University of North Carolina at Asheville


Minutes, March 13, 2008



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

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

                  B. Wilson, J. Wood; S. Schuman. 


Absent:       H. Holt.


Visitors:      S. Baxley, P. Catterfeld, Y. Koslen, C. McKnight, J. McKnight, G. Nallan. 




I.        Call to Order and Announcements

          Dr. Downes called the meeting to order at 3:23 pm and welcomed Senators and guests.  She said that we had a very successful election of Senators and alternates that we look forward to incorporating into the 2008-09 Senate on April 24th.

          Note from Kathy Whatley

          Dear Peg, Sandra, and the rest of the Senate,

          Thank you very much for the UNC Asheville pen and paperweight!  I will put both to good use.  They will remind me of the good work we did together. 

          Thanks so much for your good wishes.  I’ll miss all of you.


II.      Approval of Minutes

         The minutes of January 31, 2008 and February 14, 2008 were approved as written. 


III.     Administrative Report 

          Academic Affairs 

          - Merit Salary Allocations

          Sam Schuman said he took FWDC’s recommendations on the merit salary allocations distributed at the last Senate meeting, including the recommendation that we take a hard look at this next year under the leadership of the new provost.  The biggest change this year is eliminating the 60/40 merit system.  Department chairs are being asked to exercise thoughtful restraint in their merit recommendations.  Next year we need to have a larger discussion of issues connected with faculty reviews such as what does and does not count as service and as scholarship.       

          - Personnel Actions

          The Post-Tenure Review Committee has deliberated and made its recommendations, and the candidates for post-tenure review have been notified of the results.  Similarly, the Committee of Tenured Faculty has made its recommendations for reappointment and tenure; because of the change in the tenure and promotion calendar there was only one tenure case but there were a number of reappointment cases.  Those individuals and their chairs have also been notified.  That leaves only the individual faculty reviews and the promotion reviews yet to do. 

          - Administrative Restructuring

          Dr. Schuman distributed a proposed reaction of the Chancellor and the Provost-elect to the series of recommendations that he made about the structure of Academic Affairs administration.  He said he was speaking somewhat awkwardly on the Chancellor’s behalf as she was out of town and unable to attend the meeting today.  He noted that this draft is not irrevocable or perfect, and made reference to two small changes:  the Teacher Education Diversity Initiative has a different name and has mutated into a slightly different program.  But basically this is what we will see next year:


·         Three Academic Deans, one Associate Provost, and one Director will replace 5 existing Deans.

·         Academic Deans are all 11-month positions.

·         Academic Deans are appointed for an initial 2-year term, renewable for an additional 3-year term for a total of 5 years total.

·         Academic Deans are chosen from among the ranks of UNC Asheville tenured professors.

·         Tenure is preserved, with retreat rights identified in initial agreement.

·         Academic Deans are chosen and appointed by the Provost, in consultation with all department chairs, not just divisional chairs.

·         They are evaluated by the Provost, in consultation with all department chairs.

·         Academic Deans will be paid their regular faculty salary for the 9-month academic year; Additional two months are paid at 1/12 (for a total of 2/12) of the average annual dean salary of the prior year.  Deans not eligible for merit raises during deanship, but their faculty salary is eligible for faculty across-the-board raises and adjustments.

·         Academic Deans teach at least 1 course per semester, and have a faculty office in the proximity of their departments.

·         Academic Deans assist in hosting, stewardship, and fundraising, especially for academic programs and equipment. 

·         They attend University lectures, openings, and events, including new student recruitment events.

·         Each Academic Dean will have one or more university-wide responsibilities (a center, commencement, OSSP, etc.).

·         Each of the three Academic Deans will have two offices – one for their faculty responsibilities located in or near the Dean’s respective departments and one located centrally with the other Academic Deans.

·         The Associate Provost is a 12-month EPA non-faculty appointment (similar to the Provost appointment) which retains tenure and faculty rank.  S/he is chosen and appointed by the Provost, in consultation with all department chairs, not just divisional chairs, for renewable terms of appointment.

·         The Associate Provost will be evaluated by the Provost, in consultation with all department chairs.

·         Director of Academic Administration is a 12-month continuing appointment, selected and evaluated by the Provost.

·         All serve in the Provost’s cabinet.


          Dr. Schuman distributed the latest iteration of the process for dean selection:

  • Three dean positions and the associate provost position will be available for application and appointment.  Dr. Schuman will help with this process, working to ensure at least two potential candidates for each opening.  Applications are expected to be received in the Provost’s office prior to the 3rd week in August, 2008.  The current deans will serve for an additional semester to allow us sufficient time to consult; for our new provost to play a leadership role in the decision process; and to maximize needed continuity in a transitional period.
  • In April Dr. Schuman will meet with the Department chairs within the program area together to go over the process and ask them to canvass their departmental constituents, and solicit their thoughts and suggestions.  Simultaneously, the faculty is asked to nominate candidates, or to apply, for the vacant deanships.
  • In April or May, chairs meet with departments; candidates are nominated or apply.  The Dean of the Faculty may cultivate additional candidates for consideration.
  • The Provost, Dr. Fernandes, meets again with Chairs within the program area, separately and together, to review the slate of 2-4 candidates which will have emerged for each deanship and with all the chairs to review the slate of 2-4 candidates for Associate Provost and Dean of University Programs.  These conversations will be an excellent introduction for our new provost in her early days of the new academic year.
  • After consulting with the Chancellor, the Provost will select the deans and associate provost from among the candidates.



          Highlights of the questions/comments follow:

  • Dr. Spellman has graciously agreed to remain as Dean of Humanities for one more semester.
  • It is Dr. Schuman’s impression that the clock restarts for current Deans.  He would recommend that the terms be staggered for continuity.
  • The Provost and the Chancellor communicate directly with each other.  The Chancellor’s senior staff are not on the organizational chart or, in fact, in between the Chancellor and Academic Affairs.        
  • Why does the Dean of University Programs also carry the title of Associate Provost?  What does that mean?
    • The assumption is that because this person oversees a wide range of regular instructional programs as well as other educational endeavors that are not strictly undergraduate instructional programs s/he is in a different relationship with the faculty and with the Provost than a dean would be.  The Associate Provost title aims to be responsive to this person’s responsibility for the Craft Campus, the Asheville Graduate Center, etc. 
    • This person is not working more closely with the Provost and has no supervisory capacity over the Deans. 
  • The divisional Deans could easily be housed outside of Phillips Hall.
    • The Associate Provost would primarily be housed in Phillips Hall.  The divisional deans would have some shared office space in Phillips Hall and an office in their academic area.
  • After the Deans have served the five year maximum (2 year initial term, renewable for an additional 3-year term for a total of 5 years total) does that mean never again?   
    • Dr. Schuman assumed no one would want to do this for five years, return to teaching for five years, then return again to a deanship but they might.
  • There was opposition to having the Chief Research Officer and the OSSP reporting to the Dean of Natural Sciences.  This implies that that group of faculty/division is the only division responsible for sponsored scholarship.  We have numerous examples of social scientists on campus and some humanists with substantial funding. 
  • The Provost should appoint the membership to the Provost’s Cabinet and the suggested membership may change. 
  • Is there a term limit on the Associate Provost position?
    • The Associate Provost is a 12-month EPA non-faculty, renewable, appointment.  Dr. Schuman agreed the number of renewals needs to be clarified. 
  • The Administration should plan to replace the people who will be in the deans’ positions.  We were assured when the system was instituted that departments would get a replacement for them.  This has not happened.    
    • Dr. Schuman said replacement positions are essential if departments, particularly smaller departments, are going to need to be encouraged to think about candidates within their department to move into that position.
  • Why are the Center for Teaching and Learning and the Center for Diversity Education directly responsible to the Provost?  Those areas seem to have been elevated to the same prestige as the Deans and the Chair of the Faculty Senate.   
    • Dr. Schuman understood that the Provost wanted those reporting directly to her.
  • Dr. Schuman said we should understand that Dr. Fernandes may want to adjust this structure.   


          - Transportation Report

          Steve Baxley reported that we are in the planning stage on how to address both long-term and short-term transportation and parking needs for the campus.  Transportation issues are not easily solved.  We have a keen interest in the environment in which we live but we are also saddled with private automobiles in part because the surrounding community does not have a robust mass transit system.     

          Construction of the new Health and Wellness facility, as well as renovation of Rhoades Hall and tower next academic year, will place additional strains on parking and transportation resources.  Demolition for the new Health and Wellness facility will begin in April.  The facility will be on-line about January 2011 with a $2,000,000 parking deck. 

          In the meantime, traffic patterns will be disrupted and we will lose 200 parking spaces.  We have not seen a rate increase in parking fees for faculty and staff in a number of years.  One of the guiding principles of the Transportation Committee is to keep the rates as low as possible.  We want to manage transportation in such a way as to minimize the parking we need to provide and also minimize how much we pay for parking.  For example, running a shuttle near campus where many students live is a cheaper alternative than building parking for additional students. 

          Discussions need to be held this semester so plans will be in place next August.  Two informational campus forums have been scheduled to engage the campus community.  Meetings will also be held with UPC, CSAC and other committees to elicit support and advice on how to best interface with faculty, students and staff on campus as we work through these issues.

          The Transportation Committee is looking at a host of options and will send its recommendation to Mr. Baxley.  Mr. Baxley will forward the recommendation and the budget to the Chancellor’s senior staff who will have two options – to either sign off on it, or return it to Mr. Baxley and instruct him to use his own best judgment.  He believes senior staff will sign off on it. 

          Mr. Baxley will send the guiding principles and the Transportation Committee’s vision statement and mission statement to the Senate.


IV.     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 31:                Remove MGMT 321, 421, and 425

         APC 32: Remove MGMT 421 as an elective option for Health and Wellness Promotion majors

         APC 33: Delete ACCT 303; Change course descriptions and credit hours for ACCT 301, 302, and 317;

         APC 34: Change Management Concentrations

         APC 35: Remove MGMT 220 as a requirement for ACCT, MGMT and IEM Majors;

                       Change Computer Competency requirement

         APC 36: Change requirements for declaring major in Management

         APC 37: Change prerequisites for MGMT 352, 386, 398, 453, 464, 480, ACCT 417 and 418

         APC 38: Remove MGMT 220 as prerequisite for courses

         APC 39: Change Course Description for ACCT 416; Change Title of MGMT 386

         APC 40: Change Requirements for Declaring a Major in Sociology

         APC 41: Delete SOC 310 from curriculum; Add new course, SOC 337

         [Passed APC by 3-1 vote]

         APC 42: Changing Selected POLS courses from 3 to 4-credit hours

         APC 43: Change titles and descriptions of POLS 329, 359, and 385.


         Dr. Sabo said that APC 42 and APC 43 provoked considerable discussion and at least two members of APC hoped that this could be more generally discussed at the next Senate meeting.  The discussion centered on the value or significance of moving from three credit hours to four credit hours.  A couple of other proposals have come to APC this year, switching from three to four credit hours, but APC 42 is substantial. 

          Dr. Bell said the Political Sciences department appears to have made a conscious decision to offer primarily four hour courses rather than three hour courses.  He does not want to micromanage a department, but if other departments make the same decision we will become a university where students will take roughly 30 courses to graduate instead of 40.  There may be advantages to the greater depth that students receive in a four hour course but students will have fewer courses outside their major.   

          Dr. Moseley asked what, other than changing from three to four hours, took place in these courses.  Dr. Sabo said that in at least four cases, two course sequences are compressed into one course.  It eliminates courses and merges material covered in other classes.  The Department plan allows every course to be taught in a two-year cycle.  Some classes will be split in 3 and 1 – the faculty could use the fourth hour as a service learning component or for undergraduate research.  Class may be scheduled MWF at 10:00 then have Friday afternoon for service learning or research.  He said his department has been experimenting with this for more than two years.      

          Dr. Schuman noted that most high quality liberal arts colleges of our size and sort have four credit hour courses as their standard module and six courses per year as their standard faculty load.  He thought it would be very good for us to think about moving in that direction.      

          Dr. Pierce questioned what General Administration’s response would be given that we are facing increasing public scrutiny.  Dr. Sabo said that GA only cares about whether or not he has taught 24 hours this year – the administration would want to know that he had generated the same number of student credit hours then, as now.

          Dr. Hartsfield said she was an APC member that wanted this brought to a larger audience for discussion.  There are pros and cons to this issue.  Once we approve this carte blanche for one department, next year APC may receive similar proposals from ten departments.  This may be what we want, but if we have four credit courses we may start having classes Monday through Thursday; not utilizing classrooms on Fridays could be a negative.  On a positive side, she doubts students can balance five courses in a semester.  This new plan would give students an opportunity to take four courses a semester which is more likely a load they can balance and more students would graduate within four years.  A negative may be the total number of courses students can take – that is the trade-off. 

          Dr. Sabo said four-hour courses allow more flexibility in how the curriculum is offered and in how special topics courses can be introduced.  Departments could offer 2 two-hour courses; for example, Political Sciences’ senior research class was compressed into two hours and the three-hour methodology class was compressed into two hours.    

          Dr. Wood noted that the natural sciences do this all the time in terms of having what amounts to a four-or five-hour class because they have a class and a lab.  Some of us are trying to do more research with our students.  If we are trying to cover content and research in a class, this provides the kind of flexibility we need.


         Dr. Harvey said if a department is already offering a majority of its courses for the major as four credit hours, then the precedent has been set – we can not deny another department from doing the same thing.     


         Second Reading:  [Approved without opposition by APC]

         The following documents were considered for Second Reading:


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

         APC 28 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 3608S.


         APC 29: Change requirements for Honors Program.          

         APC 29 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 3708S.


         APC 30: Delete POLS 150. 

         APC 30 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 3808S.


V.      Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report

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

          First Reading

         The following document was distributed for First Reading:

         FWDC 4: Changes to Graduate Council (Revision to SD0292F; Faculty Handbook 10.3.9)


         Slates for Academic Appeals Board Nominees and Alternate Faculty Conciliator

         The Academic Appeals Board slate was amended.  The Senate approved the two slates but expressed concern that a faculty member could not serve on both the Academic Appeals Board and as Faculty Conciliator simultaneously.  After further consultation, and after the March 13th meeting, FWDC emailed the following Academic Appeals Board slate to Senators and it passed without opposition: 


              - Natural Sciences:  Leigh Atkinson, Tim Giblin, Forest Davenport

              - Humanities:  Gary Ettari, Lorena Russell

              - Social Sciences:  Mary Lynn Manns, Melissa Smith, Mark Sidelnick


A slate of nominees for Alternate Faculty Conciliator will be presented at the next Senate meeting -- after the results of the Academic Appeals Board election are know.


VI.     Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Reports

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

          Update on Strategic Plan

          The UPC is developing benchmarks for our Strategic Plan and is also articulating our response to UNC Tomorrow, the system’s strategic plan.  This is a complex process that involves lengthy conversations to make sure that it is inclusive.  UPC may meet over the summer. 

          Update on Assessment

          IDC is looking at assessment in terms of how it can make us better – not in terms of how it can make us look good.  There is talk of having a Director of Assessment on campus; other campuses have web pages devoted to assessment where data is available.  IDC is working to articulate our guiding principles to ensure that our assessment practices are in keeping with our values and principles as faculty.  IDC imagines an assessment process where there are reports and several rounds of responses so there is a sense of engagement and progress.  Dr. Fernandes, who has spoken of developing a culture of evidence, will be instrumental in developing an overall assessment strategy.    


VII.    Executive Committee Report

         Dr. Downes reported for the Executive Committee.

         UNCA response to GA’s academic planning process

         Senators received the academic planning process presentation yesterday given by Alan Mabe at General Administration.  Sam Schuman, Gwen Ashburn and Peg Downes are working to assist Chancellor Ponder with UNC Asheville’s response to a proposed statewide revision of the academic planning process (i.e., what kinds of programs should we have, establish, maintain, eliminate).  This came up quickly, and a quick response is needed; Senators are asked to send comments to Dr. Schuman or Dr. Downes. 

          Dean of Admissions Candidates

          The Senate will interview two admissions candidates:  March 18th from 10:10-10:50am and March 19th from 5:00-5:30pm. 


          EC meeting with Provost-elect Jane Fernandes

          On April 1st the Executive Committee will meet with Jane Fernandes.  Senators should send comments/questions to the Executive Committee.  One complicated issue of concern is clarifying the expectations of faculty service and scholarship.  Dr. Downes has spoken to Dr. Fernandes about this need. 

          Christine Riley is planning some basic sign language mini-courses, for summer and possibly for fall.

          ILSOC and General Education Review Process

          Earlier this semester, Dr. Katz and Dr. Downes had a productive conversation on working toward a review process that all faculty will be asked to share in.  ILSOC is an exceptionally hard-working committee, and is doing excellent things for the ILS parts of UNCA’s general education program. 

          There is insufficient interest to undergo another extensive Listening Project at this time (valuable though that was, five years ago—it confirmed the all-faculty ownership of general education, and produced an exciting revision of general education.)  Dr. Downes reiterated that the faculty, in general, is responsible for general education—as much as they are responsible for curricular decision-making in our own departments. 

          On Tuesday, March 25th, the Executive Committee and ILSOC will meet to discuss two issues:  (1) what kind of fruitful, non-burdensome campus-wide process might take place, to review our 5—year-old revised general education program; and (2) can we develop a means of more focused oversight of the whole general education program, ILS included, to perhaps improve its elements to be top-notch and complementary.  And we need to ask -- What other issues should we be talking about?


          Dr. Pierce noted that there was unanimous agreement among all the Humanities Chairs that there are very serious issues that need to be addressed.  Their sense of urgency is much greater than those reflected in Dr. Downes’ comments.  Dr. Downes suggested that after the initial conversation on March 25th maybe we can move quickly if we can get specifics from Dr. Spellman or another spokesperson. 

          Dr. Krumpe said that Dr. Spellman relayed his thoughts about that meeting to Dr. Katz on Tuesday.  Dr. Spellman was invited to the ILSOC meeting yesterday but unfortunately had another obligation and could not attend the meeting.  He submitted comments in writing and ILSOC discussed the comments briefly and is in the process of deciding how best to get additional input from those individuals.  Dr. Downes said she was not at the meeting but it might include more than just the ILS -- the other components of general education might be part of the discussion. 

          Dr. Hartsfield said she thought this was the kind of work that the Academic Policies Committee is supposed to do.  APC discussed assessing general education at its first meeting this year.  Should APC not bother with it because the Executive Committee is going to do it? 

          Dr. Sabo said the Executive Committee is not doing it – it is trying to ease tensions that emerged from the last meeting.  He discussed this with Dr. Hantz and he said that ILSOC was going to re-examine and come up with its own assessment tools.  It made perfect sense to him to let ILSOC do this – and then APC can look at the assessment.  APC has traditionally done this.  Part of the purpose of the meeting with the EC is to clarify who is responsible for what.  He suggests in the short run that ILSOC does its own assessment and APC reviews the assessment.  Dr. Downes underscored the need to address the two issues that have not been dealt with yet.     

         Update on Perceptions of Administration Offices Survey

          Chancellor Ponder is considering having a “Senior Supervisor” (herself, or Vice Chancellor, or Christine Riley) respond to the survey at one of our two April Senate meetings.  The four questions we have proposed are:  How was the survey helpful?  How could it be more helpful?  What kind of comments were there?  How does this affect your planning?  If that cannot be worked out, we want this semester to establish a plan for when those presentations to Senate would take place.  Dr. Sabo will discuss a draft report at the next Executive Committee meeting.


VIII.   Old Business

          There was no Old Business.


IX.      New Business

          There was no New Business.    


X.      Adjourn

          The meeting was adjourned at 5:08pm. 


Respectfully submitted by:   Sandra Gravely

                                           Executive Committee