC 16 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2308S.


         APC 17: Add PORT 210 and 220  

         APC 17 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2408S.


         APC 18: Change in Required Courses outside the Major for the Statistics Concentration

         APC 18 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2508S.


         APC 19: Addition of new course, MATH 397, Chaos and Fractals

         APC 19 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2608S.


         APC 20: Change in Required Courses for Applied Math

         APC 20 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2708S.


         APC 21: Addition of MATH 394 Differential Equations to required courses for

                       Pure Mathematics Concentration

         APC 21 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2808S.


         APC 22: Change the narrative for the BA concentration in Art History

         APC 22 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2908S.


         APC 23: Change use of the term Non-Western to: African, Asian and Latin American Art History

         APC 23 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 3008S.


         APC 24: Change required courses for the concentration in Art History

         APC 24 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 3108S.


         APC 25: Change the descriptions of ARTH 360 and 365

         APC 25 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 3208S.


         APC 26: Add ARTH 386: Arts of the African Diaspora;

                       Add ARTH 410: Modern Art of Brazil and Mexico

         APC 26 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 3308S.


         APC 27:   Delete Studio Art requirements for Art History minor and replace w/Art History courses;

                       Change Art History minor requirements to allow students to complete a research project

                       instead of the comprehensive exam

         APC 27 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 3408S.


III.      Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report

          Dr. Greg Boudreaux reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.

          Second Reading

         The following document was considered for Second Reading:


          FWDC 3: Proposal to Establish a Textbook Committee as a Standing Committee

                        (Faculty Handbook Section 10.2)

         FWDC 3 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 3508S.


          Recommendations on the Merit System

          FWDC was asked to make recommendations on our merit system to Dr. Schuman, interim Dean of Faculty.  Dr. Lanou explained the recommendations below:


We propose a two step plan whereby only minor revisions are made for the current year and, in the subsequent year, more comprehensive evaluation of faculty evaluation methods and the merit system recommendations are made. We also propose a system for this more comprehensive evaluation, some key issues to address based on the faculty input we have received, and we offer a brief rationale for these recommendations.


Step 1:  For deciding faculty merit for the current year, we recommend keeping much of the current system the same with a couple of important exceptions.


What’s the same?

The basic process remains the same for the review of 2007 Faculty Records. Chairs collect and review faculty records from the full-time faculty and make recommendations to their respective deans and the Provost (or interim) regarding which faculty receive high merit, merit, or no merit. As before, they also may suggest that a faculty member be considered for exceptional merit.

Funds available for salary increments are divided into one portion to provide “cost of living” increments at the same level for all full-time faculty and another portion to provide “merit raises” for a subset of faculty evaluated accordingly by chairs and approved by the dean’s and provost.


Exceptional merit for a handful of faculty is decided upon by the deans and provost (or interim).


Dollar amounts for “cost-of-living” increments are determined in the same way as was done in the preceding year or years, provided that cost of living adjustments do not suffer when allocating merit.


What’s different? (a.k.a. the exceptions)


Make the process for deciding on exceptional merit transparent. In order for faculty to understand and strive for highest quality performance in their positions at UNCA, the administration should publicize information on how to achieve “exceptional merit” at UNCA.


Remove the 60/40 standards for high merit/merit for the department chairs. A large majority of constituents find this standard difficult to implement and inappropriate especially for small departments.  Therefore we recommend that chairs exercise reasonable restraint (i.e., refrain from designating every member of the department in the “high merit” category) and evaluate their faculty using a standardized procedure that applies discipline-specific criteria.


If more people are given “high merit” than the system can support, we recommend using one of the following two possible solutions.


  1. Decide the dollar amounts to be given for merit and high merit after the total numbers of faculty receiving these designations are decided and divide up the dollars based on the number of people in each designation. For example, if high merit (H) raises are determined to be 2 times as much as merit (M) raises ahead of time and the total number of faculty receiving merit is X and the total number of faculty to receive high merit is Y and the pool available for merit raises is Z, then the amounts for merit raises (M) could be determined using this formula:


X (M) + Y (2M) = Z     ==>      M = Z/(X + 2Y)


Example: Suppose the merit pool is $140,000 with 50 people receiving merit and 150 high merit. Then the amount of the merit raise is M=140,000/(50+2(150))=$400. So a high merit raise would be $800.


The advantage of this solution is that the merit pool of dollars is stretched to accommodate receiving a particular merit classification and it does not create additional work for the chairs or the deans. The drawback of this method is that the increments could be very small if the pool is modest and the number of faculty receiving merit/high merit is large.




  1. Determine the amount of merit and high merit raises before knowing the total of number of faculty to receive these designations based on historical data and the amount of the merit pool. And ask the chairs to rank candidates from his or her department who are recommended to receive high merit—from highest to lowest priority. If the total number of faculty chosen for high merit overwhelms the dollars set aside for this designation then the deans can review the faculty records and chairs ranked recommendations to choose which individuals of lower priority for high merit will not be able to receive it this year.


The advantage to this is that the merit and high merit dollar amounts can be set, and at least within divisions one person is looking at that whole pool of candidates to see if merit designations are being equitably applied and remedy any misclassifications if needed to accommodate the size of the merit/high merit pool. The disadvantage is that this solution makes more work for the chairs, may increase work for the deans, and shifts the power for the “tie-breaker” decisions from the chairs to the deans.



Step 2:   Establish an ad hoc committee to review and make comprehensive recommendations on faculty evaluation and the merit system to be charged with revising the system before the end of the next Faculty Record cycle (recommended--May 2009).


Recommended committee make-up:

Two members from FWDC and two faculty from each division at least one of which should have current or previous experience as a chair. The provost and deans should be available for consultation and review of faculty committee recommendations.


Key issues that need to be addressed by this committee:


Clear expectations on what it means to succeed as a faculty person (lecturer, tenure-track, and tenured) at UNCA including clear guidelines for tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review as well as clarity about what it means to qualify for merit (in whatever number of categories of merit we have). Are these the same or different? (i.e. should merit status each year factor into tenure and promotion decisions or is this separate; and/or perhaps should service contributions figure more importantly in merit and scholarship more in promotion decisions?)


Overall expectations for faculty success and merit should be in line with the strategic plan.


Merit system should be trusted by and meaningful to the faculty. It’s purpose is to provide financial expression of our values as an institution.


Merit system (number of categories of merit and how it is decided) fits with the expectations outlined above.


Teaching evaluation system review

·         Revision of student rating of instruction system

·         Peer-evaluation—how to best implement

·         Establish a way to measure both quantity and quality of teaching


How does administrative service (chairing, program directing, and other major university service) fit in to the faculty evaluation and merit systems?


Who makes the merit recommendations and decisions?

·         Chairs

·         Faculty committee

·         Deans/Provost

·         Or some combination of the above


And how will equity across campus be maintained?  For example, if chairs continue to make recommendations, some type of oversight is needed, either by an administrator or a committee of faculty, to adjust chair recommendations in the direction of equity. For example, if merit categories are inequitably distributed across departments then that may need to be corrected. Chairs can help this along by RANK ORDERING all faculty in terms of performance before sending their evaluations to this oversight person or body. 


Given that different dollar amounts are allotted for merit raises by the state each year, some system for making that distribution equitable across years should be considered.

·         By using a 3 year moving average

·         By administration making formulaic adjustments to compensate those who earned high or exceptional merit in years when few monies were available when a year occurs in which more funds for raises available.

·         Or some other way


Work together with other committees already addressing related issues:

·         University Service Council (Shirley Browning)

·         Task Force for Student Rating of Instruction (Bill Haas)

·         Workload Committee (Alan Hantz)

·         Tenure Committee and Post Tenure Review Committee

Input available to the ad hoc committee

·         Review and address input from faculty collected by Sam and the FWDC on the web at: UNCA MERIT SYSTEM WEBPAGES and solicit additional information as needed.

·         Research systems for merit and faculty evaluation in use by other universities (especially those in the UNC system.)


          Dr. Schuman will take FWDC’s recommendations under advisement along with Senate comments and all the faculty comments made over the last several months.  He will respond very precisely to the recommendations in Step One early next week. 

          Dr. Krumpe opposed removing the 60/40 standard for high merit/merit and doubted that chairs were capable of reasonable restraint in regard to that recommendation.  There is a gross inflation of evaluations on campus and the 60/40 directive is useful.  Dr. Harvey said that is why the recommendations offer Option 2. 

          Dr. Dohse said he was the first chair of the Post-Tenure Review Committee.  The Faculty Senate, in its wisdom, wanted a 60/40 standard.  The faculty on the PTR committee made a decision that there was over-evaluation and 90% - 95% of the people submitted got merit.  Consequently, there was a lot of anger.  He agreed that evaluations are inflated, but questioned the 60/40 standard.   

          Dr. Holt questioned how a department could complete Step 2 (clear expectations on what it means to succeed as a faculty person) as this varies by department.  If you do your job, is that merit?  And how much beyond that makes one high merit or exceptional?  And how can a committee make it universal?  Even expectations for tenure vary by department.  Dr. Boudreaux said the criteria could be done by department or by division – as opposed to what we have now which is completely abstract.  These issues will be considered by the committee. 


IV.     Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Reports

         Dr. John Wood reported for the Institutional Development Committee and University Planning Council. 

         Program Review and Assessment

          The need for program review and assessment has come to the forefront for a number of reasons: 

·         Preparation for SACS review. 

·         Expectation from GA of assessment data and documentation on what we are doing and how we are improving.

·         Provost-elect Jane Fernandes has talked about an emerging need for a culture of evidence. 


          There is a sea change that will involve faculty documenting what we are doing, how we are responding to that documentation, and evidence that we are improving.  IDC plans to recommend an assessment model, for at least our academic programs/departments, one that is consistent with our interests yet provides valuable information that we can use to improve.  IDC is also looking at campus-wide assessment projects to ensure we are asking the right questions and getting the information we need to do our work, i.e., the freshman survey, the sophomore survey, and the graduating senior survey conducted by Institutional Research.

          UNC Tomorrow

          UNC Tomorrow is the primary planning document for the UNC system.  The UNC Tomorrow report is calling on us to respond in terms of GA’s strategic plan.  This is an opportunity for us to articulate what we are going to do in our interests rather than having these determined for us.  Dr. Wood’s understanding is that UPC is the point organization for the university’s response to UNC Tomorrow.  However, the Faculty Senate needs to communicate to IDC what faculty interests are.   

          Dr. Wood highlighted areas of the report:

·         There is an emphasis on integrating teaching, research and service.  We already do this – but we need to articulate what it is doing for the public as part of the culture of evidence. 

·         There is a general disposition toward inter-disciplinarity, inter-institutional cooperation and international engagement.  We are called upon to do this and we can design it in our interests. 

·         There is a renewed interest in professional training, such as teacher training.  For us, it probably means pre-med.  The public is interested in having more professionals trained by us.

·         The report advocates “soft skills” – writing, reading, communicating, thinking, problem-solving.  We already do this – we need to articulate and channel it. 

·         There is an emphasis on including historically under-represented populations, specifically African Americans and Hispanic students.

·         There is an emphasis on increasing public access to our university.  We need to think proactively about how we are going to respond.

·         Interest areas include:  economics, poverty, global competitiveness, environmental sustainability, youth schools, primary, secondary education, health and quality of life.  We have an opportunity to articulate and control our destiny instead of having GA tell us how we are going to do that.


          Dr. Wood said as an anthropologist reading the report, he saw a turn toward a corporate culture.  GA is talking about students as customers and they are talking about an interface and an emphasis on how we are articulating and cooperating with business leaders.  It is important that we think about how we are going to respond to this report in collusion with UPC. 

          Dr. Whatley said the full report with outline, timeline, PowerPoint slides and structure of the response is on the Academic Affairs website: UNC Tomorrow

          Dr. Sabo said on the issue of assessment, the fundamental question to ask is: What is its purpose?  Is the purpose to make us look good – or is the purpose to make us better?  In the past we erred in trying to make ourselves look good instead of making the assessment process useful to us.  He encouraged UPC to consider this on both levels.   


V.      Executive Committee Report

         Dr. Downes reported for the Executive Committee

         Perceptions of Administrative Office Survey

         Sixty offices were surveyed in the recent perceptions of administrative office survey co-sponsored by the Faculty Senate and the Office of the Chancellor.  This was the fifth survey conducted by UNCA since 1986.  The survey was completed on January 11, 2008, with a 54% participation rate by fulltime faculty and staff.  The Office of Institutional Research conducted the survey and performed the data analysis, producing summary tables which will be available to UNCA employees on a special on-line campus website. 

         As the Office of the Chancellor and the Faculty Senate Executive Committee agreed, Institutional Research has provided Bill Sabo with the responses to the Campus Climate questions at the end of the survey and the summary tables.  Dr. Sabo’s report on these materials will be shared with faculty and staff on the special website.  Specific comments written about each administrative office will be provided just to those offices and their supervisors on a need-to-know basis.  There were over 2,600 comments. 

          The Senate will invite the chancellor and vice chancellors to respond to this survey at this semester’s remaining Senate meetings.  They will be asked:  How was the survey helpful?  How could it be more helpful?  What kinds of comments were made?  How does the information help you in planning improvements?  We will ask for a written response to allow time for questions. 


         Dr. Pierce asked if anyone would see all the comments.  It would be strange if only department heads see the comments from their department – someone needs to look at all of the comments.  Dr. Downes said that the Chancellor will see all of the comments. 

         General Education Review

         Dr. Downes reported that five years ago, Ed Katz led us in a campus-wide review of general education, and led the implementation of our ILS Program.  Dr. Katz did a great job, and the Listening Project contributed to his receiving a national award for leadership in liberal arts general education.  We have had conversations recently about having a five-year review of ILS, which was called for in the plan, to see how it is working, how it could be tweaked.  Even if we are not teaching it right now, general education affects us and our students; the whole faculty is responsible for it.  We are looking forward to a review process that is productive rather than burdensome and would be helpful for our SACS review.


         Dr. Hantz, Chair of the Integrative Liberal Studies Oversight Committee (ILSOC) remarked:

·      ILSOC meets weekly; subcommittees often meet weekly.  Members receive no reassigned time.

·      The End-of-Year report in progress will contain three components:

o        Extensive Statistical Data

o        Discussion of points of connectivity between ILS and both UNC Tomorrow and our strategic plans.

o        Detailed outline of a comprehensive assessment plan for year five of the Program and beyond.

  }  Subgroups are working on their respective sections and will submit to Dr. Hantz by March 19.

·    Activity since taking on ILSOC:

o        Number of Intensives is up and department participation is widespread.  Program now includes >60 % of faculty and all students.

o        The use of Intensives, particularly DI, as faculty development opportunities has been increasing. 

o        Number and variety of LSIC courses increased with a wide range of faculty participants.

o        Number and types of clusters has increased: more importantly – faculty cooperation and collaboration within clusters is increasing and evolving.  For instance, the food cluster, assessment has been linked to faculty development and a research and publication opportunity.

·    Footnote:

o        Dr. Hantz presented a report last year but it was not distributed beyond the APC.  That report is available at your request upon request. 

o        All of the suggestions of last year’s APC concerning ILSOC have seen action.


         Dr. Downes asked if ILS includes all general education.  Dr. Hantz said that by the Senate document ILS includes all general education but ILSOC is only tasked with overseeing specific components of it.  The humanities, the sciences, foreign languages and health and wellness are not under the purview of ILSOC.  Dr. Downes suggested this might be a good time for an all-campus general education review.  She asked if there is a plan for an all-campus Listening Project akin to when we founded ILS.  Dr. Hantz said one was not planned but it is never a bad idea to have people talk.

         Dr. Wood was interested in knowing if there was an articulation of what students should have learned, and a way to measure whether they did or not.  Dr. Hantz said yes – the Intensive subcommittees are creating learning outcomes and they are proposing means to assess those without using surveys. 

         Dr. Krumpe made the following points/clarifications: 

·      The Listening Project was not part of the review of general education.  APC did the review of general education.  After that review, the Faculty Senate charged GERTF with revising the general education program.  It was at that point that we implemented the campus-wide Listening Project.      

·      One of the outcomes of the APC review was the fact that in the previous general education there was no oversight of general education.  That led to the creation of ILSOC and the presence of an APC member on ILSOC.   

·      He questioned the need for a campus-wide assessment of the effectiveness of the ILS program as we have a structure (ILSOC) that does constant oversight and assessment.  Maybe ILSOC should have some authority over LANG 120 and the humanities program.  If the Senate thinks our system is broken, it needs to look at itself because the Senate has been part of that process with representation on ILSOC.  He would hate to see us waste a lot of energy trying to fix something that is not broken.  


          Dr. Harvey urged the Senate to not repeat the Listening Project now.  

          Dr. Moseley said he was involved in the Listening Project and he agreed it was a lot of work.  But to say “is it time to assess” is not to say that it is broken.  It is not an attack on any group to ask how well it is working.  Large parts of general education that are not under ILS are not being assessed. 

          Dr. Katz supported making more formal relationships between ILSOC and the programs that are a part of ILS such as the humanities, arts and ideas and the learning foundations courses.  He thought it was a good idea to hear what colleagues think would improve their experience and there are ways to do this that would not be as labor intensive as the Listening Project.  Regarding the timing – we may want to do this after we have developed more longitudinal information about outcomes and programs.  The intensives, in particular, are a great way to learn how to be better at what we want to accomplish.  People are engaging in the intensives, and coordinators and subcommittees now have an opportunity through faculty input to refine the learning outcomes and have behavioral statements to look for hard evidence of learning outcomes.  That is a new thing for us in the general education curriculum and it will be a great tool for us to go forward. 

         Dr. Sabo said he meant no disrespect, but the Senate has heard a tremendous defense about how good this is when in fact we have not had the assessment.  Dr. Moseley’s point is well taken – we do not know if it is broken or working – that is the point of assessment.  Last year when Ms. McKenzie chaired APC she put this on the agenda.  He met with Dr. Hantz and was told to back off (wait until they were finished and then they would come to APC.)  The original Senate document says APC is to review this and now Dr. Hantz is talking about bypassing APC.  He was curious to know why.  There is a difference between assessment and oversight.  If ILSOC says this is working well, that is your assessment.  Oversight looks at ILSOCS’ practices to see if it adheres to the original plan.  The Senate is primarily responsible for laying out the foundation of how this is to be done and it usually delegates it to one of its committees.  All of these discussions are premature.  Let ILSOC do its work; APC will synthesize it and come to the Senate – then we will talk about it. 

          Dr. Downes said ILSOC is doing a lot of good work.  We need to see how ILSOC is complemented by the rest of general education.  Everyone on campus needs to be reminded of what connections there are between all of general education, ILSOC, and what everyone teaches.  

          Dr. Hantz wanted to be clear – he did ask Dr. Sabo to back off.  When he stepped into the role as ILSOC chair, he realized they had a lot to do and he wanted the time and space to move in that direction.  He wants the Senate to see the report because we all own this program.  So why not take it to APC and give it to the Senate to look at.  

         Dr. Friedenberg clarified that the Deans receive (in odd numbered years, in June) the Institutional Effectiveness Reports from humanities, Arts & Ideas, math and science departments.  The reports are supposed to have the learning outcomes that it assessed over a two-year period.  Dr. Downes agreed the data would be helpful as an overview and faculty will have a chance to give input. 

          Restructuring Academic Affairs

          The Senate’s Executive Committee has met with the Chancellor, Sam Schuman, and Kathy Whatley to discuss possibilities for restructuring Academic Affairs in light of the preferences our new Provost, Jane Fernandes, expresses.  The process is ongoing, but decisions will likely be made sometime this semester.  Faculty are encouraged to come to the meeting to discuss Dr. Schuman’s proposed recommendations – February 21, 4:00pm in the Whitman Room.  We need faculty input and serious consideration of how we prefer Academic Affairs to be structured. 


VI.     Administrative Reports

          Academic Affairs: 

          - Budget

          Dr. Downes explained that when UPC has completed the strategic plan and the UNC Tomorrow responses, we can anticipate that budget information will come to the Senate through UPC. 

          Dr. Whatley said she limited the discussion to state funds (both receipts and appropriations) because of time constraints.  The Foundation funds and all the fees that go to auxiliary services are not included (health fee, athletic fee, food, room and board.) 

          Dr. Downes said there have been times when deans have generosity offered to help her with finances for special opportunities.  It would be good to have a process so faculty have an opportunity to request funds.  Dr. Friedenberg said two opportunities for faculty to request money for special opportunities are on the Academic Affairs website:  1) curricular enhancement (fieldtrips and other kinds of travel and study that might be involved in developing a new course or enhancing an existing course, and 2) faculty research (an independent program from the URC program.)  The requests are reviewed by the deans.  Dr. Whatley said for the last four years they have tried to have special opportunities handled at the departmental level rather than at the dean level.  Two reports distributed are available on the Senate website:

Response to Faculty Senate Executive Commitee Budget Questions

UNCA Budget Report: F2007-08

          - Enrollment Report

          Ms. McClellan reported that spring enrollment was less than expected and we are outside the 2% window.  She offered three factors: we graduated our largest December class ever, last year Senate approved our new first semester suspension policy (GPA <1.0), and transfer student enrollment was down.  These factors affect our budgets and our revenues and we are hoping to improve next year.  

          - Transportation Report

          The transportation report was postponed until March 13th due to the late hour.  Mr. Baxley said that on February 28th and March13th there will be open sessions to discuss various parking issues.    

          Dr. Sabo expressed concern over two items in the Transportation report: one section refers to finding solutions that will work for UNC Asheville; another section says “…our discussions must be guided by proven best practices in the field of TDM (transportation demand management).”  He noted that “proven best practices” is often at odds with “solutions that work for UNC Asheville.”  The section also refers to “…input and guidance obtained from meetings and forums with the University community, and the Strategic Planning process.”  That implies that they are listening but there is no decision-making capacity outside the expertise of the group.  He asked Senators to keep this is mind if they are concerned about governance and who makes decisions.   


VII.    Old Business

          There was no Old Business.


VIII.   New Business

          Dr. Downes reported for the Student Environmental Center (SEC). This semester computers in the computer labs will have a prompt “how to do two-sided printing” as an option.  If the response is positive then beginning in Fall 2008 the computers in the computer lab will have two-sided printing as the default.  The SEC wanted the Senate to be aware of this project and would like its support. 


IX.     Adjourn

          Dr. Downes reminded members of the Executive Committee to remain for a brief meeting.  The meeting was adjourned at 5:35pm. 


Respectfully submitted by:   Sandra Gravely

                                           Executive Committee