FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, November 13, 2008
Members: C. Bell, K. Cole, L. Dohse, B. Haas, M. Harvey, G. Heard, J. Konz, 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.
Excused: A. Lanou.
Visitors: S. Haas, E. Katz, J. Leffe, G. Nallan, R. Pente, J. Pierce, 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 October 16, 2008, were approved with an editorial correction (Moseley/Larson).
III. Executive Committee Report
Introduction of John Pierce, Vice Chancellor of Finance and Operations
Dr. Dohse introduced John Pierce, our new Vice Chancellor of Finance and Operations.
Mr. Pierce outlined his work history and goals. Since joining UNCA he has had to quickly learn about State budgets, budget cuts, and how we deal with them. He has tried to be as clear and transparent as he can be to help senior staff understand the impact of decisions.
Highlights of goals:
· Financial reports with Banner
· Ernst & Young Study on purchasing, payroll, financial aid, grants, financial report and efficiency.
· Clarity with the Foundation: make sure we understand where scholarship money originates, where it goes, what is available, and the impact decisions have on our investment earnings.
· Oversee Construction Projects: clarify the relationship between construction and fund raising, that is, how much a project costs and how much we have to raise to meet our obligations.
· Prudently manage the financial affairs of the institution: make sure we do not accumulate too much debt and that we fully understand the budget process. The budget process must be clear, transparent and open.
Mr. Pierce will return to the Senate with a concise written report in the spring. Dr. Dohse thanked Mr. Pierce.
Plans for continued Assessment of Administrative Offices
Dr. Dohse reported that last spring a task force did an internal assessment of the Alumni and Development Office. The task force consisted of: Judy Beck, Robert Bowen, Shirley Browning, Duane Davis, Claudel McKenzie, Ted Meigs and Linda Nelms (Chair). The task force submitted a report to the Chancellor and she has responded. The process worked well and efforts are underway to assess one main office per year. The Chancellor suggested a timetable for assessing: Athletics in Fall 2010, Student Affairs in Fall 2011, and Finance and Operations in Fall 2012.
A task force will be assembled to begin reviewing Athletics next semester; the report will be completed next fall. Dr. Wilson will discuss this during the IDC report.
Student Rating of Instruction
Dr. Dohse referred to SD0308F passed last month on the Student Rating of Instruction. The evaluation instruments will now be administered in the last week of class. He received feedback from secretaries who were alarmed at what this change will mean for them. Some secretaries, such as Humanities and Mathematics, have as many as 1,000 evaluations to type. Given the new timeline to administer the evaluations, the results will likely come back later.
Dr. Moseley asked if faculty had been notified of the new policy and who is responsible for notifying the faculty? Dr. Dohse replied faculty have not yet been notified, but Dr. Fernandes will do so.
Dr. Moseley said two issues have been discussed: whether or not evaluations should be given online, and the timing of the evaluations. The new policy does not increase the number of evaluations, but it does squeeze the time for assistants to type them. He suggested that when Dr. Fernandes announces the new policy that she ask faculty members to be patient with assistants who will be starting the process later. Dr. Cole did not foresee a problem as long as faculty receive evaluation results before they have to distribute their syllabi for the next semester. FWDC will continue to look at this new process.
IV. Institutional Development Committee Report
Dr. Betsy Wilson reported for the Institutional Development Committee.
The following document was considered for Second Reading:
Assessment at UNC
After several attempts, a friendly amendment was accepted to the second sentence: “It is the basis of our growth as a community of learning.”
Dr. Sabo suggested attaching a statement saying that it is IDC’s responsibility to disseminate this to Department Chairs to implement. Perhaps a Sense of the Senate after IDC 2 passes. IDC 2 passed without dissent as amended and became Senate Document 0408F.
Discussion turned to implementing the new policy and placing it on websites to highlight that this is not just for academic programs. Dr. Fernandes volunteered to ask the Senior Staff to disseminate it. Dr. Sabo supported sending the policy to Senior Staff; perhaps the Chancellor will delegate one member of the Senior Staff to be responsible for calling people’s attention to it so it does not dissipate in a few years.
Dr. Fernandes said the policy is in the spirit of what the Senior Staff is striving for with assessment and she believed they would welcome the document. We will have an Assessment Director this year and that would be a place to institutionalize it.
It was agreed that IDC will send the policy to Dr. Fernandes. Dr. Dohse noted that having it on the internet is important.
Assessment of Administrative Offices
IDC is discussing future assessment of administrative offices. They are aware of the Chancellor’s suggestion to begin assessing Athletics. IDC plans to distribute a document for first reading at the next meeting.
Dr. Moseley said the Executive Committee discussed the possibility that the ongoing year by year assessment of our major programs might require the rehabilitation and repopulation of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee. IEC may be used to supervise periodic reviews.
Dr. Gary Nallan reported that every ten years every NCAA schools faces a certification process. UNCA is two or three years away from our recertification process. The Senate may want to keep this in mind. The Athletic Department will undergo an internal review by a peer review team that examines it towards certifying us for another ten year period. Dr. Dohse said the internal review prepares us for the external review. We will also have SACS in mind. This will be our third certification.
V. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. Merritt Moseley gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report.
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 3: Proposal to Eliminate the Asheville Institute Advisory Committee
(SD1205S; Faculty Handbook 10.4.25)
This committee does not function and has proven to be unnecessary.
FWDC 3 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 0508F.
FWDC 4: Proposal to Eliminate the Adjunct Faculty Committee (SD0500F; Faculty Handbook 10.4.17)
Though administrative concern for the welfare of adjunct faculty remains important, the Adjunct Faculty Committee, as conceived, has proven unworkable. FWDC 4 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 0608F.
FWDC 5: Proposal to Revise the Distinguished Scholars Committee
(Revision to SD5500S; Faculty Handbook Section 10.3.1)
Participation by faculty in the selection of honorary degree recipients is an important part of shared governance. FWDC 5 restores a function that was deleted from the Distinguished Scholars Committee in 1999. The Chancellor is in accord with the proposal. An editorial correction was made to the proposal. FWDC 5 passed as amended without dissent and became Senate Document 0708F.
Dr. Moseley said this committee is composed of four full professors elected by Faculty Senate from the faculty at large. FWDC will make a recommendation to the Senate.
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
APC 1: Ongoing Review of General Education at UNCA
This document summarizes what APC has determined is the most efficient way to investigate and examine general education. In the past such reviews have been done episodically every five or six years. APC’s objective is to make review routine. APC 1 is an agenda of how different aspects of general education and ILS can be sequentially reviewed. This does not come to the Senate moved and seconded because APC wants suggestions from the Senate on what should be incorporated.
Highlights of discussion:
· Dr. Moseley asked if the Foundation courses are a subset of the ILS program called the Learning Foundations.
o Yes. Departments do not have their assessment procedures in place yet. The timeline has been adjusted to give departments time to do this. The new IDC document on assessment will help. The Review Delivery Effectiveness is being formalized so that the reports can be publicized. The report is expected to come from Dean Katz.
· Dr. Pierce asked the difference between the Delivery Effectiveness report and the ILS assessment report.
o The Delivery Effectiveness report has an administrative orientation dealing with enrollments, number of courses available, percentage of courses filled, demand for courses. It gives some idea of whether sufficient courses are available. An administrator can do this more rapidly without undue burden on faculty.
o ILS assessment reports have to do with the proponents of integrative liberal studies and with student learning. ILSOC is currently designing and implementing some of their own assessments that will be complete in about a year. APC will review these.
· The review’s objective is to establish a baseline and experiment with procedures for ongoing assessment of the program. Its goals are to study ideas which might strengthen ILS and to consider suggestions as to how resources could best be allocated to improve general education. It will not be a quick fix, but will provide a clearer picture of opportunity costs. That is why APC is starting with the faculty perceptions. For example, Dr. Bell came up with a set of survey questions that tap into opportunity costs. The survey also has a series of close-ended questions and two major open-ended items: What do you like about ILS? What do you not like about ILS?
· Dr. Pierce said one concern is the cost to the Humanities of the rest of ILS. We need comparative data on how many faculty members were teaching humanities before we instituted the ILS program and how many are teaching there now. We need to ask the right questions.
o These concerns have come up in APC. Conceptually APC was aware of these issues and it is trying to figure out ways to systematically examine them.
o Dean Katz said some of these questions are in the 2007-2008 report APC received at the end of last year that it has not had a chance to look at yet. It is on the ILS website. It shows the distribution and reports on the intensives in terms of allocations, cluster demand, and data on the intensives.
· Dr. Konz asked if APC expects the Senate to vote on this document – or is APC reporting and requesting feedback from the Senate on the process.
o APC prefers feedback from the Senate on process, but other members of APC may have different ideas. APC did not take a formal vote, but members agreed to take it to the Senate. If we decide to go with this as a document, it will be moved and seconded in December.
· Dr. Konz responded: in terms of faculty governance, there are two distinct areas that would both require Senate approval of process as opposed to feedback:
· Establishment of an ongoing review process
· Review of the ILS program as it stands.
· Dr. Larson asked how APC envisions the identification of a set of learning outcomes for our university.
o APC is not dictating learning objectives in any way – these have been defined by the documents that implemented the ILS program. APC’s role in examining the ILS program is to determine whether or not the ILS program is in fact achieving the specified outcomes that were approved by the Senate six years ago. Rather than establishing goals, APC will examine the degree to which relevant components of our institution understand those goals, how they interpret them, how they pursue them, and how effective we are in accomplishing those goals. APC will make the information available and develop an ongoing cycle of regular reporting. Instead of a snap shot report at a point in time, longitudinal data will be available.
· Dr. Larson commented: this program was established with specific goals; enough time has passed that we can begin to examine how well it is achieving those goals.
· Dr. Pierce asked for clarification: APC 1 says, “The review’s objective is not to overhaul or redesign the ILS curriculum, but to establish a baseline and experiment with procedures for ongoing assessment of the program.” What if the consensus that APC discovers is that ILS should be overhauled?
o That is something that the Faculty Senate and the faculty need to decide. That is what happened after the last review of general education in the late 1990s. The general feeling then was that it was outdated and we needed something new. APC will be the review agency that gathers data and provides information so faculty can make informed decisions.
Delivering the Curriculum Planning Group
Dr. Fernandes has established a planning group on delivering the curriculum (
Criteria for Travel Approval
The Chancellor has asked the Vice Chancellors to review all requests for travel. Dr. Fernandes has assembled a group (Gregg Kormanik, Alice Weldon, Claudel McKenzie, Bill Miller, Peg Downes) to propose criteria for evaluating essential travel in Academic Affairs by December 1. The group will present the criteria to department chairs and program directors so they will have some idea whether travel requests will be approved or not.
Dr. Fernandes said Dr. Larson asked an essential question earlier: What is the locus for developing the learning outcomes for the university? To prepare for the next accreditation, we need to agree upon a process for discussing learning outcomes. Dr. Fernandes will discuss this with the Executive Committee.
Dr. Sabo asked when the announcements for the Deans’ positions will be made. Dr. Fernandes hopes to make the announcement before Thanksgiving.
Student Affairs Association Report
Rob Waskom, Executive for Campus Affairs, reported on behalf of the SGA.
Mr. Waskom reported that faculty permission for course withdrawal was reinstituted this year and students were not consulted on this change. SGA is discussing the change with the administration.
Bill 52: Faculty Permission for Course Withdrawal: Therefore be it resolved, that the permission of the instructor of a course should not be required for a student to withdraw from that course.
Tuition and Fees Committees
SGA has representatives on the Tuition and Fees Committees. SGA is recommending two additional student fees:
· Free taxi rides for students. Freshmen currently receive three free taxi rides per semester from another within 25 miles of campus to campus. SGA wants to extend that emergency taxi ride service to one per semester for everyone who is older than a freshman.
· $10 international service learning course fee
SGA recommended raising tuition the maximum amount allowed: 3.2 percent.
· 25% of the increase in tuition has to go toward financial aid to hold students harmless to that increase.
· 25% goes toward increasing faculty salaries up to the 80 percentile of our peers.
Given that the State appropriations are decreasing,
SGA recommended the remaining 50% of the increase to maintain faculty and staff
positions on campus or to fill the positions that we have been trying to fill
for a long time. There was a
recommendation from Senior Staff to fund the equipment for the
The Senate discussed SGA’s request that textbook lists be made available to students eight weeks before the start of class. Dr. Moseley noted that there has been considerable pressure statewide to go to a system of renting textbooks. Our SGA has insisted that the best education requires that we continue with our current system. A corollary to that was a request to make the book titles available to students earlier. In general, Senators advocated for an administrative solution rather than asking faculty to send the textbook lists individually. The information is generated through book orders and could be made available to all students. We are under a mandate to reduce costs to our students and the Bookstore understands that. Dr. Bell volunteered to follow up on this issue.
VIII. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
IX. New Business
Pizza Party for SECC participants
Dr. Moseley announced that those who made a contribution to the State Employees Combined Campaign are invited to a pizza party today at 5:30 at Asheville Pizza.
Dr. Pierce thanked Alicia Shope and others responsible for DegPar the degree progress advising report. It is an awesome advising tool. A round of applause followed.
Three Webinars on Student Learning Assessment
The Center for Teaching and Learning and the Office of Academic Affairs are offering three webinars on Student Learning Assessment from 1:30-2:30pm on November 25, December 4, and December 11. Seating will be limited to 25 people. There are still opening at this time.
Dr. Dohse adjourned the meeting at 4:35pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely