FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, November 15, 2007
Members: G. Boudreaux, C. Bell, K. Cole, L. Dohse, P. Downes, B. Haas, J. Hartsfield, 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: S. Baxley, S. Byrd, T. Card, H. Johnson, Y. Koslen, B. Larson, P. McClellan, J. McKnight,
G. Nallan, A. Ponder, A. Shope.
I. Call to Order and Announcements
Dr. Downes called the meeting to order at 3:20 pm and welcomed Senators and guests.
The Executive Committee has revised the order of business to allow for more discussion. This will reinforce the need to receive reports in writing prior to the meeting. Reports from campus organizations will be near the end of the agenda.
II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of October 18, 2007, were approved as written.
Perceptions of Administrative Offices Survey
Testing of the on-line perceptions of administrative offices survey will be conducted next week with plans to administer the survey this semester. Faculty and staff will be encouraged to complete the anonymous survey.
IV. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Reports
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
IDC 1: Criteria for Masters Programs
IDC 2: Intent to Plan Anthropology major in Sociology Department
Dr. Downes encouraged Senators to read IDC’s April 13, 2006 report to Senate for more information on masters programs. IDC April 13, 2006 Report re: Masters Programs
V. Academic Policies Committee Report
Dr. Bill Sabo reported for the Academic Policies Committee.
First Reading: [Unanimously approved by APC]
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
APC 2: Change credit-hour limit for MATH 499 and STAT 499.
APC 3: Change the narrative for MLA; Reduce number of years allowed for completion of program.
APC 4: Change the course descriptions for MLA 520, 540, 670 and 680.
APC 5: Change the course descriptions for MLA 670 and 680.
APC 6: Change requirements for the MLA degree.
APC 7: Adding New Literature and Language Courses: LIT/LANG 368 and LANG 466.
APC 8: Prerequisite Changes to LANG 461, 463, 465, 497, 499.
APC 9: Add requirements for declaring a Concentration in Creative Writing.
APC 10: Add new courses, LANG 368 and 366 to list of available courses for the Creative Writing
minor; Add an application to the process for declaring a minor in Creative Writing.
APC 11: Add new course: PHYS 107, Introductory Physical Sciences.
APC 12: Changes to requirements for Minor in Classics.
APC 13: Addition of ENVR 360 to the list of Ecology and Biology electives for ENVR majors in
Ecology and Environmental Biology.
APC 14: Change of course title and description of ENVR 341;
Adding BIOL 342 and cross listing it with ENVR 341.
APC 15: Change credit hours for EDUC 314; Reduce hours in licensure areas requiring EDUC 314.
APC Approved as Minor Proposal:
APC 1: Change the frequency of offerings for MATH 191 and 480.
Senators were asked to carefully review APC Documents 3, 4, 5, and 6 regarding the MLA program.
VI. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Downes introduced the following lists as issues the Senate Executive Committee considers high priority matters:
· Shared Governance (UNC Faculty Assembly’s major focus at this time)
· Strategic Plan: continuing clarification, plans for implementation
Diversity: aspects, planning and the new Diversity Action Council (DAC)
· University Planning Council: its success, to date, according to its official list of Duties
· Graduate Programs at UNCA
· Faculty Service (“Fully Engaged Faculty”): expectations, rewards
· Development of newer faculty’s campus leadership
· Support of student initiatives: e.g., new
· November 2007: Survey of Perceptions of Administrative Offices
· Graduate Programs at UNCA
· Provost Search
· Student Rating of Instruction
VII. Administrative Reports
Academic Affairs report from
- Dean of Admissions
The search for a Dean of Admissions has failed. The administration has engaged Performa, an admissions consulting group, to improve our applications processes and to work on staff development in Admissions. Performa will provide four people on a rotating basis – one of them will be on campus for one day a week each week and one will be named the Interim Director of Admissions. They will work with Pat McClellan and through Jamie Marcus and Barkley Barton with all of Admissions. They will also advise us on the timing for a new search but will not be involved in the search process.
Dr. Whatley applauded the work Ms. McClellan has done with the Admissions Office and thanked Admissions staff for their work. Over the weekend 250 applications were processed. The highest over the weekend number previously processed was 95. On Monday, another 212 applications were processed. The increase in applications is due in large part to the open houses we have had this year. She thanked faculty for talking with students and families. At this point last year we had 1150 applications – we now have over 1300. These students are likely to be the highest quality and most interested in us as an institution.
General Administration General Education Study
General Administration collected the general education requirements from schools in the system in response to the Board of Governors’ and Legislature’s interest in how classes transfer within the NC system and how we coordinate with the community college system so that students can graduate within a reasonable time. Vice President Harold Martin reached the conclusion that general education requirements are specific to institutions and each has its own character.
There are things we can do to work with the community college system. If they have a 40-hour general education core (part of the articulation agreement) or an AA or AS degree, students can transfer in and will have met the general education requirements for sophomore level and below. Students will be required to take ILS 379 and Humanities 324 and ILS 479 or Humanities 414. UNCA is working very closely with AB Tech to have advising expertise on their campus for students interested in transferring. We are also teaching a HUM 324 course on their campus to facilitate the transfer of those students to UNCA.
Dr. Martin is recommending to President Bowles and to the BOG that they talk to the General Assembly about letting us handle transferring by agreeing to some principles, such as working to make it easier for community college students to transfer and getting information to them in a timely way but not by looking at course by course equivalencies amongst all the institutions and the community colleges.
Dr. Downes will thank Dr. Martin, on behalf of the Senate, for his sensitivity to what the university is trying to do.
Minimum Admission Requirements
The Board of Governors is preparing to institute system-wide minimum admission requirements. Dr. Whatley noted these will not affect UNCA as our minimum admission requirements surpass those proposed.
Dr. Hartfield asked if students were required to leave campus during the Thanksgiving break. Dr. Whatley said yes; the campus closes and for safety reasons we cannot leave students in the dorms unsupervised. International students are placed locally. Students who need a place to stay over the holiday should contact Student Affairs.
Changes in the
Dr. Krumpe asked what acceptance rate was anticipated. Ms. McClellan said in recent years $50,000 - $60,000 has been awarded with a forty percent yield. We would like the average scholarship to be $2,000 - $2,500 and the minimal scholarship to be $1,000. Approximately 120-150 students will be invited to apply.
Dr. Holt asked if there was a minimum GPA requirement to apply for the scholarship. Ms. McClellan said in the past, students had to meet two of three requirements:
Dr. Bruce Larson reported that the search committee met with Chancellor Ponder and everyone had an opportunity to share their individual thoughts about each candidate. The expectation is that an announcement will be made after Thanksgiving break.
Dr. Sabo said in the past, the search committee sent a short list to the decision-maker or at least ranked the faculty responses. Was there no formal short list in the traditional sense? Dr. Larson said all four candidates were discussed in the same way. Dr. Sabo asked for clarification -- so essentially the only ranking or preference list the Chancellor has is what she learned in the meeting and heard from the comments? Dr. Larson said yes, that is correct.
VIII. Reports from Campus Organizations:
Chancellor’s Staff Advisory Committee report from JoAnne McKnight
The Initiative Committee of the UNC Staff Assembly has been working on a UNC Distinguished Staff Mentor award. General Administration hired Ernest & Young to visit the campuses to determine the skill sets needed for staff members in financial arenas; this may be expanded to include technology and admissions. They have begun identifying exemplary staff members who fulfill the skill sets as well as staff members who need more training.
Student Government Association report from Tristyn Card
Tristyn Card had not arrived when the Senate was ready to receive the SGA report.
Dr. Chris Bell, as a member of the Transportation Committee, distributed a Transportation Fee Resolution passed by the SGA. The resolution proposed that the transportation fee be reduced to $30 for all students and then have a $70 parking fee for only those students who park on campus. Currently all students pay a $70 transportation fee whether they have a car on campus or not.
Dr. Bell said the expectation is that revenue will increase. There are plans to make it more attractive not to bring cars on campus – such as a regular shuttle service for areas with high concentrations of students. The Transportation Committee passed the resolution and it will be talking about various options. However, it does not want to move forward without extensive discussion with the community and without a plan. The recommendation is that faculty and staff rates remain the same.
Dr. Whatley noted that the way this proposal ended up being revenue positive was to increase the parking rate of faculty and staff. That is one of the reasons it was postponed for discussion throughout the spring semester. She expressed additional concerns:
· Students who bring cars on campus will pay a higher transportation fee than the faculty and staff do ($100 versus $70 that faculty and staff pay.)
· It produces a financial disincentive but it also might disadvantage students who need a car on campus because of work responsibilities.
· The only way we can pay for the shuttles is to increase the parking fee for faculty and staff as well as to increase the parking fee for students. This will need a lot of discussion because it is a very sensitive issue.
Dr. Bell emphasized that the proposal is coming from the students. SGA is strongly in support of this change in the fee structure. The numbers he saw from Mr. Koslen did not assume that faculty and staff would be paying more to make this revenue positive.
Dr. Hartsfield asked if this included the cost of the shuttles. Dr. Bell said it does not include the cost of the shuttles. This increases the revenue but it also increases the cost. Steve Baxley would have to explain this and he will be at the meeting with Ms. Card. Dr. Krumpe said he was perplexed with the preliminary information over how this could be revenue neutral and he was anxious to hear Mr. Baxley and others explain how revenues would be positive.
Hartsfield suggested that students who chose to ride the shuttle should pay for
the shuttle to offset the cost -- just as students who bring cars to campus
should pay a user parking fee. Dr.
Moseley added that we should also be capturing revenue from members of the
Dr. Sabo suggested that the Transportation Committee review the master plan, make the calculations and send the report to IDC. The administration should be preparing this information so we can discuss it intelligently. Give us a plan with a short report with appendices where we can find the information. Among the questions to be addressed are: How many parking spaces there are? How many do we need? How many are projected? What is the cost involved? What is the cost of the shuttle? Dr. Bell agreed to schedule a report from the Transportation Committee next spring.
Five minute recess.
Tristyn Card reported for the Student Government Association on the following:
Continue discussion of the SGA Transportation Fee Resolution
Ms. Card said that the Transportation Fee Resolution only deals with students and fees that students should pay. The $30 transportation fee paid by all students could provide for such services as covered bike racks and a campus shuttle. If students chose to park on campus they would pay a $70 user parking fee.
Mr. Koslen said approximately 2960 student parking permits were issued in 2006-07. The number of parking permits issued with the new fee structure would depend on whether or not students who live in the dorms would be deterred by a $70 fee. He believed revenue would increase by $6,000 to $9,000 -- but a lot depends on the alternatives offered. If a campus shuttle or covered bike racks are offered as an incentive for students to use other modes of transportation, then that would affect the number of perking permits issued. Parking demand at certain institutions has gone down significantly because good alternatives have been offered. We cannot quantify that for students here.
Mr. Koslen said the total income is around $330,000. The revenue would increase to $368,000 with the proposed changes. He found no other campuses in the NC system or COPLAC schools that have a required fee only for students – they have a user fee. Steve Baxley added that this is based upon accepted literature, research on other campuses, what happens when fees are increased and when people are charged a user fee for service.
In response to Dr. Hartsfield’s
question, Mr. Koslen said estimates for running two shuttles around campus
servicing faculty, staff, visitors, student parking lots and nearby apartments
is about $65,000 a year – a net loss of $30,000. Dr. Moseley said this would be a powerful incentive
for students who had cars not to register them and to park nearby as some
freshmen do now. This will impact
Dr. Krumpe said more than 2960 students attend the university when factoring in part-time students. Part of the problem is non-permitted people parking on campus. How big an influence does that have on this problem?
Mr. Baxley said there is no commitment to run a shuttle. There is some belief that it is a good idea to run a shuttle. The larger question about parking is legitimate and it is tied to the current reorganization. Campus police is moving back under Student Affairs before January 1st but the Transportation Department will remain under Campus Operations. The support that campus police gave will disappear before the end of the semester. We will have one person patrolling the parking lots. The only way that will work is if we manage to subsidize staff. The difference in the budgets we have discussed would more likely be due to increasing staff for parking enforcement than due to use of a shuttle. How much a problem that would solve is a difficult to answer.
Dr. Krumpe suggested that many problems can be solved through enforcement – not by giving tickets or by booting vehicles – but by contracting with towing services to patrol campus.
Ms. McKenzie asked where the current
revenue of $330,000 come from. Mr.
Koslen said the revenue comes from faculty, staff, students,
Mr. Baxley suggested having a dialogue not just on parking but on many transportation issues. One of his goals is to have a philosophical idea of the university’s direction in terms of transportation management by the end of the fiscal year; this includes enforcement, shuttles, and a strategic plan to have two-thirds of our students on campus, which has tremendous implications for us, the least of which is parking. With the help of the Transportation Committee they have started to address these issues. He wants to bring these issues to CSAC, the Faculty Senate and UPC, and not repeat prior mistakes made when addressing transportation issues in the fall. These larger issues need to be addressed in the spring. He is here today to support Ms. Card.
Dr. Downes asked if the resolution would impact future decisions in ways that we need to think about. Mr. Baxley said they were interrelated. There is still a lot of concern on the part of the administration that would probably echo questions we have heard here. But the Transportation Committee, who has been addressing this for a couple of months, and the students who have been a part of that process, feel strongly that this needs to go forward and that we need to make a statement on having a traffic management program at UNCA that is sustainable. The resolution passed the Student Senate unanimously, including commuter representatives.
Several senators applauded the resolution as it encourages students to leave their vehicles at home. However, this is a $30,000 unfunded mandate to the university. We also need to consider the impact on the community when students part on side streets and at businesses on Merrimon. Dr. Krumpe asked, in light of making the spreadsheet balance, are these the right numbers.
Mr. Johnson said if this passes, it is the responsibility of the Transportation Committee to implement the plan. If we cannot afford a shuttle it is our responsibility to make a prudent judgment and perhaps put the resources toward enforcement.
Dr. Wood moved a Sense of the Senate Resolution: “We endorse the principle of a differential rate [in the student parking fee structure] and applaud the students for their initiative.” Dr. Moseley seconded the motion. The Sense of the Senate Resolution passed without dissent and became Senate Document 0607F.
IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New Business
There was no New Business.
Dr. Downes adjourned the meeting at 5:05pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely