University of North Carolina at Asheville
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, March 18, 2010
Senate
Members: C. Bell, R. Berls,
G. Boudreaux, L. Dohse, G. Ettari,
V. Frank, B. Haas, G. Heard, J. Konz,
B. Larson, A. Lanou, K. Moorhead, L. Nelms, E.
Pearson, D. Pierce, K. Reynolds, L. Russell,
M. Sidelnick; J. Fernandes.
Visitors: G. Ashburn, P. Catterfeld,
P. Downes, L. Friedenberg,
C. Hennon, E. Katz, K. Krumpe,
P. McClellan, C.
McKenzie, R. Pente, B. Massey, L. McCane,
C. Mercer, C. Riley, A. Shope,
S. Subramaniam,
G. Voos, B. Yearout.
I. Call
to Order, Introductions and Announcements
Dr. Lothar
Dohse called the meeting to order at 3:16pm and
welcomed Senators and guests. He
congratulated Dr. Jeff Konz on his appointment as
Dean of the Social Sciences.
II. Approval of minutes
The minutes of January 21, 2010 and
February 11, 2010 were approved with editorial corrections.
III. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Lothar Dohse reported for the
Executive Committee.
Development Office
Mr.
Bill Massey, Executive Director of UNC Asheville Foundation, reported on the Development
Office.
Highlights follow:
•
The faculty representatives on UNC Asheville
Foundation Board this year are excellent; they are bringing helpful, useful and
informed opinion to the Foundation Board that the Directors (most of whom are
members of our business community) appreciate and value. Thank you for your selection.
•
The Development Office is currently working with 38
colleagues on various funding projects.
•
The Foundation Directors are excellent resources
for some of your classrooms. They are
willing to bring their talents to the university and Mr. Massey is willing to
facilitate this process.
•
The gifts of faculty and staff members who support
the university are appreciated.
•
New activities:
Development will host a series of planned giving seminars for people in
the community who are beginning to think about estate planning. They will also be meeting with estate
attorneys and financial managers in the Asheville and Hendersonville
areas. There are new attorneys and new
financial planners who may be less familiar with UNC Asheville and we want to
be sure that they understand our ability to work with them on estate gifts in
ways that many of the nonprofits in town are not able to do.
Questions
•
Dr. Dohse noted that Mr.
Massey’s job title had changed. He asked
if his responsibilities also changed.
-
Mr. Massey said the job did change. He no longer supervises the Alumni division
or the Publications division. He focuses
exclusively on development.
•
Dr. Dohse asked if a
large donor can change the direction of the university.
-
Mr. Massey said no.
In fact three years ago we declined an opportunity for a significant
gift which came with stipulations that the donor be able to choose among
candidates for a professor position. But
that would not be a decision made by the Development Office.
-
Dr. Fernandes said she
was involved in one event where a donor tried to determine what was
taught. The donor’s goals and the
university’s goals need to match in order to make a gift.
•
Ms. Nelms noted that
Development lost personnel due to budget constraints. Are there plans to hire more people in
Development when the budget improves?
-
Mr. Massey said they are at the same staffing level
as seven years ago. When the budget
improves the entire university will be evaluating where the needs are and he
hopes to be very involved. It needs to
be considered in the whole spectrum of the university. He thanked Ms. Nelms
for recognizing the loss of personnel.
The report is available:
Search for campus General Counsel
Chief of Staff
Christine Riley reported on the search for campus General Counsel. Highlights follow:
•
There were 38 applications for the general counsel
position of whom five or six were within the university system. We had telephone interviews with six
people. We invited four applicants to
campus and three accepted. This concluded the search. A conditional offer has been extended and
accepted contingent upon approval by the Board of Trustees. Once that process is successful we can
announce our next general counsel to the campus.
•
Dr. Dohse asked how this
iteration of the general counsel would be different from the last one.
•
Ms. Riley said this will be different in several
ways. Mainly, we just know more
now. Tom Lawton, our previous general
counsel, was the first one that our campus had so we were building that as we
went along. We learned a lot from the
work that he did with us and also through the search process.
-
The ways it will be different which will be more
visible to the campus is that we anticipate more preventive legal work. We specifically looked for candidates who
have both interest and experience in educational programs, essentially before
problems arise, so we can be more knowledgeable about the legal issues. You
will see more outreach and education than we were able to provide in the
past. Another way is that we
specifically looked for and talked to our candidates about looking for a
partner in building systems. The last
way that is different is that the person that we have hired has been in the
university system for many years. There
is a lot of system knowledge – knowing who to call, what office does what and
how the campuses operate. Certainly our
campus culture will be new and it will be a transition from another campus, but
it will not be as large a learning curve as if we had a general counsel who is
not from the university system.
•
Dr. Lanou asked if this
person will be able to help faculty and staff who are emigrating from another
country. That has been an issue in the
past.
-
Ms. Riley said this is not a specialty of this
person nor is it a specialty of any of the candidates that we talked to, but
there is experience with immigration issues on the university campus in the UNC
system. General Administration
recognized that immigration issues are complicated and there is now an immigration
specialist on the legal team at GA and we can take advantage of that
expertise. The other part of that is
that we need to know about immigration issues early on to navigate the very
complicated system.
•
Dr. Lanou asked if the
administration considered sharing the general counsel with another university
so we did not bear the entire burden of the counsel’s salary in this lean
economy.
-
Ms. Riley said others have also posed this
question. However it is not an option as
we are required by the UNC system to have our own legal counsel.
Dr. Dohse
thanked Ms. Riley for meeting with the Senate and answering questions.
UNCA Centers Informational Report
Dr.
Dohse reported that about four months ago the Senate
was asked to write a summary report on the various research centers and
operations at the time. The motivation
behind the investigation was twofold: to help clarify the role these centers
play within the University and to give an objective summary of the costs and
benefits of each center. Information for
this report was obtained through interviews and correspondence with the
respective directors of each Center, and verified by UNC Asheville’s Office of
Finance and Operations.
Dr. Dohse noted that the
Environmental Quality Institute (EQI) and the Mossbauer Effect and Data Center
(MEDC) were both Centers that were started by faculty who had very good
research projects that developed and blossomed into a center whereas the other
three were initiated from outside sources:
• NEMAC
(National Environmental Modeling and Analysis Center) was established to
utilize UNCA’s proximity to the National Climatic Data Center in downtown
Asheville and its resources.
• PARSEC (Pisgah Astronomical Research and
Education Center) has a satellite tracking station nearby that became useful
for education when that became available for public use.
• The
CCCD (Center for Crafts, Creativity and Design) was established by General
Administration to encourage and support crafts in the region.
The
table on the last page is an overview of UNCA Centers’ 2008-09 expenditures
from Steve Birkhofer in Finance and Operations. Dr. Dohse noted
that all of the Centers do not agree with these numbers, but it is important to
see the University’s perspective of the expenditures. An important point: the State Funds for EQI is the proportion of
the faculty member’s salary and benefits involved when they get reassigned
time. It is not actual cash. Dr. Steve Patch has a class at this time and
was unable to be here. Dr. Patch’s
response was distributed to Senators.
Dr.
Dohse said his overall view is that students
benefitted from these centers. It is sad
to let research units go because of the non-tangible benefits they provided to
our campus.
The
Report on UNC Asheville's Research Center by Dr. Lothar
Dohse is available at: http://www3.unca.edu/facultysenate/2009-10/R_Centers_Fin[1].pdf
Addendum
to Report (EQI Response) by Dr. Steve Patch is available at: http://www3.unca.edu/facultysenate/2009-10/EQISenateStatement3-18-10[1].htm
Questions/Comments
•
Dr. Haas referred to the money Dr. Patch had for
scholarships and a rainy-day fund and asked where the money has gone and if
those scholarships will continue.
•
Dr. Dohse explained:
-
Part of the money was used on severance packages for
people who were let go.
-
Money is still in various accounts; some money is
being used to start the non-profit.
-
It is not clear where the remainder of the money
will go.
•
Dr. Katz
said he has been working with Dr. Patch to ensure that the students who had
funds committed to them are honored.
•
Dean Krumpe said some of the funds are being used to pay (as a
subcontractor) Marilyn Westphal to complete the
contracts and reports to bring other projects to fruition and additional money
that are owed to UNC Asheville can be brought into the university. Also, to prevent any return of funds that
would have to go back to the original funding agencies for not completing the
projects. Some funds have been set aside
to accommodate additional expenses in the future; over the years, EQI has sent
out a number of kits that may be returned to the university. Some funds will be returned to the original
funding agency. Some funds will be used
to reimburse people who submitted kits late.
Even though EQI is officially closed and no longer operating on our
campus, it will be a number of months before all of the budgetary transactions
are complete.
•
Dr. Dohse said that NEMAC
probably has the largest group of students working for them. Jim Fox, Director of NEMAC, hopes that more faculty will become involved with that program.
IV. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr. George Heard
reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
Nominees
for Academic Appeals Board ballot
The Faculty Senate approved a slate of nominees for the Academic Appeals
Board election ballot:
Erica
Abrams-Locklear (Literature and
Language)
George Heard (Chemistry)
Irene Rossell (Environmental
Studies)
Bill Haas (Sociology
and Anthropology)
Cathy Whitlock (Mathematics)
Melodie Galloway (Music)
Kate Zubko (Religious
Studies)
Extension of terms of
two members on the Writing Intensive Subcommittee
FWDC asked the Senate to
consider extending the terms of two Writing Intensive Subcommittee members to
ensure that there are only two new members on WI each year. Two new members will be appointed by next
year’s FWDC for terms of 2010-2014, completing this process. No more terms will need to be extended. The Senate extended the two terms of two
members:
•
Patrick Bahls to serve 2007-2011.
•
Melissa Smith to serve
2010-2012.
Second Reading
The following documents were
considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 4: Electronic Student Rating of Instruction;
Handbook Section 3.3.3.1.1)
FWDC
4 was edited to read: “The evaluation instruments are to be administered
electronically, facilitated by the Director of Institutional Research and the
Assistant Provost for Academic Administration. “
Dr.
Boudreaux urged Senators to reject this document until several issues are
addressed:
• The
implementation of an incentive system should be presented in writing before the
Senate agrees to an online system.
• The
current document should contain an escape clause if the response rate is
unacceptably low. The Senate should
determine in advance what unacceptably low means.
• Why
does the online implementation not follow the SRI task force recommendation
from April 2006? The reports says: “… to experiment with an electronic
process? A pilot test would be helpful
in identifying the problems for such a process …. and
response rates could be addressed.”
• Why
do we allow the SRI, which is an opinion survey (student opinions of our
teaching), to act as the major assessment tool of our teaching in light of the
strong comments made at our last Senate meeting by Dr. Sidelnick
who argued that the strong negative opinions of clusters did not measure
anything and should be taken with a grain of salt? The strongest point made in the SRI task
force report is that there is something wrong with using this as an assessment
tool. We need to spend time addressing
these issues.
Dr.
Konz said he too was concerned about the response
rate issue. According to information
that Ms. McClellan gave recently, universities that have done this have
experienced reductions in the response rate but no significant change in the
ratings. Dr. Konz
pointed out that the comments students provide are the most valuable part of
the instrument. He would like the Senate
to take positive steps to have response rates as high as possible when we go to
this system.
Dean
Friedenberg said one of the reasons that the new
forms emerged and one of the things that people like about it is that it asks
students to rate actual faculty behaviors.
Many faculty were uncomfortable with the old
form that asked students global statements about characteristics, like faculty
knowledge or competence.
Dr.
Sidelnick said each department is supposed to have a
peer evaluation system in place. There
is the opportunity to select the classes that you evaluate. He agreed with the concern of how it is used
as an assessment tool. He has seen some
department chairs take it seriously and others disregard it, depending on
whether they are junior or senior faculty.
He does not know how that is controlled.
Dr. Heard clarified that FWDC
believes there should be an incentive system for students taking the SRI. But FWDC 4 specifically addresses the Faculty
Handbook. We are assuming an incentive
system will be covered by the facilitation of the implementation of the
instrument by the Director of Institutional Research. FWDC determined that the Faculty Handbook is
not the place for an incentive system and he was not sure it is the place for
an escape clause. The SRI task force did
recommend piloting this, but as a campus we do not seem to be very good at
pilots. Regarding Dr. Konz’s remarks on the importance of the written comments,
one reason for going to this system is to allow for longer comments with no
chance that the comments get either filtered or miscommunicated.
Ms.
McClellan said that how the instrument is used is a different question than
whether it will be electronic or not. From
what she has read, although the response rate may go down, the length and
number of comments increased.
Ms.
Nelms made an observation: we have a new instrument and will have had it
in place for a year, and now we are going to have a new method of administering
that instrument. How are you going to be
doing comparative work? And then we
will have a new difficulty in comparing this year and next year because of the
difference in response rate.
Dr.
Bell agreed; we have a messy laboratory because we are changing two variables
at once.
Dr.
Boudreaux clarified that many of the issues he raised should not be included in
the Faculty Handbook. Nevertheless, the
Senate should consider these issues before we vote on this document.
Dr.
Sidelnick said the use of this instrument is not a
one-time snapshot; it is used across someone’s career, across a five year
evaluation plan. It is a trend, a
pattern over time that helps it become more reliable. How that information is used may vary by
department chair.
Dr.
Haas said he was on the SRI task force.
He was interested in moving the written comments to an electronic form
so administrative assistants did not have to decipher the comments and read
certain words.
The task force was adamant that the faculty controlled
this process. He said Dr. Boudreaux
asked a very good question: What is a
reasonable response rate? Dr. Haas made
the following motion:
The
Senate charges FWDC to address these issues regarding Student Ratings of
Instruction:
A.
The percentage that defines a low response rate.
B.
The procedure that an instructor uses to choose the courses that are to be
evaluated.
C.
An incentive system that encourages students to fill out the electronic
evaluations.
FWDC
will present this at the first Senate meeting in the 2010/11 academic year.
Dr. Pearson seconded the motion, which passed.
Dr.
Moorhead asked when do faculty decide which courses to
evaluate. He agreed with Ms. Nelms; we are talking about moving forward with this and we
have not evaluated the new form. We need
to have these discussions before going online with the evaluation. Dr. Heard said there is an automatic review
of the questions in three years.
Dr.
Larson said the issue of how paper-based versus online evaluations compare was
addressed in 13 Strategies to Measure College Teaching. On structured questions, students tend to
rate instructors similarly. On
unstructured (open-ended) questions, the flexible time permitted to on-liners
yields longer and more thoughtful comments than those of in-class
respondents.
Dr.
Boudreaux said he was not averse to having on-line evaluations, but the Senate
should not consider this document before the details have been worked out.
FWDC 4 passed by a 12 to 5 vote and became
Senate Document 3010S.
FWDC
5: Revision to
Institutional Review Board (SD0393F, Faculty Handbook 10.4.20)
UNC Asheville’s
Institutional Review Board (IRB) was constituted in 1993, and in the
intervening 18 years has not been reviewed.
With an increase in research projects involving human subjects, it has
been difficult to promptly complete the review of proposals. In addition, there have been changes to the
Federal guidelines governing Institutional Review Boards (most recent revision
July 2009), which alter the requirements for a board to meet and vote on
proposals. This document will reform the
Human Subjects Policy to become in line with Federal Regulation Title 45, Part
46, and expand the membership to eight, representing four affiliations.
A quorum shall be a
majority (50%) of the eight members of the IRB, one of whom must have primary
concerns in nonscientific areas.
Approval of a project requires the approving vote of the majority (50%)
of those members present. FWDC 5 passed without dissent and became
Senate Document 3110S.
V. Institutional
Development Committee/University Planning Council Reports
Ms.
Institutional
Development Committee (IDC)
Ms. Nelms
updated the Senate on IDC’s activities.
Highlights follow:
•
With the expectation of a new senior level
Institutional Effectiveness person, Dean Friedenberg
has taken over the responsibility of writing the report which IDC will review
and provide comment.
•
The committee is not yet ready to recommend a new
committee to oversee institutional effectiveness.
•
IDC
reviewed the recommendations from the SACS Committee regarding the substantive
changes that will be reported to SACS.
It confirmed that the closing of the K-12 Licensure, the closing of the
B – K Licensure Program, and the proposed closing of the B. S. in Industrial
and Engineering Management meet the SACS definition of substantive change and
will be reported. The SACS Committee
will review the percent of the Masters of Liberal Arts students taking classes
at the YMI to determine whether that will need to be reported.
•
The IDC
concurred with the SACS Committee that the changeover to the ILS approach,
while certainly major, did not meet the definition of “substantive” because it
did not mark a change in philosophy or direction. Similarly, the addition of majors in
Religious Studies, Health and Wellness, Women’s Studies, International Studies,
and the proposed addition of Anthropology as a major are not substantive
changes. The majors grew out of existing
minors and do not reflect a change in mission or focus.
University Planning Committee (UPC)
Highlights:
•
Budget:
There are no further rescissions planned but there is to be no carry
forward. We are being asked to look at
which cuts can be permanent. The
university is being asked to plan for five percent but GA is trying to limit it
to two percent. While the UPC and other
areas of the university have spent time identifying and prioritizing capital
needs, we cannot expect capital funding next year.
•
As part of the on-going review of the efforts of
the Strategic Plan Workgroups Patrice Mitchell gave a report focusing on the goals
and objectives for Enrollment and Financial Aid.
Fall enrollment is 3,017 which meets the established
goal. The projection is that enrollment
will increase to 3,334 in 2014. The Financial Aid picture is less
positive. Average need per student is $7,859 (in‐state
per student is $7,797). The current
percent of need being met is 59%. The percent of need met for all with no loans
is 57%. The goal is 61% of need met with
grants/scholarships for full-time in-state students.
•
A second report
came from the Diversity workgroup. They
have inventoried diversity programs and resources. They have developed a history of diversity
efforts at UNC Asheville. They have
reviewed enrollment patterns for those underrepresented groups that are identifiable. At present, enrollment of underrepresented
students is 9.3% .
The goal is 11.3% by 2012.
Announcement
Ms. Nelms said a very
dear friend of the University, Rob Cranford, died unexpectedly. He served ably as Chair of the Board of
Trustees. All of us who worked with him
are going to miss his participation very much.
VI. Academic Policies Committee Report
Dr.
First
Reading
[Unanimously approved
by APC]
The following documents were
considered for First Reading:
APC 31: Add new course, LIT 340,
Internship
APC 32: Addition of new course, LIT
367, Writers of the Beat Generation
APC 33: Delete PSYC 101 and 102,
replacing with PSYC 100; Change to major requirements in PSYC
APC 34: Editorial changes required
by deleting PSYC 101 and 102 and replacing them with PSYC 100
APC 35: Delete PSYC 318; Replace
with PSYC 319
APC 36: Editorial changes in EDUC
required by curriculum changes in PSYC 101/102 and 318
APC 37: Changes to the Middle
School Licensure Program
APC 38: Change EDUC 310 to 210;
Change EDUC 311 to 211
APC 39: Delete EDUC 396 and 496;
Change description and credit hours for EDUC 455; Add new course, EDUC 456
APC 40: Editorial Changes within
the Education Department
APC 42: Remove the repeat option
for Math 381
APC 43: Change prerequisites for
STAT 220 and STAT 225
APC 44: Add new course, SOC 380, to
curriculum
APC 45: Add Minor in Asian Studies
APC 46: Add minimum GPA requirement
for minors
APC 47: Update and Clarification of
Incomplete Grade Policy
APC 48: Add new course, BIOL 320,
Marine Biology
APC 49: Addition of CHEM 132 as a
pre- or corequisite for BIOL 115
APC 50: Create a new course, BIOL
357, Mycology
APC 51: Change course description for
BIOL/ENVR 442
APC 52: Change course description
for BIOL 110; Change course name and description for BIOL 334; Change course
name and description for BIOL 335.
APC 53: Change in the requirements
for the Minor in AFST
APC 55: Update In-Progress Grade
Policy
APC 61: Addition of new courses:
MGMT 362, 364, 465, 482
APC 62: Addition of an Operations
Management Concentration in Management
APC 63: Add New Course Prefixes
within MLA Program; Change degree requirements for MLA
[Passed APC 3-2 Vote]
APC 60: Remove the Industrial and
Engineering Management Major from the catalog
Second Reading
The following documents
were considered for Second Reading:
[Unanimously approved by APC]
APC 18: Add option for IP grading in ART 400
APC 18 passed without
dissent and became Senate Document 3210S.
APC 19: Change studio hour requirement for B.A. in
Studio Art
APC 19 passed
without dissent and became Senate Document 3310S.
APC 20: Delete ART 100 and 103; Add
new courses, ART 110 and 111
APC 20 passed
without dissent and became Senate Document 3410S.
APC 21: Delete ART 101, 102 and 345 renumbering to
ART 112, 113 and 114, respectively
APC 21 passed
without dissent and became Senate Document 3510S.
APC 22: Change Advanced Placement credit for Art
APC 22 passed
without dissent and became Senate Document 3610S.
APC 23: Allow Studio Art
Minor for the B.A. concentration in Art History
APC 23 passed
without dissent and became Senate Document 3710S.
APC 24: Change requirement from a comprehensive exam to capstone
project for the Minor in Art History
APC 24 passed
without dissent and became Senate Document 3810S.
aPC
25: Allow
ARTH 460: Issues in Art History to be repeated as content varies
APC 25 passed without
dissent and became Senate Document 3910S.
APC
26: Add new course,
ARTH 302: Internship in Art History
APC 26 passed
without dissent and became Senate Document 4010S.
APC
27: Add new course,
ARTH 484: Senior Research Seminar I
APC 27 passed without
dissent and became Senate Document 4110S.
APC
28: Change title and
description for ARTH 485: Senior Research Seminar
to ARTH 485: Senior Research Seminar II
APC 28 passed
without dissent and became Senate Document 4210S.
APC
29: Change
requirement for Art History capstone project to two semesters
APC 29 passed
without dissent and became Senate Document 4310S.
APC 30: Catalog changes resulting from deletion of ART 100, 101,102, 103 and
345, and addition of ART 110, 111, 112, 113 and 114, respectively
APC 30 passed
without dissent and became Senate Document 4410S.
VII. Administrative Reports
Provost Jane Fernandes reported for Academic Affairs.
Update
on the Craft Campus Initiative
The Craft Campus Committee has met three
times, to re-orient the Craft Campus initiative. The committee has covered a wide range of
issues at the heart of the Craft Campus project, including:
· A review of the issues
that arose to eliminate the Landfill as a viable option for the facility site.
· An overview of an
economic impact study of craft in Western North Carolina, which contributes
over $206 million to our region in a wide range of sectors of the economy.
· A discussion of local
and regional drivers for locating a Craft Studies program and facility on our
campus, including the growth and excellence of our Art Department; area
opportunities in the craft field; a growing number of organizations in the
region devoted to craft and craft education; and capital investment in craft in
our region.
· A history of the
Architectural Team selection, covering both selection process and design
progress.
· An overview of the
curriculum concept for a UNC Asheville Craft Studies Program, with comparisons of
programs that exist at Virginia Commonwealth University and Tennessee Tech; UNC
Asheville’s central curriculum design ideas; and operating costs and revenue
generation opportunities from the program.
This discussion included a review of the Craft Studies mission,
undergraduate research opportunities, curriculum, and outreach potential.
· A discussion of other
regional forces for Craft Studies and the craft industry in the South,
including Paducah, KY; Louisville, KY; and Chattanooga, TN.
· A review of the Craft Facility concept, with
an outline of the media involved in the project (wood, sculpture, ceramics,
glass, metal).
· A thorough review of all
on-campus, and select off-campus, site options for locating the facility. The committee eliminated the idea of an
off-campus location, discussed all campus location options, and resolved on the
Owen Hall adjacency as the best of the options presented. Our next meeting will focus on preliminary issues
surrounding a feasibility of this site for the craft facility.
VIII. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
IX. New Business
There was no New
Business.
X. Adjourn
Dr. Dohse
adjourned the meeting at 4:50pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra
Gravely
Executive
Committee