FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, October 16, 2008
Members: C. Bell, K. Cole, L. Dohse, B. Haas, M. Harvey, G. Heard, J. Konz, A. Lanou, B. Larson,
L. Nelms, L. Russell, J. McClain, M. Moseley, E. Pearson, D. Pierce, B. Sabo, S. Wasileski,
B. Wilson; J. Fernandes; Alt. G. Ettari.
Visitors: J. Bucher, P. Downes, A. Hantz, B. Haggard, E. Katz, C. Kelly, J. Leffe, J. McHargue,
R. Pente, J. Tieman, R. Waskom.
I. Call to Order, Introductions and Announcements
Dr. Dohse called the meeting to order at 3:20 pm and welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Approval of minutes
The minutes of September 11, 2008, were approved with an editorial correction.
III. Executive Committee Report
· Dr. Dohse will serve as the faculty representative on the Chancellor’s Staff Advisory Council for the term 2008-2009.
· Dr. Dohse ran a test Discussion Board on One-Port for faculty to use as a campus forum. He will try another utility that is more conducive to discussion.
· Dr. Fernandes will discuss the withdrawal of IDC 1 (Intent to Plan Masters Degree in Climate Change and Society) under the administrative report.
Faculty Assembly Report
Dr. Peg Downes gave the Faculty Assembly (FA) report:
UNCA’s Faculty Senate minutes are shared with the 15
other Senate Chairs, and with the Faculty Assembly (through FA President
· The Faculty Senate Chair or his/her representative is invited to attend the Faculty Assembly meetings scheduled for Senate Chairs. The next meeting will be held on October 24, 2008.
· Gwen Ashburn, our second FA representative, recently sent to all faculty an email summary report which included comments and the News-Observer article on budget cuts.
Branch campuses – as mentioned by President Bowles
to the FA, are possibilities, including a development in
· Dr. Ashburn serves on the Budget Committee. Dr. Downes serves on Faculty Development.
· The Faculty Development Committee heard the bad news, now quite well publicized, that the State Health Plan is in sad shape – “there will be noticeable cuts in services; rates will increase, and benefits will decrease. Consultants’ projections were off.”
President Bowles addressed the UNC System’s support
of NC’s community colleges, and said he was intrigued by the fact that in
· President Bowles also emphasized:
o Need for better and more teacher training
o He and the Vice Presidents plan to be more involved on campuses because over one-half of the System’s Chancellors have been in office less than two years.
o Budget priorities include campus safety, and increasing faculty salaries to the 80th percentile of peers.
o A close watch on campus’s responses to UNC Tomorrow.
o UNC Tomorrow Executive Director Norma Houston emphasized that faculty service to community needs to be recognized and rewarded; each campus needs to figure out how best to do this.
Valuable information is at the Faculty Assembly website: UNC's Commitment to Public Service
IV. Institutional Development Committee Report
Dr. Betsy Wilson reported for the Institutional Development Committee.
Guidelines for future surveys of administrative offices
IDC was charged by last year’s Senate to develop guidelines for planning and implementing future surveys of administrative offices. IDC has begun work on this task.
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
Assessment at UNC
V. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. Merritt Moseley gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report.
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 3: Proposal to Eliminate the Asheville Institute Advisory Committee
(SD1205S; Faculty Handbook 10.4.25)
FWDC 4: Proposal to Eliminate the Adjunct Faculty Committee
(SD0500F; Faculty Handbook 10.4.17)
FWDC 5: Proposal to Revise the Distinguished Scholars Committee
(Revision to SD5500S; Faculty Handbook Section 10.3.1)
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 1: 2008 Revisions to the Post-Tenure Review Process
(Revision of SD6405S and Faculty Handbook 3.7.3)
FWDC 1 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 0208F.
FWDC 2: Amendment to Student Rating of Instruction policy
(Revision to SD1482F and Faculty Handbook 220.127.116.11.1)
Ms. Nelms commented that at one time the SRI was given earlier in the semester when students were less stressed and could supposedly give a more true evaluation. Whatever change we make now will likely change again. Dr. Harvey and Dr. Sabo served on the SRI task force. There was agreement to move these two recommendations forward to standardize its procedural administration.
Dr. Dohse did not favor giving an evaluation during the last class when classes only meet once a week. Dr. Moseley and Dr. Sabo agreed that one day a week classes were special cases. However, it was still important that the evaluations be given at the beginning of class. There is a strong relationship between giving the evaluation at the beginning of class and the number of open-ended comments.
Dr. Konz made an editorial change to clarify the document; it was accepted as a friendly amendment. The amended sentence follows: “The evaluation instrument should be given at the beginning of the class period to help alleviate respondent fatigue and to encourage thoughtful responses.”
Dr. Fernandes will inform the department chairs of the new procedures. FWDC 2 passed as amended without dissent and became Senate Document 0308F.
FWDC hopes to meet soon with Leah Mathews to push the SRI recommendations toward some successful conclusion during this academic year. Dr. Haas said the task force began by addressing the objective recommendations. He was pleased to hear that FWDC will work on the subjective elements.
Faculty Representatives on Student Fees Committee
FWDC has appointed Michael Gillum and Mark Gibney to serve on the Student Fees Committee for 2008-2010. The work of the committee is limited to the months of October and November. The committee of students, faculty and staff make recommendations to senior staff on potential increases to the Student Activity Fee, Athletic Fee, Health Fee, and the Education and Technology Fee. The committee is co-chaired by the Vice Chancellor for Finance and Operations and the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.
APC has nearly completed the protocol for reviewing ILS and general education. APC will submit a document soon which will explain its plan and vision for how this is to be done.
APC has had a number of spirited discussions. There are basically three steps:
· Survey faculty perceptions
· Review ILS assessments that are being prepared by the Oversight Committee
· A long range plan with specific reports from departments, similar to the old general education review
There is an emerging consensus
that there will not be another review per se, rather there will be components
that are implemented each year in an on-going cycle.
VII. Administrative Reports
Student Affairs Annual Report
Vice Chancellor Bill Haggard gave Student Affairs’ annual report.
reported that Fall Semester 2008 is off to a very positive start, marked by a
high level of student engagement in student organizations, co-curricular
activities, and residence hall programming.
Student Affairs departments will be focused this year on activities
which directly connect with the University’s Strategic Plan, especially those
targeted at increasing options for meaningful on-campus engagement for
students. We are excited about the
official opening of the new
Dr. Sabo asked the following questions:
· Nothing in the list of goals for the coming reflects anything that might have been learned from the Perceptions of Administrative Offices (PAO) survey that was conducted last year. Did the figure into your planning of goals or was it an exercise that meant little?
o Dr. Haggard said he came prepared to respond to the four questions about the PAO. In the development of that goal, the results of the surveys did not influence those particular goals directly. The survey results confirmed things that we already knew about perceptions of some offices in that area. It identified some of the lower rated offices in the division, departments where we were already focusing a great deal of attention. But the actual results of the survey did not directly influence those goals. The goals do not represent all of the work in the division, but rather our primary emphases.
· Five new staff members were listed. Were these existing positions or new positions?
o Dr. Haggard said these were all existing positions.
· What is developing an Assistant Vice Chancellor for Assessment and Budget?
o Dr. Haggard said when he came to UNCA in the summer of 2006 and the division of Student Affairs was re-created, there was a vacant position dedicated to the need for a budget officer/Banner specialist. He did not fill the position immediately in order to assess the needs in the division. He saw a real deficit in the area of assessment and learning outcomes assessment of our goal setting and that type of planning activity. He found that John Bucher fulfilled those needs and had experience as a department head of Campus Recreation and Highsmith Union. Basically that was redefining a position that was vacant.
· What issues do the Student Affairs Faculty Advisory Committee address?
o The committee has held three meetings, two last spring and one this fall. We are communicating the organization: who people are, how we work, what we are working on, the goals of the organization. That is communication from me to the committee; it also provides feedback to us that we may need to hear from students, faculty or others.
o Dr. Moseley added that the committee had fruitful discussions over the safety issues that were part of the wake of the VA Tech tragedy and how they would affect classes and our interactions with our students. It was an exchange of ideas from Student Affairs and from the faculty’s perception.
· In what way was the diversity of Residential Education professional staff expanded?
o Over the course of two years, we expanded the rates of diversity of our live-in professionals from one racial minority to three of the five.
· What is the participation rate of the mentoring program?
o The participation rate of the mentoring program is connecting our underrepresented students with mentors on campus. He deferred the question to Dr. Calvin Kelly. Dr. Kelly said about 75% of our students are connected to underrepresented faculty members. That translates into about 45-50 African American students.
· Last year’s report had a Comprehensive Citizenship Education Program that would handle cases of academic dishonesty and problem behavior in the dorms. It was requested that this be brought to the Faculty Senate when it was complete. I do not remember seeing it and it is not on your list of accomplishments for this year. Has it been put on hold? Has it been dropped?
o The first year that work resulted in a new Code of Community Standards for our students that dealt with non-academic misconduct. The second year there was discussion of the possible intersection of the academic misconduct with the non-academic misconduct. It was Dr. Haggard’s understanding that the committee decided the current system was working fine and there was no recommendation to do anything differently.
· Dr. Dohse referred to the goal to increase retention and graduation rates and asked where they were going to put their resources to help in that effort.
o To increase retention, we have to do everything better. It is also important to try to target our specific needs. He and Dr. Fernandes are co-chairing a Strategic Planning workgroup and the first meeting was evidence of the complexity of the issue. What we try to do first and foremost in all of our primary service areas is to listen to students and to respond to their feedback. We have created new advisory committees for all of our functional areas as they weigh feedback and we are enhancing our assessment efforts in that regard.
o An initiative begun this fall is Map Works. It is a web based information sharing program where those who work most closely with first semester students (either as their LSIC instructors or as a community representative in the residence halls) have a way to get immediate feedback from students who may be struggling in one of four particular areas. This initiative will identify students who are at risk that we otherwise would not identify because they would not seek help.
o We hope to increase on-campus residential beds within the next two or three years; there is evidence that has a positive effect on retention.
o Increase focus on providing cultural presence for our underrepresented students.
· Dr. Lanou said she found the inclusion of the Student Affairs departmental goals (Student Affairs Website) with retention goals and specific actions to be helpful. (Goals may be accessed by clicking on “Assessment and Planning” in the upper right hand corner.)
Dr. Dohse thanked Dr. Haggard for his report. To see the complete report, visit: Student Affairs Annual Report
Status of Climate Change and Society Masters Program
Dr. Fernandes updated the Senate on the status of the master’s program on Climate Change and Society and how it came to be withdrawn last month. During the summer and fall, she knew vaguely that the group was working on the program and she assumed that people had garnered a lot of support. Climate Change and Society is an important issue and she knows that people in
During a meeting Chancellor Ponder showed her the Strategic Planning brochure; it said the degree was being offered by a consortium of universities. That was Chancellor Ponder’s understanding and that is why it was included in the brochure. The proposal to the Faculty Senate was different and Dr. Fernandes was not comfortable with it. She did not want the program to move forward when it was so vague. She called Dr. Sandra Byrd and asked her to please remove it from the agenda. Dr. Byrd graciously agreed to withdraw the proposal.
Dr. Fernandes has met with the Provost at NC State University; he will propose options we may consider after he talks with his faculty members. At that time she will contact the Faculty Senate and the task force working on the degree. Hopefully we can move forward with a unified plan that will ensure the success for the degree and for the issue of Climate Change. Nothing is decided at this point.
Dr. Heard referred to an email he sent to Dr. Fernandes and asked if she had read the six month report from this group in her perusal of this issue. The
Dr. Fernandes was not familiar with the report. She noted that Climate Change is a serious issue; if we have a degree in it, we want it to be successful. After she talked with Lenny Bernstein and Sandra Byrd, she found it to be a fascinating proposal. Dr. Heard noted that Lenny Bernstein has been a lobbyist for a number of years and he can be quite a convincing gentleman.
Dr. Konz said he was a member of the task force that helped design this and it did involve several faculty from UNCA including a member of the Atmospheric Sciences department as well as faculty from NC State, UNC-Wilmington, and Appalachian State. The curriculum portion in particular was designed from an academic perspective by faculty members. He was not familiar with the six month report.
The administration learned last Friday that General Administration will be withholding our repair and renovation monies. This includes $1.1Million for
Dr. Fernandes is working on the budget for Academic Affairs with the Deans and Pat Catterfeld. She has a plan that will hopefully minimize the impact to academic departments and faculty as much as possible, but she wants Ms. Catterfeld to review it before it is disseminated. Department Chairs will have their budgets this week.
Faculty appointees for
Although funding has been withheld, the Chancellor has asked Dr. Fernandes to continuing planning for Carmichael Hall. Dr. Fernandes will be leading an ad hoc group to plan for what will be included in the new
Highlights of Dr. Fernandes’ Strategic Planning work groups follow:
2008 Faculty Workload Report Recommendations
Dr. Alan Hantz reported that in Fall 2007, a group of chairs (Hantz, Gwen Ashburn, David Peifer, Betsy Wilson and Robert Dunning) was asked to examine the effectiveness of UNCA in delivering its curriculum, particularly for entry level students. As the inquiry proceeded it became clear that to properly address the committee’s charge a broader approach was needed. The challenge of delivering a liberal arts curriculum that emphasizes student learning at a state funded institution is complex.
Its dimensions include:
· Offering a curriculum in general education and majors that enables students to progress toward graduation,
· Providing students closely-supervised individual experiences entailing advising, undergraduate research, independent studies, internships and/or practica,
· Organizing faculty time to reserve time for individual scholarship, creativity and service,
· Meeting expectations of the state with regard to student credit hours generated.
The group of chairs has made its recommendations to Dr. Fernandes and she has requested feedback from the Faculty Senate. Dr. Hantz noted that budget reductions are before us, which in the past affected reassigned time and adjuncts. It is appropriate for the Faculty Senate consider these important issues.
The report outline and summary of recommendations follow:
Report Outline and Summary of Recommendations
1. Curriculum Delivery. Is UNCA offering curriculum that enables students to progress toward graduation?
-- Should our approach to any of the other three variables in our model (equivalencies, reassigned time, and semester hours generated) change, chairs will need to remain sensitive to the impact of those changes on their schedule of offerings, and adjust schedules accordingly.
2. Experiential learning. Is UNCA providing students a closely supervised individual experience entailing advising, undergraduate research, internships and/or practica?
-- UNCA should explore ways to more accurately count equivalent courses.
-- Chairs should review their course lists with the Office of Institutional Research to make sure that each course is categorizes appropriately.
-- The Deans and/or Provost should review the definitions of equivalencies and revise them where appropriate for consistency among activities and departments.
-- UNCA's Office of Institutional Research should examine ways other UNC campuses (particularly those classified similarly to UNC A) define and count equivalencies. This might be better accomplished by direct conversation than through the examination of various reports.
3. Faculty Load. Is UNCA organizing faculty time so as to reserve adequate time for individual scholarship, creativity and service?
-- UNCA should seek to find a way to compensate these faculty for their work without penalizing their home departments or inflating departmental and university reassigned time statistics.
-- UNCA should seek ways to count Family and Professional Development Leaves in ways that will not penalize home departments.
-- UNCA should review the current reassigned time allocations and policy, reformulating it to account for potentially expired assignments, departmental vs. extra-departmental reassignments, and the impact of equivalencies on the use of faculty time. A new policy should be articulated to clearly define assignments and responsibilities for reassigned time. Such a policy should recognize the need of faculty for real time to work with students, it should seek greater equity of workload across departments, and it should suggest ways for departments to distribute reassigned time while still meeting university productivity expectations.
4. Generating student semester hours. How can UNCA best meeting expectations of the state with regard to student semester hours generated?
-- Department chairs need to better understand the function of student hours generated statistics (SHG), the contribution of individual departments and divisions in achieving these university goals. Chairs need to have the appropriate tools for planning and scheduling around an SHG model. Deans and Provost should make an effort to provide coverage of SHG lost when reassigning faculty from teaching, or should devise a way for faculty to have such reassignments in a way that does not penalize the department.
-- Overall, use of and accounting for SHG at UNCA is unclear. UNCA's administration should clarify the role of chairs in managing SHG contributions. The administration should seek ways, whether locally or through negotiation with the General Administration, to make reassignments from teaching as "penalty-free" as possible for departments.
5. Curriculum Revision. Can UNCA rebalance faculty load and balance the other elements of its curriculum delivery model by moving to a four-credit our curriculum?
-- UNCA should continue to explore the "four credit course" model. Because of the extensive "equivalency" teaching that goes on at UNCA, the model may be more appropriate for some departments than others. Individual departments should explore the possibilities of this model for their programs.
· Dr. Sabo complimented the group on an excellent report that includes how calculations are made and reads like a worksheet. He encouraged Senators to read the entire report.
· He noted a “stunning” finding under part 3. We have 17 positions for which faculty receive reassigned time. That is 5.8 faculty positions – six faculty members that do not teach. He suggested these positions should be rolled the administrative budget, which will open six full-time tenured faculty positions which would dramatically increase our ability to deliver the curriculum.
· One of the appendices is very insightful, but did not answer the question of what percentage of all seats available for classes were empty? Do we fill 50% of the seats; 70%?
o Dr. Hantz said this is available in a spreadsheet, but he did not trust the data. Sometimes we schedule a course that is appropriate to 16-20 students and the room seats 42 yet we do not have any intention of filling the seats; that skews the data. Dr. Sabo suggested that Dr. Hantz use the enrollment caps imposed by departments.
· Dr. Sabo asked what percentage of all students in a given semester were taught by adjuncts. Are adjuncts filling the classes of faculty on reassigned time? If so, at what cost?
o Dr. Hantz said adjuncts were specifically omitted because they were looking at reassigned time. He noted that when you have reassigned time, or if you are on leave, the student credit hour expectations for your department do not change. If the faculty member is replaced with an adjunct, it adds to the FTE of your department – raising the expectation of student credit hours generated. The faculty member on leave had 25 students in a class, but the enrollment needs to be 32 to pay for the adjunct.
Dr. Sabo suggested a small group of three or four faculty members be formed to develop a decision agenda so the issues could be systematically addressed. Dr. Fernandes agreed to bring a plan to the Faculty Senate so small planning groups can work on the issues. The Senate will then discuss specific issues and their ramifications. Dr. Hantz supported this approach. The report comes from the chairs with multiple perspectives; the next step requires action by the Faculty Senate. Senators will receive the full report for review.
Student Government Association Report
Rob Waskom, Executive for Campus Affairs, reported on behalf of the SGA.
· Vote feast is Saturday with entertainment on the quad in conjunction with One-Stop Early Voting.
· Compared to other schools in the system, UNCA is last in notifying students of required textbooks. Textbook costs are hidden in financial aid. Because of our size, practices used by other campuses are not applicable to UNCA. We have a guaranteed buy-back for some of the humanities books, but the price is not determined. Some universities post their required textbooks during or immediately after registration. Others have a minimum two-month notification to students before class starts. This coincides with the 6-8 weeks delivery guaranteed by most internet sources for textbooks. SGA wants to work with the Faculty Senate to find a simple mechanism for faculty to notify students ideally 8 weeks prior to class.
· In an effort to reduce water and electrical consumption SGA has been working to remove trays from the cafeteria. This began after a trial run last semester with “Trayless Thursdays”. However this semester some faculty and staff have complained on trayless days. Senators supported this effort and thought most employees would participate; they were likely unaware of this campaign. After further discussion Dr. Haggard said that the intent is to move to a trayless campus – and the campus will be notified of the change. Trays will be available upon request.
VIII. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
IX. New Business
There was no New Business.
Dr. Dohse adjourned the meeting at 5:15pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely