FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, March 19, 2009
Senate
Members: C. Bell, K. Cole, L. Dohse, B. Haas, M. Harvey, G. Heard, J. Konz, B. Larson, A. Lanou,
L.
Nelms, J. McClain, E. Pearson, D. Pierce, B. Sabo, S.
Wasileski, B. Wilson; J. Fernandes.
Excused: M. Moseley, L. Russell.
Visitors: G. Ashburn, S. Haas, L. Friedenberg, L. Langrall,
J. Leffe, R. Payne, R. Pente.
I. Call to Order, Introductions and Announcements
Dr. Dohse called the meeting to order at 3:17pm and
welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Approval of minutes
The minutes of February 12,
2009, were approved as distributed.
III. Executive Committee Report
Dr.
Response to Senate
Resolution re: Enrollment Growth
Dr. Dohse received a
response from the Chancellor regarding the Sense of the Senate Resolution on
enrollment growth (SD1009S). It is nice to know that Senate resolutions
cause people to think about what they are doing. Dr. Dohse will notify Senators when he
receives the formal response. Basically
the response is that we are within the guidelines set by the Enrollment Growth
and University Size Task Force.
Status Report:
Delivering the Curriculum Task Force
The Delivering the
Curriculum (DTC) Task Force is reviewing our present policies (or lack thereof)
concerning work expectations and is trying to provide more clarity to the
guidelines. Specific issues include the
use of adjuncts, how reassigned time is defined, and what equivalencies
are. The DTC will set up guidelines for
the Deans to use in sorting through some of these issues.
Any second readings of the Faculty Senate in
relation to what the DTC does will take place next fall so that everyone on
campus has abundant time to reflect on the proposals.
Branding Consultants’ Report
The Branding consultants have compiled a
report and will give a campus presentation next Monday from 9:00-11:00am. Dr. Dohse will forward a copy of the report
to Senators. As we reflect on a new
Mission Statement, it is important that it be understood by those outside our
inner circle.
IV. Institutional
Development Committee and University Planning Council Reports
Dr. Betsy
Wilson reported for the Institutional Development Committee and the University
Planning Council.
Institutional
Development Committee Report
IDC worked with
They have been working on establishing a task force to
review the mission statement, revise it, take comments, and present it to
various campus groups. The committee is
not yet complete, but the following people have agreed to serve:
IDC: Bill
Haas, Jeff Konz, Linda Nelms
Staff: Rebecca Nelms Keil,
Becky Doyle
Students: Emily Jones, JC Brew
Additional faculty members: Sam Schuman, Bill Sabo
IDC is pleased to have this opportunity to review and revise
the mission statement, and to have a process in which people who have been
concerned about it, or would like to, can provide input. The Chancellor wanted the process to be more
inclusive and to make sure that the mission statement is usable by all the
groups that need to use it.
Dr. Lanou asked why the timeline was so short. Dr. Wilson said all of the campuses were
charged with reporting on mission statement review as part of UNC
Tomorrow. The administration sent the
mission statement that came out of the strategic planning process to the Board
of Governors. At the Chancellor’s
request, VP Harold Martin has given us more time, but we must have it ready by
the June meeting of the BOG.
University Planning
Council Report
Enrollment Growth and
Senate Resolution
The UPC discussed the extensive documents that have dealt
with enrollment growth and the Senate Resolution. It concluded that there is not a major
discrepancy between the figures. Dr.
Wilson explained that it might have been
her fault that the Faculty Senate has not received the signed documentation as
she was not prompt in returning it after receiving approval from IDC.
UPC has discussed budget issues and looked at strategic planning
benchmarks. The Chancellor has agreed to
the administrative unit’s self-assessment plan.
The senior staff has designated how the administration will be reporting
self-assessment: half of the units will report at the end of this semester and
half at the end of next semester.
V. Faculty Welfare and
Development Committee Report
Dr.
Tenure and Reward System Review
FWDC
met with
Humanities Social
Sciences Natural
Sciences
Keya Maitra Melissa Himelein Betsy Wilson
Brian Hook
Katherine Min Karin
Peterson Judy
Beck
Sandra Malicote Carole Kurtines-Becker Steve Patch
Scott Walters Joseph
Berryhill Greg Boudreaux
Karin
Peterson will chair the group and
Status
of Student Ratings of Instruction
FWDC has been dealing with the status of the
Student Ratings of Instruction (SRI) Task Force recommendations for a couple of
years. After discussing the report with
Leah Mathews and forwarding the recommendations to
Dr.
Sabo said an important element in the task force report had to do with how
teaching fits into the overall evaluation of a faculty member’s
performance. Dr. Pearson will send the
task force report to the Tenure and Reward System Review Task Force. Dr. Lanou supported using electronic SRIs.
Dr.
Friedenberg said a couple of years ago a study was done on the office
assistants in the Academic Affairs area.
The study group learned that one of the factors that created seriously
disparate workloads among the staff was the typing of student comments. When that group submitted its final report to
the Chancellor, one of the recommendations was to go to an online system. The Chancellor accepted the recommendation
and it was assumed that this would happen at some point.
Nominees to faculty-wide
elections approved by the Faculty Senate:
UNC Faculty Assembly
ballot
Pamela
Nickless, John Stevens, Scott Walters
Academic Appeals
Board ballot
Greg Kormanik Ken
Betsalel Chris Hennon Melissa Smith
Duane
Davis Eric Gant Brandie
Fariss Charles
James
Kathie
Garbe Ted
Uldricks Michael
Gouge Mark Boyd
First
The
following document was distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 11:
Revision of the Process for Administering Student Evaluation
of Instruction (Revision of SD0308F; Faculty Handbook 3.3.3.1.1)
Second
The
following documents were considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 9: Revision
of UNCA Sexual Harassment Policy
(Revision
of SD0396S and SD0396F; Faculty Handbook Section 4.3.12)
FWDC
9 passed without dissent and became SD4709S.
FWDC
10: Revision of the Appointment process
for Faculty ILS Oversight Committee
and its
constituent committees (revision of SD8307S; SD0105F, SD0304F, SD0703F;
Faculty
Handbook Section 10.3.8)
Highlights of discussion:
·
Members
of intensive committees will be appointed by the Faculty Senate, upon
nomination from the FWDC. The Colloquia
and the Topical Clusters would become committees under this proposal. This proposal eliminates Intensive
subcommittees and eliminates term limits.
·
Dr.
Konz made a friendly amendment to delete the word
“intensive” in the first sentence of page two.
·
Dr.
Sabo supported the sentiments of the rationale statement that makes membership
more open, but noted a discrepancy between that goal and the lack of limits on
how many terms an individual can serve.
If people can serve longer terms, it will be more difficult to incorporate
new people. He was bothered by this
inconsistency and asked whether FWDC discussed this and what the logic was.
o
Dr.
Pearson, Dr. McClain and Dr. Heard said term limits were not discussed at
FWDC. Dr. Pearson suggested putting in
term limits and asked for suggestions.
·
Dr.
Sabo suggested an edit for the first sentence of page two: “….members will
serve staggered three-year ‘non-renewable’
terms.
·
Dr.
Konz did not have a problem if someone wanted to
serve twice or even three times; it is a lot of work and there is value in
having those with some expertise continue.
·
Dr.
Sabo said having staggered three-year terms provides the needed continuity but
noted that even the Senate has the restriction that terms can not be consecutive. He did not understand the logic in wanting to
open it up to faculty and at the same time allowing current members to continue
for multiple terms.
o
Dr. Pearson said the issue did not come up in FWDC’s discussions.
She supported having nonrenewal terms for the committee. If someone wants to serve on the Diversity
Intensive committee and then serve on the Cluster committee, they could
conceivably be on ILSOC for six years.
She did not know if we needed to impose limitations if someone wanted to
jump committees.
·
At
Dr. Wasileski’s suggestion, the Senate changed
“non-renewable” to “non-consecutive.”
·
Dr.
Sabo questioned the construct in the proposal.
He understands ILSOC as the governing committee which coordinates the
subcommittees. The current proposal
changes that structure. The label
“subcommittee” implies a special responsibility to a coordinating group. Under the new proposal, the subcommittees
would emerge as six independent entities.
It strikes him as odd as ILSOC is supposed to be the umbrella
agency. He asked what FWDC’s logic and rationale was for restructuring.
·
Dr.
Konz said the duties of the intensive committees are
not being changed.
·
Dr.
Sabo said that under the proposal, intensives may no longer have to report to
ILSOC. The logic of designating
something as a subcommittee is that it is responsible to a more encompassing
entity. There is a difference between
seven independent committees and six subcommittees coordinated by one
committee.
·
Dr.
Pearson said ILSOC would still have oversight.
We have the Oversight Committee; then we have the committees within the
Oversight Committee.
·
Dr.
Sabo argued this document is changing the structure by making these independent
committees. He was trying to determine
the reason and logic for the changes. He
also noted that the change in the designation had ramifications for other
documents including the material in the Faculty Handbook and the document will
need to make those adjustments as well.
·
Dr.
Larson did not see the structure as being different. Only the way people are being appointed is
changed. What is being proposed is
appointing people at the most fundamental level of the various groups of
ILSOC. He did not see the structure as
being any different.
·
Dr.
Sabo said he had no problem with the selection process, but the document reads
“committees” as opposed to the “ILS subcommittees”: “The voting members of the committee (assumes
this is ILSOC) will be the chairs of the six committees (six independent
committees).”
·
Dr.
Pearson did not recall this redesignation as being a
conscious choice at FWDC. Dr. Heard said
he even called them subcommittees during FWDC discussion.
·
Dr.
Bell understood that the motivation for calling them “committees” reflected a
sense that working on a “committee” was more important and therefore deserving
of more credit than serving on a “subcommittee.”
·
Dr.
Lanou said if there are actually subcommittees, then every member of those six
committees would be part of the whole committee. That is not how it is structured. They do not seem like subcommittees to her;
it is not like the Senate structure where members are on a subcommittee.
·
Dr.
Sabo moved the following changes: on the last paragraph under Structure strike
the word “intensive” twice. It should
read: Members of committees are appointed by Faculty Senate, upon nomination
from FWDC.” ”In choosing Committee
members the Senate should give consideration to candidates’ experience and/or
interest in the particular area of the committee.” “… members will serve staggered
‘non-consecutive’ three-year terms.” The
motion was seconded by Dr. Heard and passed with one dissenting vote.
·
Dr.
Bell noted the number of unanswered questions and suggested tabling the document.
·
Dr.
Pearson confirmed that FWDC did not discuss limits on terms.
·
Dr.
Bell and Dr. Wasileski said the issue of committees versus subcommittees needed
to be addressed. Dr. Dohse said judging
from the discussion, he thought there was a conscious effort to make them
committees as opposed to subcommittees.
His impression was that people were interested in one committee and not
being part of a bigger group.
·
Dr.
Pearson said the change from subcommittee to committee was not discussed at
FWDC and she did not believe anyone on FWDC can address the rationale behind
it. It is possible that Dr. Moseley
could.
·
Dr.
Wasileski asked for clarification on how serving on a current subcommittee
and/or serving on ILSOC would be considered in a faculty member’s service
work. Dr. Bell said his understanding is
that the current tendency is to consider the work equivalent. Serving on a subcommittee that meets a couple
of times a year is the same as serving on ILSOC which meets weekly and also
meets with its subcommittees. Evidently
some members are concerned about that.
·
Dr.
Konz said the question of whether someone is
receiving credit is a Chair’s issue.
·
Dr.
Sabo, in the interest of gauging the Senate’s preferences, moved to table FWDC
10. Dr. Bell seconded the motion, which
passed with one dissenting vote. The
Senate asked that FWDC revise the document and send it to Ms. Gravely for
distribution before the next Senate meeting.
·
Dr.
Bell supported tabling the document to give FWDC more time to consider it.
·
Dr.
Pearson said there probably is a logical reason for the subcommittee versus
committee issue, but it was not discussed by FWDC. It was changed when Dr. Moseley and Dr. Hantz
met to discuss the changes.
·
Ms.
Nelms noted that it is mathematically possible for
ILSOC to be all fresh faces. She asked
that FWDC consider this possibility.
VI. Academic
Policies Committee Report
Dr.
Update on ILS
Review
APC plans
to discuss the recent ILS Review after advising. It has been focusing on an influx of
proposals to bring to the Senate.
Provost’s
proposal for Developing University-wide Learning Outcomes
Dr.
Fernandes and APC discussed her proposal for developing university-wide
learning outcomes. APC will leave it to
Dr. Fernandes to report on when she has finally decided.
First
APC 48: Change Course Name and Description for MGMT 398
APC
49: Add new course, MGMT 401,
International Marketing;
Add MGMT
401 to the Management Concentrations
APC
51: Increase Course Credit
Available for Special Topics Courses in Education
APC 52: Allow Art History minor for the Studio Art major
APC 53: Delete PSYC 215, 320 and 325; Replace above courses with PSYC 216,
321 and 322
APC 54: Delete PSYC 335, 409 and 435
APC 55: Addition of new POLS courses: 247, 343, 349, 351,357, and 362
APC 56: Change POLS 281, 366, 369, 380, 384 from 3 to 4-credit hours
APC 57: Change credit hours for POLS 400; Add POLS 401
APC 58: Change in the Capstone Requirement in Psychology
APC 59: Editorial changes required by curriculum changes in Psychology
APC 60: Change in Credit Hours for POLS 460
APC 61: Change requirements for POLS major and minor
APC 62: Change Advanced Placement Equivalencies for POLS 220 and 281
APC 63: Delete POLS 334 and 335; Add new course, POLS 235
APC
64: Replace POLS 334 and 335 with POLS
235 as an option in the Legal Studies Minor
MINOR [considered minor proposal by APC]
APC 50: Reduce credit hours and change semester offered for DRAM 144;
Reduce
credit hours for major in Drama
Second
The following documents were
considered for Second Reading:
APC 34: Change Requirements for Declaring a Major in Mass Communication
APC 34 passed without dissent and
became SD4809S.
APC 35: Change course description for MCOM 499; Add new course, MCOM 498.
APC 35 passed without dissent and
became SD4909S.
APC 36: Change credit hours and description for MCOM 483, Film Criticism
APC 36 passed without dissent and
became SD5009S.
APC 37: Editorial changes resulting from curriculum changes in Mass
Communication
APC 37 passed without dissent and
became SD5109S.
APC 38: Change course descriptions for ARTH 201, 311, 312, 320 to include
both art
and
architecture
APC 38 passed without dissent and
became SD5209S.
APC 39: Separation of Greek and Roman Art Course (CLAS 314) into two
courses, and
cross-listing
them with ARTH 311 and 312
APC 39 passed without dissent and
became SD5309S.
APC 40: Editorial changes in the Concentration in Classical Studies
APC 40 passed without dissent and
became SD5409S.
APC 41: Add new course, ARTH 301, History of Architecture
APC 41 passed without dissent and
became SD5509S.
APC 42: Change course title and description of ARTH 350 to include art
outside of
APC 42 passed without dissent and
became SD5609S.
APC 43: Add new course, ARTH 485, Senior Research Seminar
APC 43 passed without dissent and
became SD5709S.
APC 44: Change major competency requirement in Art History from
comprehensive exam
to
ARTH 485, Senior Research Seminar
APC 44 passed without dissent and
became SD5809S.
APC
45: Establish a new major in Religious
Studies; Change the minor requirements for
Religious
Studies; Add new courses: RELS 200, 215, 280, 302, 303, 312, 313,
330,
354, 381, 386, 387, 388, 420 and 490
The
Senate discussed who might be interested in majoring in religious studies,
options after receiving the B.A. in religious studies, and the department’s
contributions to the university.
Dr.
Sabo noted that he had always thought it odd that a premier liberal arts institution
lacked a program in religion. He
explained that in Spring, 2005 a group prepared a proposal that went to General
Administration. The report from the
committee explicitly stated that this is not a theology program, but a
“Religious Studies” program which examines world religions in the context of
the human experience. The proposal
established a major and a department and included a timeline for hiring
individuals. As indications of potential
student interest the committee used the number of individuals who had developed
individual degrees under the interdisciplinary program that had some religious
studies orientation or content and the number of individuals who took what was
then a minor in philosophy designated as “religious studies.” These data were used as projections. On March 2, 2006, the Senate passed SD2906S
that authorized the new degree program in the Department of Religious
Studies.
Dr.
Rodger Payne affirmed it is not intended as a theology program or as a
pre-seminary program. It is the perfect
degree for a liberal arts education since religion touches on all aspects of
the human experience and can be studied from many different disciplinary
angles. It is a broadly conceived global
humanities degree. Hopefully it will
provide the students with the grounding they need for graduate study. When he was at LSU they had majors who went
into the foreign service, government, and business. He has ten students who are now ready to
declare; he expects to see a nice cohort of students taking the degree either
as a first or second major.
In
explaining how Religious Studies will connect to other disciplines, Dr. Pierce
said some history courses are cross-listed and he assumed the same is true with
philosophy. Dr. Payne said they have some
cross-listed courses and they will be looking at more as further courses in
Islam may be developed in the History department. They also have a list of approved electives
that are not cross-listed, but they will be a benefit to students, depending on
their particular interest. A certain
number of courses will count toward the 33 required, but no more than six can
come from one department. APC 45
passed without dissent and became SD5909S.
Dr.
Sabo acknowledged the contributions of four people who have worked hard for at
least a decade to establish this major:
·
Bill
Spellman and Gordon Wilson deserve a tremendous amount of credit for planning
and shepherding the program.
·
Rodger
Payne has done an excellent job of designing and implementing the program.
·
Alicia
Shope for her usual studiousness in taking care of the details.
APC 46: Delete HIST 386 and HIST 387
APC 46 passed without dissent and
became SD6009S.
APC 47: Cross-list CLAS 354 with RELS 354; Cross-list HIST 388 with RELS
388
APC 47 passed without dissent and
became SD6109S.
VII. Administrative
Reports
Academic Affairs: Provost Jane Fernandes
Developing University-wide Learning
Outcomes
Dr. Fernandes met with APC along
with Dr. Friedenberg because she believes that the APC is where the discussion
and approval of university-wide outcomes will occur. They decided to have a small number of
liaisons work with Dr. Friedenberg and Dr. Fernandes to develop the learning
outcomes that are necessary as part of our next reaccreditation visit. The recommendations will be presented to APC
for their discussion and hopefully their eventual approval; it will then come
to the Senate during the fall semester.
The APC saw this as a positive approach.
Student Government Association
Steven
Haas discussed changing the printer settings in the student computer labs and
in Ramsey Library so the default setting is two-sided printing. Students could reset the settings back to
one-sided printing.
VIII. Old Business
There was
no Old Business.
IX. New
Business
There was no New
Business.
X. Adjourn
Dr. Dohse adjourned the
meeting at 4:25pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
Executive
Committee