FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, December 4, 2008
Senate
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, A.
Ponder; Alt. G. Ettari.
Visitors: S. Haas, J. Leffe, B. Massey, P. McClellan, G. Nallan, R.
Pente, J. Tieman, R. Waskom.
I. Call to Order, Introductions and
Announcements
Dr. Dohse called the
meeting to order at 3:17pm and welcomed Senators and guests. He said the Senate was honored to have the
Chancellor with us today; this is the first meeting this semester when she was
not out of town on university business.
II. Approval of minutes
The
minutes of November 13, 2008, were approved as distributed.
III. Executive Committee
Report
Dr.
Response to October 16, 2008, Senate
minutes
Dr. Dohse noted that the Senate
minutes are read a lot. Lenny Bernstein,
the driving force behind the proposed Climate Change in Society program, took
issue with the comment in the October 16th minutes that he had been
a lobbyist for a number of years. Dr.
Bernstein clarified in an email: “I worked for oil companies for 30 years and as a consultant
for another 10, but my role has always been the technical analysis of
environmental issues, not the presentation of positions to government officials
at any level.”
Course Withdrawal
Policy Change
At the last meeting, the SGA opposed the policy
change on course withdrawals that now require the instructor’s signature in
addition to the advisor’s signature. Dr.
Dohse discussed the policy change with Assistant Provost Pat McClellan. Ms. McClellan said withdrawals have increased
significantly. One reason students drop courses
is a misconception that they are failing after receiving their first test
results early in the semester. Ms.
McClellan, in consultation with the Enrollment Services Advisory Committee,
reinstated the procedure that requires an instructor’s signature to withdraw
from a course. She was not anticipating
the student’s reaction to the policy change.
She was not sure why students did not like asking the instructor for
their signature and taking a minute to see if that was the wisest thing to do. The instructor will have more pertinent information
about specific strategies for a course – resources available, appropriate study
skills for that particular course – more so than the advisor.
IV.
Institutional Development
Committee Report
Dr. Betsy
Wilson reported for the Institutional Development Committee.
Guidelines for future review of
administrative offices
IDC continues to work on guidelines
for future review of administrative offices.
IDC’s work has broadened to look at various ways of looking at
administrative offices, including in depth reports similar to the report
written by the University Relations Task Force.
IDC and FWDC are discussing the feasibility of revamping the
Institutional Effectiveness Committee to have it involved in the review of
administrative offices. These options would
involve a more comprehensive review of administrative offices. IDC will discuss these with the Chancellor in
December. Dr. Wilson plans to bring a
proposal to the Senate in February.
V. Faculty
Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr.
Merritt Moseley gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report.
Nominees to the Distinguished Scholars
Committee
At the
last meeting, the Senate restored to the Distinguished Scholars Committee a
function of consulting with the Chancellor on the selection of honorary degree
recipients. The Chancellor will appoint
three full-time teaching faculty, one from each division, for 2-year
terms.
The
Senate approved the following slate of four full professors for serve two-year
terms:
Brian Dennison Joe Sulock
Mark
Gibney Cynthia Ho
First
The
following documents were distributed for First Reading:
FWDC
6: Revision of UNCA Tenure Policies and
Regulations
(Revision
of SD0102F, SD4089S, SD1089S; Faculty Handbook 14.2)
FWDC
7: Proposal to Amend the Duties of the
University Research Council
(Revision
of SD7808S; Faculty Handbook 10.3.5)
FWDC
8: Proposal to Amend the Duties of the
University Teaching Council
(Revision
of SD7503S; Faculty Handbook 10.3.6)
Editorial
changes were made to FWDC 6.
VI. Academic
Dr.
First
The
following documents were distributed for First Reading:
APC 2: Delete
LANG 351, Writing for Business and the Professions
Delete
LIT 351, Beginning Old English
APC 3: Addition
of LIT 363; Revision of LIT 491
description
APC 4: Change
in frequency of CLAS 102 and CLAS 212
APC 5: Changes
to Classics Senior Research Thesis (CLAS 495)
APC 6: Change
course description for ATMS 223, Physical Climatology
APC 7: Add
new course, ATMS 345, Tropical Meteorology
Add
new course, ATMS 464, Scientific Writing
APC 8: Removal
of prerequisites for CHEM 132 and inclusion of a preparation
recommendation
in the course description
APC 9: Change
AP credit awarded for CHEM 132
APC
10: Add new course, ENVR 106, Earth
History;
Add
new course, ENVR 310, Economic Geology
APC
11: Delete ENVR 321 and its cross-listed
course, BIOL 321; Delete ENVR 350;
Editorial
changes resulting from deletions
APC
12: Add ENVR 343, Stream Ecology; Add
ENVR 343 as an option for the Concentration in
Ecology
and Environmental Biology
APC 13: Delete
ACCT 215 as an option in Concentration in Environmental Management and Policy
APC
14: Change course number, description,
and credit hours of ENVR 382, Environmental Geology;
Editorial
changes resulting from adding Environmental Geology to core requirements for
Environmental
Studies
APC
15: Change title, credit hours and
description of ENVR 338 and its cross-listed course,
ATMS
338; Change title and description of ENVR 362
APC
16: Delete Concentration in Pollution
Control, merging it w/ Concentration in Earth Science
APC
17: Editorial
changes to Earth Science with 9-12 Teacher Licensure
APC
18: Editorial Changes to the
Environmental Studies Narrative
APC
19: Delete ENVR 443 and 444; Add new
course, BIOL 322, cross-listing it with ENVR 322;
Add
new course, BIOL 323, cross-listing it with ENVR 323; Editorial changes as a
result of
the
deletions and additions
Second
The
following document was considered for Second Reading:
APC
1: Ongoing Review of General Education
at UNCA
APC
1 is an agenda of how different aspects of general education and Integrative
Liberal Studies (ILS) can be sequentially reviewed. The document was distributed for information
purposes and discussion at the November 13th Senate meeting. During the discussion it became apparent that
the Senate should consider APC 1 to establish the legitimacy of the
process. APC 1 is now being considered
for second reading. Dr. Sabo moved to
approve APC 1. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Moseley.
Highlights
of discussion:
·
Dr. Konz asked how this review would supplement or
differ from ILSOC’s on-going assessment.
o
Dr. Sabo said currently, ILSOC’s document focuses
primarily on item 2 – delivery effectiveness.
The documents are sent to APC, but there are no clear guidelines as to
what APC is to do with them. APC 1
clarifies the purpose of the ILSOC document from the Senate’s perspective. Regarding assessment, ILSOC is now developing
a standardized system of assessing student learning. The different subgroups are developing
assessment practices for each of the ILS components. APC does not see any value in duplicating
these efforts. APC does think, however,
the assessment process would be improved if it reviews the assessment plans and
the reports they generate. That is, APC
will assess the assessments, providing feedback, and critical commentary in an
effort to improve subsequent assessment efforts.
APC 1
establishes a routine exchange of ideas between ILSOC and the Senate by
standardizing communication practices between APC and ILSOC. The faculty can be confident, not just that a
report is being prepared, but that it is being reviewed by an independent
body. APC 1’s purpose is to complement
ILSOC’s review procedures and to fill in gaps where the Oversight Committee is
not charged, such as reviewing the Foundation courses.
The
document also puts APC in a position to investigate trade-offs, that is,
calculate general education’s costs for major programs, course offerings, and
faculty workload.
Finally,
the document establishes review as an ongoing process. Rather than one review periodically
implemented, APC 1 provides for an ongoing process that is regularly updated. It
seeks to institutionalize and coordinate assessment practices that we are
expected to engage in. It also locates
that review in a body that is directly responsible to the faculty—the Faculty
Senate and its subcommittee APC. It
is APC’s responsibility to regularly report its activities and conclusions to
the Senate.
·
Dr. Larson referred to #2 Purpose: examine and
critique assessment criteria used for determining student learning, and said
this seems to presuppose that we have some idea of what our desired student
learning outcomes are. When are we are
going to create our foundation and how does that relate to this?
o
Dr. Sabo said APC 1 allows the Oversight Committee
to define that foundation. They are
charged by the original Senate document to do so. APC’s task is primarily oversight. Oversight is the practice in which the
original delegating body reviews the steps taken by the agent to determine if
its wishes are being carried out.
He
understands APC’s responsibility as two-fold: 1) to examine ILSOC’s assessment
process to see if it is a good, reasonable way of assessing; 2) to see if
ILSOC’s practices are consistent with the original intent of the Senate when it
established the ILS program and delegated ILSOC responsibility to oversee
it. To improve the program APC will have
the responsibility to identify discrepancies between intent and practice,
identify any weaknesses, and make suggestions for improvement. Unlike past UNCA general education systems,
the ILS program has a committee charged with implementing and overseeing
it. This was not the case with previous
general education programs which meant review fell to APC by default. Establishing ILSOC was a good idea and it
does a good job, but it is essential that it remain responsible to an elected
faculty body – the Senate. The most
efficient way is not to redo what ILSOC does, but to routinely review its
activities.
o
Dr. Bell spoke as a member of APC and as a member of
ILSOC. At the ILS subcommittee level
they are trying to implement measures of the learning objectives. The original Senate documents essentially
defined the learning objectives for the Quantitative Intensive courses. The QI subcommittee is examining those
objectives. Eventually, APC will be
looking to see if the subcommittees and ILSOC have done an appropriate job –
both in defining the learning objectives and in measuring them. Dr. Sabo added that APC will use the original
meaning of the Senate document as the standard when it reviews what the subcommittee
decides and does.
·
Dr. Larson said the title of APC 1 “Ongoing Review
of General Education at UNCA” makes good sense.
The question he is struggling to enunciate is what about our
undergraduate’s overall learning experiences of which general education is only
a part?
o
Dr. Sabo said that is an excellent question and will
be on APC’s agenda for next year. The
question has to do with the broader and more fundamental issue of assessment
and reviewing departments. Departments
could review themselves and another body would review the departments. Revitalizing the Institutional Effectiveness
Committee would seem to be essential in this context. He was not sure how this should be coordinated. It is clear, however, from past Senate
documents that the Senate is responsible for overseeing general education specifically. That is APC 1’s purpose. Generally it is accepted that departments are
responsible for their own assessment but perhaps IDC should step in to
coordinate those. APC 1 is limited to the
ILS program.
·
Dr. Fernandes said the department assessments from
our last accreditation visit were outstanding.
We are in a strong position, but we would be in a stronger position if
all faculty and all departments across campus agreed on a set of learning
outcomes. This is what SACS will be
looking for. It will not be difficult to
do because so much foundation is there.
We can probably use the department self assessments as well as the
results from the general education assessment as a basis. Some information from the strategic plan
could also be useful for developing outcomes.
She reiterated
her question from the last Senate meeting – What is the locus for creating the
university learning outcomes? Is that
APC? Is it IDC? Or is it a committee that she convenes? She would want the Faculty Senate to be the
place where they are developed. If she
does not get the answer she will have to create the answer.
o
Dr. Sabo said this would logically fall under the purview
of the Academic Policies Committee. It
will be added to APC’s agenda. The EC
will also discuss this next week while Dr. Fernandes is at a SACS conference.
APC 1 passed without dissent and
became Senate Document 0808F.
Apology
Dr.
Sabo referred to the last Senate meeting when he was asked whether or not the
ILS Administrative Report had been examined by the APC. He said no, because he had not seen the
report. This is solely his fault. An ILSOC report prepared by Dr. Hantz was
sent to him over the summer. Dr. Sabo
said he either forgot about it or lost it.
The report had been completed and has now been posted on ILSOC’s
website. Dr. Hantz has instituted a new
practice: instead of sending such reports to the APC Chair, reports will be
posted on the website and notice will be sent that the report is available to
everyone. Dr. Sabo complimented Dr.
Hantz for this excellent idea and apologized for giving people the impression
at the last meeting, that the report had not been sent -- the problem
originated with him and not ILSOC.
Dr.
Dohse reminded people that they should beware of sending faculty members
reports in mid-July. If it is an
important report of a committee, it should either be tagged as important or
sent when the university is in full session.
VII. Administrative
Reports
Alumni and Development Annual
Report
Mr. Bill
Massey, Vice Chancellor for Alumni and Development, invited questions or
observations on the report. This
division includes alumni, development, university publications and university
news services.
From
a development perspective, our giving at the time of the report is down about
20% from the previous year. Major gifts
can make a significant impact on the percentages. Universities are subject to people’s
decisions about their philanthropy. We
have all lived through recessions before, but this one is a worldwide situation
as opposed to a domestic situation. In
previous recessions people were generally comfortable that in six to nine
months the economy would have recovered.
We are seeing less of that now and it does impact giving. His colleagues at other universities are
experiencing the same thing.
At
the time this report was produced our endowment was down 6.77%. It had performed spectacularly over the last
several years. Today our endowment is down
by 16%. Many university endowments are
down 30% or more. Of university endowments
in excess of $1 billion, our endowment for the last fiscal year was second only
to Harvard in performance. Our trustees
and foundation board directors have made very good decisions about aligning our
own $25 million endowment with the collective UNC endowments with a $2.5
billion corpus.
The
positive news to take away from a declining 16% is that the Endowment and
Investment Committee decided last month to continue the five percent payout of
the endowment for next year. We are able
to do this because investments have been so strong for the last three years and
our payout rate is based on the previous three consecutive completed
years.
Questions/discussion
·
Dr. Bell referred to
federal law that impacts relatively recently endowed foundations by
limiting the amount of payout. When you
have a significant decline in your corpus, you can not make payouts at
all.
o
Chancellor Ponder explained that the “from
inception” in Mr. Massey’s report is when we moved existing endowed funds to
this particular investment manager. They
are not new funds. Dr. Bell is correct,
there is a challenge when there is a downturn in the investments that are
recent endowments; and if individual endowed funds fall below the amount of
their principle and they are restricted for particular purposes, we may not
make payments out of those. We may not
invade the principle or the corpus to do that.
We have been working on increasing endowed funds. At least one of our endowed funds is subject
to that specific difficulty and we are entirely in compliance with that. A list of relatively recent endowed funds that
are not doing payouts at this time can be provided.
·
Dr. Larson asked how Mr. Massey was able to use the
strategic plan in relation to development activities.
o
Mr. Massey said the division was an important part
of the strategic plan. Quite a few items
on the strategic plan will need private funds over the long term. They are becoming stronger at aligning what
we are asking for to the strategic plan.
It is the roadmap for us and it is an extremely valuable document. Secondly, it is trust-building to people that
we are seeking significant gifts from because they welcome the fact that there
is a plan.
·
Dr. Wilson said IDC has the responsibility of
looking at the administrative office survey conducted last year. Were the survey results an aid to you or did
it influence anything you did?
o
Mr. Massey said it was not particularly helpful. The individual comments were clearly based on
individual experience which you would expect, but no strong trends came out of
it.
They
learned that the work they do is not as widely known as they would like for it
to be, but that would probably be the case in most universities. The challenge to us is to communicate more
broadly on campus. In fairness, that was
helpful feedback.
·
Dr.
Sabo asked Ms. Nelms if anything in the report was consistent or inconsistent
with the Task Force's report that she was instrumental in writing.
o
Ms. Nelms recalled seeing two recommendations in the
report: the establishment of a major
gifts team and the creation of a magazine.
She did not see a reference to the strategic plan, but feedback was
given in response to Dr. Larson’s question.
Dr. Dohse thanked Vice Chancellor
Massey. The report is available at: Alumni & Development Division Report
Academic
Affairs
Provost
Assessment guidelines going
to Senior Staff
Senior Staff will be
discussing the Faculty Senate’s document about the role of program assessment
on campus (SD0408F). This is a step toward getting a unified
vision of the role of assessment on campus.
Preliminary Definition of
Diversity
Dr. Fernandes requested
feedback from the Senate on the Draft
Definition of Diversity at UNC Asheville.
Development of the definition began last spring; she would like to finalize
this so we can move forward on our diversity goal.
Highlights of discussion:
·
Dr. Haas noted that race was at the bottom of the
list. We have had an historical problem
with our representation of racial minorities; he suggested moving this to the
top of the list.
·
Dr. Heard said it was a good document overall. Editorial comments:
§
2nd sentence: Add “we”
“To reach this goal requires that we enhance
the range of ….”
§
2nd paragraph: delete “current” – it is unnecessary if this
is a document for the ages.
“We seek to dismantle the current university
structures ….”
§
1st sentence under Statement of
Principles: delete “an increasingly”
– does not follow the law
of thermodynamics and is unnecessary for a document with a long life span.
“UNC Asheville must prepare
students to live and grow in an
increasingly diverse world.”
·
Dr. Bell said all of the examples of diversity
listed are essentially demographic in nature.
We ought to think about diversity and opinion, and respecting that
different people might have different opinions, irrespective of their
demographic background.
·
Several Senators expressed concern over the use of
the word dismantle; “We seek to dismantle the current university
structures, policies, etc.” It is a very
strong statement. It is a revolutionary
statement. Unless we really believe
that, it should not be in the document.
·
Dr. Fernandes said the Diversity Action Council is
very serious about that sentence and is very serious about dismantling
university structures, policies, and procedures that give some groups of people
privilege at the expense of others. How
it actually plays out will have to be determined through the strategic plan
with specific action. Clearly we are historically an institution for
white people. We want to work at the
structures that put that into place and try to make sure that we are
transforming ourselves into a more inclusive university in every possibly
way. There will be small steps, not big
steps. It is not that revolutionary; it
is really just a lot of hard work.
·
Dr. Sabo said the third paragraph is a powerful
statement about the mission of the university and should always come
first. We are a public liberal arts
institution, therefore we have a responsibility. The responsibility is then defined. It legitimizes our concern and it
substantiates our authority to make these decisions.
VIII. Old Business
Dr. Pierce
proposed a Sense of the Senate Resolution thanking the individuals who designed
and implemented the Degree Progress Advising Report system. He thought it would be appropriate for the
Senate to recognize their work. The
resolution was seconded by Dr. Bell.
Sense of the Senate
Resolution
On behalf of the faculty, the Faculty Senate extends a sincere thank you
to
Cynthia Gagne
Debbie Race
Calley Stevens Taylor
Stephanie Franklin
Alicia Shope
Keith Krumpe.
Their hard work designing and
implementing the Degree Progress Advising Report system has made it
considerably easier for faculty to be more effective academic advisors. Their work attests to their commitment to
improving the quality of services available to UNCA students and we appreciate
their efforts.
The Sense
of the Senate Resolution passed without dissent and became Senate Document
0908F.
IX. New
Business
There was
no New Business.
X. Adjourn
Dr. Dohse adjourned the
meeting at 4:30pm.
Respectfully submitted
by: Sandra Gravely
Executive Committee