FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, April 9, 2009
Members: C. Bell, K. Cole, L. Dohse, B. Haas, M. Harvey, G. Heard, J. Konz, B. Larson, A. Lanou,
M. Moseley, L. Nelms, J. McClain, E. Pearson, D. Pierce, L. Russell, B. Sabo, S. Wasileski,
B. Wilson; G. Ettari; J. Fernandes.
Visitors: G. Ashburn, S. Haas, L. Friedenberg, E. Katz, K. Krumpe, L. Langrall, J. Leffe, P. McClellan,
L. Mathews, C. Mercer, K. Peterson, A. Shope, T. Tieman.
I. Call to Order, Introductions and Announcements
Dr. Lothar Dohse called the meeting to order at 3:17pm and welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Dohse reported for the Executive Committee.
Board of Trustee’s Assessment of Chancellor
A number of Senators will be interviewed by former UNC-C Chancellor James Woodward as part of the Board of Trustees’ four-year assessment of Chancellor Ponder. The four-year assessment of Chancellors was instituted by former UNC President Molly Broad.
Delivering the Curriculum Task Force
Most members of the Executive Committee are on the Delivering the Curriculum (DTC) Task Force that is working hard to prepare documents for the Faculty Senate’s consideration next fall.
III. 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 members on the Mission Review Task Force have prepared a draft Mission Statement that has been circulating and they have received several comments that will improve the statement. IDC and Provost Fernandes have developed a process and they are midway through the timeline. There will be a Special Board of Trustees meeting after commencement to approve the Mission Statement. It will then be sent to the Board of Governors for their June meeting. UNC Asheville’s deadline is May 16, 2009.
· University Planning Council Report
Progress of Strategic Planning
UPC has been looking at benchmarks for each of the major areas of the strategic plan. Since UPC’s last meeting the benchmarks have been essentially approved for implementation by the various workgroups. This represents an important step toward progress on the strategic plan.
IV. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. Merritt Moseley reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
John McClain reported that faculty are becoming comfortable using the election
website and there were far less problems reported this year. When problems arose, they were quickly
corrected. He received positive comments
from many faculty members. Dr. McClain
thanked Adam Reagan, Ken Wilson, and
Committee of Tenured Faculty (2009-11)
Brian Butler: Humanities
Jeanne McGlinn: Social Sciences
Faculty Senate (2009-12)
Gary Ettari: Humanities
Kitti Reynolds: Natural Sciences
Volker Frank: Social Sciences
At Large: Greg Boudreaux, Peg Downes, Kevin Moorhead
(2009-10) Alternates: Chuck Bennett, Robert Berls, Mark Sidelnick
Post Tenure Review (2009-11)
Bob Yearout: Social
Sarah Judson: At Large
Hearings Committee (2009-11)
Gordon Wilson: Humanities
Kitti Reynolds: Natural Sciences
William Bruce: Social Sciences
Faculty Grievance Committee (2009-11)
Academic Appeals Board (2009-2011)
(2009-10) Alternate: Ken Betsalel
Faculty Assembly (2009-2012)
(2009-12) Alternate: Scott Walters
Nominees for Alternate Faculty Conciliator
The Student Government Association chooses the Alternate Faculty Conciliator from a list of tenured faculty nominated by the Faculty Senate. After serving one year as the Alternate, the person serves as Faculty Conciliator for one year. Mark Sidelnick is the 2009-10 Faculty Conciliator. The Senate endorsed the following nominees for Alternate Faculty Conciliator.
Eric Gant Pam Laughon
Irene Rossell Mary Lynn Manns
Student Rating of Instruction
Dr. Moseley referred to the recommendations of the Task Force on Student Rating of Instruction in April 2006, and moved approval of a Sense of the Senate Resolution. In this resolution, the Senate would adopt an experimental form campus-wide for at least one year, beginning in Fall 2009, to be followed by a review. The motion was seconded by Dr. Haas.
• Efforts are underway to have students conduct the survey on line.
• An editorial correction by Dr. Haas was accepted as a friendly amendment.
• Dr. Konz questioned the process, and Senators agreed there was confusion.
• Dr. Sabo said Institutional Research is responsible for gathering the data. The issue the task force confronted was how the results would be used. In the report, the task force asked for a document from the administration that would explain the role evaluations play in the overall assessment of faculty teaching ability and how they would be integrated into merit evaluations. Our current practice is the data belongs to the departments and to Academic Affairs because they are required for tenure, promotion, and post tenure review considerations. Any information that can help faculty become better teachers belongs to the department and its faculty. Anything that is used for evaluating performance belongs to Academic Affairs.
• Dr. Pierce said if the resolution passes, it needs to be disseminated across campus to faculty for fair warning, either by the Provost or by the Senate Chair.
• Dr. Moseley agreed. There is some anxiety over changing the form in the middle of an important period such as the pre-tenure period. The changes should be recognized across the board.
• Dr. Sabo clarified this is not a change in policy so much as it is endorsing an experiment that could become policy. Faculty would use the experimental form for two semesters.
• Two friendly amendments were accepted to the first sentence under 1. The amended Resolution:
Sense of the Senate Resolution
In implementing the relevant recommendations of the Task Force on Student Rating of Instruction, the university should
1. Adopt the revised form called Experimental Form 1 (attached), campus-wide, for at least one year, beginning in Fall 2009, to be followed by a review, implemented by the Provost in consultation with the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee, within one academic year. The form should be augmented with clear instructions, as follows:
Purpose of this form: This form is designed to 1) help your instructor improve his/her teaching in subsequent courses by identifying strengths and weaknesses in the course; and 2) provide the University with information on teaching effectiveness. Student evaluations are anonymous. Instructors never see your hand-written comments, and they do not receive any results from the rating process until after course grades have been submitted. Please do not sign your name.
USING THIS FORM
COMPLETE THIS FORM IN PENCIL
Mark One response per question
Make Dark Heavy Marks
Erase Completely to Change
2. Acknowledge that this form and the rating process associated with it are summative and that the "ownership" of the results lies outside the individual faculty member.
3. Encourage each department--or program with teaching responsibilities--to adopt a policy on how best to use formative student ratings of instruction for improvement of instruction. The results will belong exclusively to the affected faculty member.
4. Create a task force to include representatives of the FWDC, the office assistants group, IT, and the assessment team to explore whether and how evaluation can be put online while retaining assurances of confidentiality, responsibility, adequacy of response rate, and reliability.
The Resolution passed as amended without dissent and became Senate Document 6209S.
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 11: Revision of the process for Administering Student Evaluations of Instruction
(Revision of SD0308F; Faculty Handbook 18.104.22.168.1)
At Dr. Lanou’s suggestion, the sentence addressing which courses are not ideally suitable for evaluation will be amended for clarity at second reading.
The following document was considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 10 Revised: 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)
Dr. Sabo moved to call FWDC 10 (revised) back to the table. Dr. Moseley seconded the motion.
Dr. Moseley discussed feedback he received on the proposal:
· Objection to renaming subcommittees to committees. The rationale for that change was that service on these subcommittees is extremely arduous and time-consuming, undoubtedly more difficult and challenging than service on many university standing committees. FWDC did not believe the solution is to rename the subcommittees. Instead, FWDC encourages Chairs, Tenure Committee, Post Tenure Review Committee, and everyone else to recognize the work required on these subcommittees.
least one of the subcommittees – the Writing Intensive – needs to be bigger
than this document proposed. Last week
FWDC amended it to increase membership: “Subcommittees will consist of a
maximum of five members, except for the Writing Intensive subcommittee, which
will have six appointed members in addition to the Director of the
o Dr. Karin Peterson, chair of the WI subcommittee, said eight voting members were needed to meet its workload. There are three WI requirements per student and that is a huge number of applications to review. WI is running more than six faculty development opportunities per year. It has an ambitious assessment project that includes collaborating with departments to evaluate upper level writing intensive courses. The departments benefit from hearing WI’s thoughts and they benefit for learning how writing works in their disciplines.
· FWDC accepted a friendly amendment to change to Writing Intensive membership to eight appointed members (Russell/Wasileski.)
· Dr. Moseley said perhaps the most contentious issue has to do with the amendment the Senate passed at its last meeting: “Members will serve staggered, non-consecutive three-year terms.”
o Dr. Leah Mathews and Dr. Peterson offered two amendments for FWDC to consider. The amendments will allow committees to retain the institutional memory and provide the training and mentoring required to ensure excellence in administering their programs. Specifically, these changes will allow the development of a pool of individuals who can serve as committee leaders, workshop facilitators and assessment coordinators while simultaneously recruiting new members to serve on the committees.
§ Allow members of subcommittees to serve no more than two consecutive three-year terms.
§ Allow for additional staggering of terms so that no more than 1/3 of the membership on a subcommittee is replaced each year.
· FWDC accepted a friendly amendment by Dr. Bell that altered the wording on term limits. After a brief discussion this amendment was withdrawn.
· Dr. Lanou offered an amendment: “Members will serve staggered three-year terms. Members will serve no more than two consecutive terms.” Dr. Konz seconded the amendment.
o Dr. Moseley opposed the amendment. It is implausible as a person can learn to be an effective member on major committees such as Tenure, Post Tenure Review, and the Faculty Senate after which he or she must go off. Part of the effort of this new legislation is to assure a more frequent supply of new blood onto these subcommittees. This amendment stymies that effort.
o Dr. Sabo endorsed the basic idea of preserving institutional memory, but argued that experience is probably more important on personnel committees such as the Tenure Committee, and the Faculty Senate. He strongly supported having staggered three-year terms and suggested the WI increase its membership to nine for more continuity. Drs. Mathews/Peterson’s amendment would make this the most unrestricted committee on campus. It would allow the longest terms of any committee, and he was uncomfortable with that.
o Dr. Mathews saw a big difference in what members do on the Tenure Committee and what members do on the WI and on other ILS subcommittees. The Tenure Committee has a very discrete job – to make decisions about candidates that are up for appointment, reappointment, and tenure. It is different on the ILS subcommittees because part of their role is faculty development around the area in which they are working. They work individually with faculty who may be toying with the idea of submitting a WI application. That is quite different from the work on the Tenure Committee and having the ability to serve longer terms is important for these subcommittees.
o Dr. Heard opposed serving more than one consecutive term. The institutional memory will remain; people will go off the committee for a year and may want to return after one year. This allows an opportunity for faculty who are interested in being on a subcommittee an easier passage onto one.
o Dr. Peterson said there is a misconception with the way that we think about the work of ILS. It is not primarily a governing or policy-making body. In many ways, it is a curricular body and could be compared to the Humanities. In most universities that have WI, a faculty member is assigned to partially administer the program, attend national conferences and submit to journals. ILS is about cultivating faculty to do their teaching work better. There is only one member of the Literature department on the subcommittee. These are not people steeped in the knowledge of how you learn to write. If the Senate is against having consecutive terms, consider giving WI more time to develop a larger core of faculty.
o Dr. Larson suggested having four-year non-consecutive terms on the subcommittees. It would allow more time for people to work together and to develop, and it would be useful to have more stability. It would allow for a twenty-five percent turnover per year and would address concerns that people have.
o Dr. Bell noted that there is nothing in FWDC 10 as it is currently written that prevents FWDC from reappointing a WI subcommittee member appointed under the old system to an appointment under the new system. If FWDC believes it is important at this period of establishing an assessment system, there is no reason why people currently on the committee could not be reappointed. If the Senate rejects the amendment to make it two consecutive terms, they could be reappointed. It would be after their second term that they could not be reappointed.
o Dr. Wasileski said under the newly proposed system, she would be a senior member on WI next year who would encourage the overlap and the development of the new subcommittee members. Even after serving for two years on the subcommittee, she did not feel qualified to conduct an assessment of student writing and upper level courses that were not Chemistry and she would not feel qualified to undertake what has been developed by WI over the last several years in terms of assessment or by leading workshops for other faculty.
o Dr. Lanou noted that checks and balances have been written into the document. If there is good reason FWDC may consider allowing some members of these subcommittees to serve a second term.
o Dr. Konz asked: if someone is motivated and understands how writing classes work, what is the problem with reappointing someone? This document has FWDC doing the staffing and has the ability to make sure that new opportunities are acknowledged and new people are brought into the group.
o Dr. Sabo argued that committee term limits have been put in place to broaden the appeal and to involve more people. If one of the arguments is that we need to train people to be able to administer and to teach these programs, then we need a constant inflow of new individuals. If ILS is indeed “owned” by the faculty then broadened participation is essential. The more-people-involved argument was, for example, used to expand the Faculty Senate. Making it possible for people to get involved also increases institutional memory. More people become familiar with the policies and it becomes less the purview of a small select group. Finally the limit gives people a break and allows for fresh ideas.
o Dr. Harvey agreed with Dr. Sabo but added that it is difficult to staff committees. If someone wants to serve on a committee he would support them.
o Dr. Sabo said that is where our culture is declining and it is a serious problem. If nothing else, maybe it will force members of committees to recruit people, to find people who have an interest in serving. Dr. Moseley agreed that staffing committees has been a problem, but it has not led to a removal of term limits. We have to find people who are willing to do the work.
o Dr. Russell said she understands this is a particularly challenging time for the members of these subcommittees because they are developing assessment tools. The need to have longer terms is probably most acute now, and if there were a way to have longer terms so they can do their best work now, she would support it.
o Dr. Peterson was not opposed to Dr. Larson’s suggestion to have members serve one four-year non-consecutive term. That would make a significant difference. Do not think of the subcommittee in terms of a governing body with a lot of power, but as a body that is committed and wants to refresh its chairs and other leaders.
o Dr. Bell referred to Dr. Lanou’s suggestion to have no more than two non-consecutive terms. That does not mean that FWDC has to appoint people twice in a row and there is still the possibility of adding new people who are interested in serving on the subcommittee. Someone may not be reappointed to make room for someone new.
o Dr. Moseley argued that this flies in the face of everything that Dr. Peterson just said. She said it takes more than three years to do this job well. To not reappoint a member for a second term would be in violation of the spirit of the amendment. He noted that ILS belongs to every faculty member on campus. Everyone here has every reason to care who is on ILS subcommittees and who is on ILSOC.
§ Dr. Sabo called the question on the amendment: “Members will serve staggered three-year terms. Members will serve no more than two consecutive terms.” This removes the phrase “non-consecutive” and adds a sentence. This was seconded by Dr. Konz. The amendment failed by a vote of 6 to11.
§ Dr. Larson moved an amendment to read: “Members will serve staggered four-year non-consecutive terms.” Dr. Bell seconded the motion. The amendment passed.
FWDC 10 Revised passed as amended and became Senate Document 6309S.
V. Academic Policies Committee Report
APC 65: Remove Psychology and History courses from K-6 licensure requirements
APC 66: Require a Study Abroad experience for the INTS major;
Remove foreign language as an option for fulfilling international experience requirement
APC 67: Update requirements for areas of emphasis in INTS major
APC 68: Change credits hours and descriptions for INTS 361 and 362
APC 69: Allow other courses as option to INTS 499 for major
APC 70: Remove “Choosing an Area of Emphasis” in INTS minor;
Add ECON 250 as an introductory course option in INTS minor
APC 71: Add three new Dance classes: DAN 131, 132, 133
APC 72: Change prerequisites for DAN 230, 237, 238, 310, 335, 337, 338
APC 73: Change title and description for DAN 231; Change description for DAN 235
APC 74: Delete DAN 331; Add new course, DAN 330
APC 75: Change requirements for Minor in Dance
APC 76: Addition of new courses to the HWP curriculum: HWP 260,
284, 290, 292, 333, 335, 345, 350, 355, 360, 480
APC 77: Change course description for HWP 380
APC 78: Edit requirements for minor in Health Promotion; Delete minor in Sports Medicine
APC 79: Add course descriptions for Health and Wellness activity classes
APC 80: Delete HWP 182 as a required course for HWP majors;
Change required courses for the major in HWP
APC 81: Add new courses, INTS 325, 345, and 350 as options for INTS concentration;
Add ECON 355 as option for INTS
APC 82: Change foreign language requirement for INTS major
APC 83: Edit required courses for INTS major; Edit competency requirements for INTS major
Senators were asked to carefully review several proposals:
· International Studies (substantial curricular changes and adds three hours of foreign language to the major).
· Health and Wellness (substantial changes; increased presence of faculty who can teach these classes).
· APC 65 Rationale (includes a table from the Education Department that shows the substantial changes we can expect to see next year that have been mandated by the Department of Public Instruction).
· Hardcopy of APC 80 (significant changes in part two which alters the HWP curriculum and gives an idea of the direction the major is taking with its staff).
· APC members review the rationale of 82 and 83 for edits.
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
APC 48: Change Course Name and Description for MGMT 398
APC 48 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6409S.
APC 49: Add new course, MGMT 401, International Marketing;
Add MGMT 401 to the Management Concentrations
APC 49 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6509S.
APC 51: Increase Course Credit Available for Special Topics Courses in Education
APC 51 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6609S.
APC 52: Allow Art History minor for the Studio Art major
APC 52 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6709S.
APC 53: Delete PSYC 215, 320 and 325; Replace above courses with PSYC 216, 321 and 322
APC 53 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6809S.
APC 54: Delete PSYC 335, 409 and 435
APC 54 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6909S.
APC 55: Addition of new POLS courses: 247, 343, 349, 351,357, and 362
APC 55 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7009S.
APC 56: Change POLS 281, 366, 369, 380, 384 from 3 to 4-credit hours
APC 56 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7109S.
APC 57: Change credit hours for POLS 400; Add POLS 401
APC 57 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7209S.
APC 58: Change in the Capstone Requirement in Psychology
APC 58 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7309S.
APC 59: Editorial changes required by curriculum changes in Psychology
APC 59 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7409S.
APC 60: Change in Credit Hours for POLS 460
APC 60 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7509S.
APC 61: Change requirements for POLS major and minor
APC 61 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7609S.
APC 62: Change Advanced Placement Equivalencies for POLS 220 and 281
APC 62 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7709S.
APC 63: Delete POLS 334 and 335; Add new course, POLS 235
APC 63 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7809S.
APC 64: Replace POLS 334 and 335 with POLS 235 as an option in the Legal Studies Minor
APC 64 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7909S.
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
APC 50 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 8009S.
Provost’s proposal for Developing University-wide Learning Outcomes
Dr. Sabo asked Senators to carefully scrutinize the Provost’s plan for the Development of University-wide Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) about which the Provost will speak more. While the Senate does not need to act on this document, APC thinks it is the Senate’s responsibility to approve any final learning outcomes. The Committee therefore asked the Provost to submit the document in order to establish a process which insures Senate review. The Provost graciously complied and APC discussed her ideas with her. She then crafted this new document which clarifies her objectives and plans. APC members think the Provost should be complemented for incorporating IDC’s guidelines for assessment which the Senate approved in November, and for being precise about her plans, the process to be followed, and the time line. This can only make the decision process more effective and legitimate.
Dr. Fernandes said this is a plan to try to agree on university-wide student learning outcomes in time for our accreditation process. The plan is to work with the programs’ and departments’ assessment liaisons. A small number of liaisons will be selected to work on a final version of the student learning outcomes. Dr. Larson, who serves on FWDC and the Senate, has agreed to be the conduit between the group, FWDC, and the Faculty Senate. She believes this will be a smooth process, as the assessment officers already know what the departments’ learning objectives are. The timeline is ambitious, but we should try to meet it.
VI. Administrative Reports
Academic Affairs: Provost Jane Fernandes
introduced the latest draft of the UNC Asheville Mission Statement. The proposal has not been formally adopted;
it is a rough draft to enable Senators to send feedback. Several members of the
Mission Statement Review Committee are present today (Jane Fernandes, Betsy
Change in Academic Calendar
Dr. Fernandes outlined proposed changes to the 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic calendars. She does not propose these changes lightly, but the budget situation is not getting better. We have had to make some serious decisions about how to manage the university and the people who work here. She decided it was more important to put aside her discomfort with doing something she does not agree with for the good of the university. She was optimistic that the Senate will do what is right for the university.
She proposed for 2009-10:
· Classes next year would begin and end one day earlier starting on Monday, August 17, 2009 and ending on Friday, December 4, 2009.
· Reading days will be limited to just two and occur on Saturday and Sunday, December 5-6, 2009.
· Finals will be administered Monday through Friday, December 7-11, 2009.
· Commencement will take place as originally scheduled on Saturday, December 19, 2009.
· The proposal maintains all instructional days.
· A similar pattern of changes are proposed for 2010-11.
These changes will result in significant savings to the University in board charges, and will enable us to support core functions in a time of overall reduction.
Dr. Fernandes asked for the Senate’s endorsement of the 2009-10 proposed academic calendar. The same model would be used for the 2010-11 academic year. In the meantime, a committee will review other types of changes for the calendar long term. Dr. Pierce moved that the Senate support the proposed changes to the 2009-10 and 2010-11 academic calendars. The motion was seconded by Dr. Cole. Dr. Sabo proposed a Sense of the Senate Resolution. Dr. Bell seconded the resolution.
Sense of the Senate Resolution
The Faculty Senate endorses the Provost’s proposed alternate schedule for the AY 2009-2010. Any changes beyond 2009-2010 must be submitted to the Senate in Fall 2009, to insure more deliberation.
The Senate discussed what many considered to be positive changes: exams end on a Friday and senior grades are due the following Monday; Commencement is held the following Saturday. Dr. Wilson said for the first time in her long career here, senior grades would not have to be turned in before final exams and seniors can take exams along with everyone else. And no instructional days are lost in the proposal.
Dr. Fernandes summarized the mechanics of how this would work. We pay for a minimum of 217 days to food services – anything over 217 costs $10,000 per day. She tried to cut ten days but settled for five and one-half days to ensure no instructional days were lost.
Dr. Wasileski said snow days can be an issue in the spring and teaching labs have to be made up. She had no problem holding these labs on Saturday, but we could get some resistance from students. She asked if holding exams five days in a row with no reading days would be a problem. Dr. Moseley replied that exams were given back to back for years. Senators agreed this was an advantage to those who teach humanities.
Dr. Fernandes said there are costs associated with this proposal: if we start class on Monday, OneStop staff will have to be on campus to register and process payments. In the balance, it is better to try this. The Sense of the Senate Resolution passed without dissent and became Senate Document 8109S.
Student Government Association
Steven Haas reported on recent SGA elections.
New student body president Cortland Mercer introduced himself. He encouraged Senators, when reviewing the new Mission Statement, to consider the strategic plan’s sustainability: economic, social, and environmental.
Mr. Mercer said he was unclear on the resolution that the Faculty Senate just passed and its affect on students; he would like to review it before making any conclusions.
There was no Old Business.
VIII. New Business
There was no New Business.
Respectfully submitted by: