FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, April 8, 2010
Members: C. Bell, R. Berls, G. Boudreaux, L. Dohse, G. Ettari, V. Frank, G. Heard, J. Konz, B. Larson,
A. Lanou, K. Moorhead, L. Nelms, E. Pearson, D. Pierce, K. Reynolds, L. Russell, M. Sidelnick;
Excused: B. Haas.
Visitors: P. Downes, L. Friedenberg, A. Hantz, K. Krumpe, L. Langrall, L. McCane, C. McKenzie,
C. Mercer, P. McClellan, A. Shope, G. Voos, R. Whaley.
I. Call to Order, Introductions and Announcements
Dr. Lothar Dohse called the meeting to order at 3:16pm and welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Approval of minutes
The minutes of March 18, 2010 were approved with editorial corrections.
III. Executive Committee Report
There was no report.
IV. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr. George Heard reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
Dr. Boudreaux thanked Ken Wilson (Institutional Research) and Adam Reagan (ITS) for their contributions in making the election process run smoothly. Dr. Heard thanked Greg Boudreaux, Ellen Pearson, Sandra Gravely, Adam Reagan and Ken Wilson for making the elections a success.
Committee of Tenured Faculty
2010-12: Humanities: Tracey Rizzo
Natural Sciences: Samuel Kaplan
Social Sciences: Surain Subramaniam
2010-12: Natural Science: Chris Nicolay
At Large: Duane Davis
2010-12: Humanities: Alice Weldon
Natural Sciences: Gregg Kormanik
Social Sciences: John Wood
2010-12: Assistant Professor: Gary Ettari
Associate Professor: Karen Cole
Professor: Melissa Himelein
Academic Appeals Board
2010-12: Erica Abrams-Locklear
2010-11: Alternate: Bill Haas
Representative to UNC System Faculty Assembly
2010-13: Lora Holland
Alternate: Gary Nallan
Nominees for Alternate Faculty Conciliator
The current Faculty Conciliator is Mark Sidelnick. Eric Gant will serve in this capacity next year.
Student Government Associate will appoint the Alternate Faculty Conciliator from nominees approved by the Faculty Senate:
Rob Bowen (Drama)
Karen Cole (Education)
Pam Laughon (Psychology
George Heard (Chemistry)
FWDC will work on the Code 600 required changes to tenure policies, and on setting the procedures for delivery of electronic student rating of instruction as charged in the previous Senate meeting. Dr. Heard invited Senators to email what they would like to see in those procedures to get most of this done with the current version of FWDC.
FWDC is concerned about the mounting expectations of faculty and would like to look into the faculty workload, particularly in light of the expanding teaching expectations. He hopes this will be a goal of the next FWDC. FWDC is starting to meet with committees on campus to establish baselines for faculty workload beyond written expectations.
FWDC 6: Electronic Student Rating of Instruction was not ready for distribution.
V. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Reports
University Planning Committee (UPC)
• As a follow up to questions raised at the last UPC meeting Patrice Mitchell, Director of Admissions and head of the Enrollment and Financial Aid (Service to North Carolina) Workgroup, reported that the Provost’s Enrollment Group would be meeting regularly to manage the activities of enrollment and financial aid, and the Workgroup would meet periodically to review the benchmarks and provide input from faculty and students.
• Debbie Griffith, Interim Director of Marketing and Communications, presented on behalf of the academic reputation benchmark. Ms. Griffith led a very active discussion on “academic reputation: its definition, its target audience, and its measurement.” After the discussion, it was unanimously agreed that there should be an Academic Reputation Workgroup that incorporates students, faculty and staff.
• Provost Fernandes reported that the Campus Climate Survey response rate is less than ideal, but should be adequate to assist in setting planning benchmarks.
• Provost Fernandes noted that the strategic plan has a set of student outcomes. Those outcomes are not identical to the Student Learning Outcomes recently passed by the Faculty Senate. The Strategic Plan outcomes were set several years ago during the planning process and should be reconciled with the Student Learning Outcomes to avoid any confusion. The issues will be addressed further at the April meeting when assessment is a focus of the meeting. Dr. Fernandes said she wants to make it clear that the Faculty Senate’s outcomes are the SLO’s for the institution.
Institutional Development Committee (IDC)
• The first part of the meeting was devoted to a review and revision of the SACS 2.5 Section relating to Planning and Evaluation on a University-wide basis. Review centered on additions from the last meeting. Revisions included breaking the report into Strategic Planning, Operational Planning, Unit Evaluations, and Administrative Evaluation. The committee discussed the variations in the sample reports we had reviewed. SACS apparently gives a broad enough charge to allow very diverse institutions to report fully on their processes. The two reports that we are currently addressing are 2.5 and 3.3.1, the former addressing University-wide issues and the latter concentrating on the academic level.
• As a follow up to questions from the committee, Dean Friedenberg will contact Human Resources for information on an evaluation process for staff supervisory positions and academic administrators above the level of chair. It was noted that chairs are reviewed annually as faculty members, but they are reviewed as chairs only if they apply for reappointment.
• The second part of the meeting dealt with whether we should establish a committee that would play a role in assessment. We anticipate the creation of a position for an administrator who would be responsible for university effectiveness. We concluded that if this person is hired, the need for a formal assessment committee is greatly reduced. In discussing the role of a committee, the two central concerns were for oversight to support the integrity of the process and assurance that there was a clear role for faculty governance. For consideration and further discussion, IDC proposed that the institutional effectiveness person should be an ex officio, non-voting member of the IDC and, by extension, the UPC. It was noted that the current description of the role of IDC supports that idea. We believe that this model makes the creation of a separate university committee to replace the old Institutional Effectiveness Committee unnecessary.
VI. Academic Policies Committee Report
Reading [Unanimously approved by APC]
The following documents were considered for First Reading:
APC 41: Editorial Changes outside of the Education Department.
APC 54: Change AP credit for U.S. History.
APC 56: Delete SPAN 320 from Spanish curriculum.
APC 57: Add new course, SPAN 345, Spanish for Business
Add new course, SPAN 498, Senior Seminar in Spanish.
APC 58: Change course descriptions for SPAN 481, 482 and 495.
APC 59: Change requirements for major and minor in Spanish.
APC 64: Change titles and course descriptions for HW 100, 101, 102, 103.
APC 65: Edit the introductory narrative for Health and Wellness Promotion.
APC 66: Add new courses to the HWP curriculum: HWP 190, HWP 250, HWP 294.
APC 67: Change prerequisites for HWP 335, HWP 380, HWP 390.
APC 68: Change course descriptions for HWP 225 and HWP 310.
APC 69: Change title, description and credit hours for HWP 420.
APC 70: Change course number and description for HWP 325.
APC 71: Change course description for HWP 459.
APC 72: Change major and minor requirements for HWP.
APC 73: Add new elective courses to the HWP curriculum: HWP 315, 316, 317, 320, 343, 365, 401.
APC 74: Editorial changes to courses requiring a course from HWP 152-155 as a prerequisite.
APC 75: Change course titles for MMAS 151, 222, 322, 330.
APC 76: Add new course, MMAS 342 to the curriculum.
APC 77: Change MMAS 255 to 344, and add a prerequisite.
APC 78: Editorial changes to Aesthetics and Social Awareness .
APC 79: Add new courses, NEUR 216 and 480; Changes to Requirements for Minor in Neuroscience.
APC 80: Increase credit hours for POLS 220 and resulting editorial changes.
APC 81: Delete ATMS 105, replacing it with ATMS 111 and 113, Understanding the Atmosphere.
APC 82: Editorial Changes resulting from deletion of ATMS 105 and addition of ATMS 111 and 113.
[Unanimously approved by APC]
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
APC 31: Add new course, LIT 340, Internship.
APC 31 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 4510S.
APC 32: Addition of new course, LIT 367, Writers of
the Beat Generation.
APC 32 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 4610S.
APC 33: Delete PSYC 101 and 102, replacing with PSYC
100; Change to major requirements in PSYC.
APC 33 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 4710S.
APC 34: Editorial changes required by deleting PSYC
101 and 102 and replacing them with PSYC 100.
APC 34 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 4810S.
APC 35: Delete PSYC 318; Replace with PSYC 319.
APC 35 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 4910S.
APC 36: Editorial changes in EDUC required by
curriculum changes in PSYC 101/102 and 318.
APC 36 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 5010S.
APC 37: Changes to the Middle School Licensure
APC 37 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 5110S.
APC 38: Change EDUC 310 to 210; Change EDUC 311 to
APC 38 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 5210S.
APC 39: Delete EDUC 396 and 496; Change description
and credit hours for EDUC 455;
Add new course, EDUC 456.
APC 39 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 5310S.
APC 40: Editorial Changes within the Education
APC 40 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 5410S.
APC 42: Remove the repeat option for Math 381.
APC 42 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 5510S.
APC 43: Change prerequisites for STAT 220 and STAT
APC 43 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 5610S.
APC 44: Add new course, SOC 380, to curriculum.
APC 44 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 5710S.
APC 45: Add Minor in Asian Studies.
APC 45 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 5810S.
APC 46: Add minimum GPA requirement for minors.
APC 46 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 5910S.
APC 47: Update and Clarification of Incomplete Grade
APC 47 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6010S.
APC 48: Add new course, BIOL 320, Marine
APC 48 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6110S.
APC 49: Addition of CHEM 132 as a pre- or corequisite for BIOL 115.
Ms. Nelms said she supported the
document, but a lot of students who are not biology majors and are not
interested in chemistry are interested in ecology.
Dr. Moorhead said students can technically take ENVR 241, which is also an ecology course, without the chemistry prerequisite. ENVR 241 is counted as a lab science, and is not in a cluster. APC 49 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6210S.
APC 50: Create a new course, BIOL 357, Mycology.
APC 50 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6310S.
APC 51: Change course description for BIOL/ENVR 442.
APC 51 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6410S.
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 52 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6510S.
APC 53: Change in the requirements for the Minor in
APC 53 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6610S.
APC 55: Update In-Progress Grade Policy.
APC 55 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6710S.
APC 63: Add New Course Prefixes within MLA Program;
Change degree requirements for MLA.
APC 63 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 6810S.
[Passed APC with a 3-2 vote]
APC 60: Remove the Industrial and Engineering Management Major from the catalog.
This proposal passed APC by a 3-2 vote. It removes the Industrial and Engineering Management major. APC 61 and 62 would create a concentration rather than a major. This would fit a similar purpose but would not be identical to the major that is being removed.
Dr. Frank shared his concerns for voting against the document. When Bob Yearout talked to APC about the major and the removal of it, there were three aspects he mentioned that were his concern. In the meantime, one concern has been put to rest.
• Curriculum rigor in terms of what this does to the curriculum if the major is removed and what will happen as an alternative. He and Dr. Yearout also talked with Ms. McKenzie and they are confident that the quality of the overall program can be sustained. That was an important concern of his, even though it may affect curriculum rigor – that is how it was presented to APC.
• Apparently those majors are among the top donors to UNCA. This is something that we should be sensitive to. This major has historically produced graduates who are very proud of UNCA and have apparently no hesitation showing this in terms of their donations.
• Consistency and fairness: this addresses the same issue as the German major addressed. Again, there is a program that seemingly is productive, works well, and delivers great graduates that we are about to remove. We are seeing another issue in terms of productivity that we need to take seriously. He wanted the Senate to be aware of this.
Dr. Dohse said by removing the major and replacing it with a concentration there is the rigor question, but this keeps it safe from being canceled with short notice and it will not require a large number of graduates every year to sustain it.
Dr. Bell said the trade-off as it was explained to APC is that the concentration will most likely serve many more students than the major did.
Ms. McKenzie agreed that this has been an excellent program. Our graduates have done well and we are proud of the program. She believed the concentration will make a similar program available – not the same program – for more students and therefore to more entities in North Carolina.
APC 60 passed with one dissenting vote and became Senate Document 6910S.
APC 61: Addition of new courses: MGMT 362, 364, 465,
APC 61 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7010S.
APC 62: Addition of an Operations Management
Concentration in Management.
APC 62 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 7110S.
VII. Administrative Reports
Provost Jane Fernandes reported for Academic Affairs.
Delivering the Curriculum – Draft 2
Dr. Fernandes said after six months of reviewing the original Delivering the Curriculum report, Academic Affairs developed draft 2 as its response to the original report. Senators had an opportunity to review the report prior to the meeting. Dr. Fernandes highlighted portions of the report:
Assignment of Adjunct Faculty:
• Adjuncts are temporary faculty who must be requested every semester. They are not automatic.
• Adjuncts should only be used if there is no other way to deliver our curriculum.
• Adjunct faculty shall be employed when our regular faculty obtain grants or funding from outside sources enabling them to buy out their teaching time.
• Adjuncts should be assigned on a short-term basis, in times of enrollment growth. We want to support an academic culture in which our faculty are integral parts of the liberal arts, general education curriculum.
• Several departments regularly hire adjuncts to cover curricular requirements that are important for student success in the discipline but not extensive enough to require a full-time faculty position.
• Adjunct faculty may be hired if needed to help deliver essential departmental curriculum due to administrative assignments.
Use of Equivalent Credit Hours
• There is agreement and Academic Affairs proposes a new procedure called Contact Hour Load – for calculating faculty work that would be more consistent and understandable across program areas.
• There are differences in the Committee’s and Deans’ recommendations on reassigned time, but generally we all agree that reassigned time was not awarded transparently or equitably.
• Academic Affairs endorses the report’s list of activities for which faculty may receive reassigned time, but recommend separating the issue of administrative assigned time (ART) awarded by the Provost, and departmental reassigned time (DRT) awarded by a department chair or program director.
Administrative reassigned time (ART)
• Our examination of letters of appointment and teaching loads indicates approximately 348 hours of ART – 14.5 positions at 24 hours each – including 171 for department chairs and 177 for program directors and other miscellaneous department purposes. A significant proportion has no documentation either in letters of appointment or the Faculty Handbook. Furthermore, with the exception of department chairs, much of the current ART is in contradiction to what is listed in the Handbook.
Department reassigned time (DRT)
• The Handbook states that faculty must request reassigned time with chairs/directors making requests to the VCAA. In reality these processes are barely operative. While faculty may request DRT from chairs/directors, no formal requests are made to the VCAA. In practice, all faculty assume they have it and they build it into their schedules. In terms of the University meeting expectations established by the Board of Governors and the Legislature (faculty teaching load and SCH), the current practice is not sustainable.
• Academic Affairs proposes changes to the Faculty Handbook in terms of making the awarding of reassigned time clearer and more equitable.
o They recommend that the reassigned time awarded to Endowed Professorships be standardized. We suggest that 12 be the university standard.
o They are committed to awarding PDL to faculty as an opportunity for sustained professional development and intend to award approximately 6 PDL annually, as described in Handbook Section 4.1.4. We will not be able to restore PDLs at the level they were being offered prior to 2009-10.
o They recommend retaining the model in which chairs are awarded an automatic amount of reassigned time in proportion to the number of people they supervise.
o We recommend discontinuation of 220.127.116.11.4 Faculty Reassigned Time Policy. We will no longer be able to automatically award each faculty member reassigned time on an annual basis equivalent to one three-credit course.
o We recommend on a preliminary basis exploring the establishment of a process through which 50 faculty may annually request the equivalent of one course reassigned from teaching for the purpose of scholarship or engaged service.
§ Faculty on the tenure track who are not yet tenured will have first priority.
§ Full-time tenured faculty will have second priority for this reassigned time.
§ Lecturers will not typically be eligible for this reassigned time.
§ All other faculty (part-time, adjunct, visiting) are ineligible for this reassigned time.
• Dr. Bell said we seem to be assuming that if we have less administrative reassigned time (RAT) we will be able to increase department reassigned time (DRT). How did we arrive at the number 50?
o Ms. McClellan explained that 50 is the average between a low on one measure of 42 course releases and a high of about 60. She looked at what could possibility be generated by the number of faculty we actually have teaching and subtracted the administrative reassignments, PDL, and family leaves. That is how she reached the number: by using the average class size and the number of student credit hours that we need to generate. 50 is a conservative starting point.
• Dr. Moorhead said beyond concerns he expressed in an email, he wanted to make some observations. It seems odd that if you want Endowed Chairs, which sounds great, you are hurting everyone’s opportunity to have reassigned time. He did not understand why that should count towards the total amount of reassigned time that we have for the rest of the faculty. He would argue the same for Chairs. The administrative positions are needed and reassigned time is needed to do that work, yet everyone else gets penalized because of that reassigned time.
In the data in fall 2009, we averaged 4.23 organized course sections (OCS). We should strive for 4.0 OCS because anything higher suggests we are teaching in excess of four courses per faculty. This will influence student credit hours, but there is an opportunity to gain reassigned time in the fall semester.
He is concerned about a “one size fits all” model. We need to have creative solutions. The Delaware Study mandates that we teach four courses in the fall. The flexibility lies in the student credit hours, particularly for the spring semester, if departments can find creative ways to address this.
There seems to be an over-administration of the approval system for reassigned time: to the Dean and the Provost should be sufficient.
• Dr. Lanou said the administration proposes adding more Endowed Chairs. These will impact the number of reassigned time given to faculty.
• Dr. Hantz noted that Endowed Chairs are faculty contracts outlined in State law. With respect to 4.23 OCS, that number is a crapshoot every semester. Chairs aim for four; they schedule classes and have to guess which classes will not make. Lastly, the use of the Delaware data is mandated by State law. Any changes would have to come through the Legislature.
• Dr. Fernandes said in this process she made an argument that if department chairs have two reassigned times (two courses per semester) that the faculty line should only be 0.5. They are teaching two courses, a full load, and what we expect them to do. Their administrative work is in a separate category. She tried the same kind of argument for Endowed Chairs but it did not gain any traction. If department chairs’ administrative work is counted as administration, it will be contributing to the “administrative bloat” problem that President Bowles has been addressing.
• Dr. Sidelnick suggested that if 50 reassignments are awarded, he would request that an additional priority would be to audit those who were under-allocated in the past and that they be given consideration. Some faculty followed the procedures outlined in the Handbook by requesting reassigned time and others expected to receive it.
• Dr. Reynolds said this information is on our faculty record every year. Faculty are asked, “Did you have reassigned time and if so, what did you do with it?”
• Dean Friedenberg said on Dean Ashburn’s behalf: it is important to remember that not all chairs take their reassigned time. Dr. Friedenberg said there are faculty who have not had reassigned time in the seven years she has been Dean. This demonstrates that we are not keeping track of reassigned time.
• Dr. Heard thanked Dr. Fernandes for moving toward transparency and equity on reassigned time. He noted that Academic Affairs proposes that there be no reassigned time for lecturers. He asked her to reconsider this for lecturers who are on long-term contracts and are contributing greatly to departments. We allow lecturers to apply for external funding and to mentor undergraduate research.
o Dr. Friedenberg noted that Item 10 reads: “Academic Affairs is interested in exploring with FWDC a new title structure for lecturers to distinguish between multi-year and one year lecturers which would be integrated into reassigned time policy discussions.”
• Dr. Moorhead said he accepts that there has to be change and he likes the accountability. This proposes giving non-tenured faculty on tenure track first priority for reassigned time. There are serious ramifications by shifting the amount of scholarship that takes place at this institution. The visibility that occurs with scholarship and research is significant. This will directly impact this institution; there is no way we can move up in the national rankings if we do less scholarship activity.
• Dr. Pearson agreed with Dr. Moorhead. How can we model good research for our students if we are not getting the time to do it ourselves? The next step is: what can we do to make a change in the way that General Administration perceives us?
• Dr. Russell thanked Dr. Moorhead for his email comments and for noting how significant this is in terms of the future of the university. As the Senate responds to these changes the committees can start thinking through how to maintain our quality. It might be time for a broader university discussion on our status of moving from liberal arts to comprehensive within the UNC system. This was addressed on a broad university level several years ago. In light of the implications that this report offers and the possible future trends, she is deeply disturbed.
Regarding page 6, #5 of the report: This has a particular resonance for her as the chair of a department with a very heavy service record and a high degree of administrative release time. It feels uncomfortable for her as chair to put limitations on her faculty’s desire to serve the university. That is a good thing that she would want to support, but she is aware of the many challenges just for delivering the curriculum. She appreciates the suggestion of an impact statement but she is also very uncomfortable in being a chair and not fully supporting her faculty’s professional growth and development.
• Dr. Konz said there is a related issue in the implementation of the proposal on page 7, #4. It indicates that “… chairs will consider whether their department has met the required Delaware count for organized courses.…” That will be a factor in determining the assignment of department reassigned time. Those departments that have higher degrees of administrative reassigned time are at a disadvantage if we take that seriously. Just as we do not want to discourage individual faculty from engaging in program directorships and so forth, we also do not want to penalize members of departments who have people who are doing those kinds of work. It is not just a question of those who wish to do that work, but their colleagues in the department that we do not want to penalize.
Another point made by a colleague that he agrees with, is that he would like the Senate to – not dictate what kind of work deserves departmental reassigned time – but to have some idea of the criteria for awarding reassigned time. What should faculty be thinking about to maximize their opportunities to receive reassigned time? He also wanted to make sure that this report and this information goes to Karin Peterson’s group which is working on tenure and evaluation because this has significant implications for annual evaluations and evaluations for tenure and promotion.
• Dr. Ettari agreed with Dr. Konz’s comment on the implications for evaluations. This is a shift that has taken Senators by surprise. We shift from a nominal 4-4 load which was kind of a 4-3 load but is now a hard 4-4 load. There has to be a very serious discussion not only about this notion of institutional identity but also what exactly faculty will be evaluated on. What counts for scholarship in this atmosphere where we already are feeling more pressed? Evaluative apparati need to be in place quickly to reflect this shift.
• Dr. Larson referred to page 3 A.2: “We recommend moving to a contact hour model for calculating faculty teaching load for all courses.” What we have at the present time is a hybrid – part contact hours and part credit hours. To have a model that is better understood by all and is as uniform as things can be is a positive change.
• Ms. McClellan supported and added appreciation for what Dr. Pearson said. There are things that departments can do and the Deans and Ms. McClellan probably have some ideas about how your curriculum might be better structured to help faculty feel less overburdened.
• Dr. Lanou liked the addition on page 2, B4: “Several departments regularly hire adjunct instructors to cover curricular requirements that are important for student success in the discipline but not extensive enough to require a full-time faculty positions.” There is at least one department that hires adjuncts to cover courses that are extensive enough to require a full-time faculty position and she is worried that this adjunct policy does not include departments that may be still behind in the number of full-time faculty to deliver their courses. Health and Wellness is still covering a lot of courses that we need through adjuncts. If a faculty member has a grant and buys out their teaching time does that count in the 50 awarded?
o Dr. Fernandes said successful grants are a category in their own right and she did not believe it would count in the 50 that would be awarded.
o Dean Krumpe agreed with Dr. Fernandes, but noted that people should still be aware that it will hurt the Delaware numbers.
o Dr. Russell said certain disciplines might be at a disadvantage in finding grants and funding for course release time. Note that is another potential place of inequity as we are trying to create parity across the university.
• Dr. Dohse said this document is a work in progress. It was a good discussion and hopefully very helpful to the Provost.
Student Government Association
Mr. Cortland Mercer introduced incoming SGA Vice President Rachel Whaley. Ms. Whaley is from Chapel Hill and is a double major in Spanish and multi-media arts and sciences. She looks forward to working with the Faculty Senate next year.
Mr. Mercer thanked the Faculty Senate for its responsive manner. The faculty interaction on campus is one of the things that make the university great.
Greenfest this year is on theory, integration and action. He presented Dr. Dohse with a tee-shirt.
Ms. Nelms thanks Mr. Mercer for keeping the Faculty Senate informed.
VIII. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
IX. New Business
There was no New Business.
Dr. Dohse adjourned the meeting at 4:35pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely