University of North Carolina at Asheville


Minutes, March 19, 2009




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. Lothar Dohse reported for the Executive Committee. 

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

Mission Statement Review

IDC worked with Jane Fernandes to develop a process and timeline for the mission statement review; Dr. Fernandes sent the timeline to everyone before spring break.  They have envisioned a short timeline for reviewing the mission statement as we need to have a product ready for the Board of Trustees in May after commencement.  It would then go to the Board of Governors in June. 

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. Ellen Pearson reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee in Dr. Moseley’s absence.

Tenure and Reward System Review

          FWDC met with Jane Fernandes on membership of a task force reviewing the tenure and reward system on our campus as part of a mandate for the UNC Tomorrow (Phase II) initiative.  Provost Fernandes has finalized the Tenure and Reward System committee membership.  These people have agreed to serve:


Humanities                    Social Sciences                       Natural Sciences

Keya Maitra                    Melissa Himelein                       Betsy Wilson

Brian Hook                      Bruce Larson                            Lorraine Walsh

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 Bruce Larson will serve as liaison to FWDC.  Dr. Fernandes has said that the committee will begin its work in April and May, planning its process for gathering information about practices at other institutions and for providing opportunities for faculty to share their ideas and concerns.  Faculty members are urged to pay close attention to this work and to provide thoughtful commentary throughout the process.

         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 Jane Fernandes and Lisa Friedenberg with a request to move this process forward, they received very positive responses from Academic Affairs.  Dr. Friedenberg has graciously volunteered to work with FWDC in this endeavor.

          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 Reading

         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 


         Second Reading

          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. Bill Sabo reported for the Academic Policies Committee.

          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 Reading [Unanimously approved by APC]

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 Reading

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 Europe

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