University of North Carolina at Asheville


Minutes, October 8, 2009




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;

                  J. Fernandes.


Excused:    M. Sidelnick.


Visitors:      S. Haas, L. Langrall, C. Mercer, R. Pente, A. Reagan, A. Shope.




I.       Call to Order, Introductions and Announcements

         Dr. Dohse called the meeting to order at 3:17 pm and welcomed Senators and guests. 


II.      Approval of minutes

         The minutes of September 3, 2009, were approved with one editorial change. 


III.     Executive Committee Report

         Dr. Lothar Dohse reported for the Executive Committee. 

         Student Affairs Annual Report

         Vice Chancellor Bill Haggard‘s report on Student Affairs was distributed prior to the meeting.  It is available at:


         Dr. Haggard responded to the following questions:

·      Dr. Dohse asked for clarification on a “student driven model of operation.” 

o        Moving residential education towards a more student driven model of housing operations will get students more involved in the ownership of the areas where they live, in providing feedback, and in providing leadership for the repair, maintenance, and clean up of those facilities.  Students become more responsible for those areas as opposed to a hotel taking care of its guests.  

·         Dr. Dohse asked if the large influx of students this year caused additional problems this semester. 

o        This is the second consecutive year where we turned students away who had paid deposits.  This summer 99 students, mostly continuing students who did not make a reservation by the deadline, and new student transfers, received notification that we could not accommodate them.  Our goal was to accommodate all of our first year freshmen, and then to accommodate those transfers with fewer than 30 hours.  As a result, there were about 100 students that we could not accommodate who had paid deposits.  A committee is working on a financial model for additional on-campus residence.  The earliest it would open would be Fall 2012.


o        About 40 transitional (temporary) spaces have been created for students to use until space becomes available.  Historically the students have liked these spaces and do not want to move.  In addition, the ground floor rooms of Founders Hall have three students per room instead of two.  These suite bathrooms have housekeeping services as there are six students to a bathroom instead of four.  About 34 students are still in transitional housing today which means we have not had much attrition.  He does not anticipate having students in transitional spaces next semester.  This spring there will be a cap of 550 returning students to ensure room for our new students.  The cap will be first come, first serve. 


·         Dr. Lanou said she was involved in meetings on a divestiture from Smithfield Foods early on, but she did not know the outcome of those meetings.

o     Chartwells no longer buys anything from Smithfield Foods for this location. 

·      Dr. Lanou asked for more information on efforts to engage off-campus students in campus life. 

o        We focus a lot on our residential students but they are only about one-third of our student population.  This is an effort to make sure that we continue to engage our off-campus students and incorporate the activities.  Each department will be responsible for creating new programs to do that. 


·         Dr. Heard asked for the results of the feasibility study on the renovation of Governors Village and the building of a new facility on the former Facilities Management site.     

o        We learned that we could renovate Governors Village at a reasonable price – less than the cost to build a new space.  It can be renovated into nice, smaller communities that would fit our mission and who we are as a campus.   

o        We learned that we could fit 300 students on the former Facilities Management site without it being a high-rise.  There are two or three different footprints that we could look at.  A couple of the footprints encroach somewhat on the unused upper part of the Botanical Gardens.  


Dr. Haggard said several items in the report were collaborations with faculty; he thanked those who are involved.  Dr. Dohse thanked Dr. Haggard for his report. 

         Status of planned meeting with the Chair of the BOT

         Dr. Dohse reported that he has not met with the Chair of the Board of Trustees but a meeting is being planned.  Senators were encouraged to send questions.  He will invite members of the Executive Committee to the meeting.  If a member can not attend, they will be asked to find a substitute. 

         New Mission Statement

         At the last meeting, the Senate asked that the new Mission Statement be read into the minutes. 

Dr. Dohse said with two exceptions, he judged the changes to be editorial.  The exceptions were the elimination of 1) “Small by choice” and 2) “Liberal arts education was once available only to a few.” 

         Dr. Bell said a third significant change was adding the phrase “...and practical experience.”

         Senators agreed that overall, the faculty response to the elimination of “Small by choice” has been overwhelmingly negative.  One faculty member told Dr. Konz that the removal of that phrase may be one of the most significant things to happen to UNCA in the last twenty-five years.  Two student ambassadors in Dr. Haas’ class have questioned the removal of the phrase; in their script they are to say that part of the experience here is small.  Dr. Haas moved the following Sense of the Senate Resolution, seconded by Dr. Pierce:


Sense of the Senate Resolution


            The Faculty Senate wishes to understand the rationale of the Board of Trustees in changing the Mission Statement.  We are particularly interested in the thinking behind removing the phrase "Small by choice” that had been in the statement since 1991.  The original statement had the strong support of the faculty as a whole.   The Sense of the Senate Resolution passed without dissent and became SD0509F.         


Faculty Senate Draft of Mission Statement with revisions by the University of North Carolina

Asheville Board of Trustees


UNC Asheville Mission Statement

As revised and Approved by the Board of Trustees – June 19, 2009
            (Previous draft approved by Faculty Senate – May 5, 2009)

Accepted by University Planning Council – July 23, 2009



UNC Asheville students, within a diverse and inclusive community, experience liberal arts education at its best.



UNC Asheville is distinctive in the UNC system as its designated liberal arts university.  Our practice of the liberal arts emphasizes the centrality of learning and discovery through exemplary teaching, innovative scholarship, creative expression, co-curricular activities, [undergraduate research,] and engaged service, [and practical experience].  Small by choice, and Primarily undergraduate, UNC Asheville delivers [offers] a liberal arts education characterized by high quality student-faculty [faculty-student] interaction.  Liberal arts education was once available only to a few.  We offer this challenging educational experience to all promising students who are committed to liberal learning and personal growth. 


Our [liberal arts] educational approach emphasizes life skills including critical thinking, clear and thoughtful expression, and honest and open inquiry.  Students undertake concentrated study in one area while simultaneously developing an understanding of the connections among disciplines.  We encourage students to clarify, develop, and live their own values while respecting the views and beliefs of others.  In addition, we cultivate an understanding of the dimensions of human diversity while recognizing the common humanity of all.  Taken together, these skills and attributes enable [We believe a quality liberal arts education enables] our graduates to be lifelong learners and to lead successful, flourishing lives as leaders and contributors to their communities.


At UNC Asheville, we respond to the conditions and concerns of the contemporary world both as individuals and as a university.  We incorporate economic, social, and environmental sustainability into our institutional practices and curriculum. Through a range of associated centers, [partnerships,] and initiatives, we fulfill our public responsibility to address the needs of the [our] community through the liberal arts [a continuum of learning]. We develop a commitment to continuing service characterized by an informed, responsible, and creative engagement with the Asheville area, the southern Appalachian region, the state of North Carolina, and a diverse and increasingly connected world. 


         Comparative Data on Centers

         Dr. Dohse is working on comparative data on the Centers and will deliver the report when it is complete. 

         SGA meetings

         Dr. Dohse said attending the Student Government Association meetings has been an educational experience.  He will continue to attend meetings on a regular basis and will share the responsibility. 

         Second Reading

         The following document was considered for Second Reading:


         EC 1:  Recommended Guidelines: Delivering the Curriculum


         Dr. Dohse suggested that the Senate endorse the guidelines in this proposal and pass it to the Provost.  This document is not intended to go into the Faculty Handbook at this point.  This is an opportunity for the faculty to step forward before General Administration forces action. 

·      Senators questioned how reassigned time was calculated (for faculty who are full-time administrators, for department chairs, for program directors, for scholarships) and whether this was factored into General Administration’s calculations.  Some questioned our deficiency considering that we are a small campus.  Another question was whether the push in this document for accountability was due to increased competition for reassigned time.  Some Senators felt the categories and calculations by the BOG and the expectations are inequitable and not appropriate.

·      Dr. Dohse said that reassigned time was not factored into General Administration’s calculations.  That was one reason for this document.  There are no guidelines for reassigned time and the number of hours reassigned have accumulated.  The average workload is 18 hours; many faculty work less than 18 hours. 


There are three important measures and reassigned time is the least of our concerns.  We have flexibility in reassigned time.  The more important measures are: How many courses faculty are teaching and how many students faculty are teaching.  It does not matter if the courses are one or two hours, or whether they are laboratories or lectures.  The university should average four courses per faculty member.  The number of students that faculty are teaching depends on departments category.  UNCA’s student enrollment growth requirement for a Category I department is 532 students credit hours per year per faculty member.  Higher categories have lower requirements. 


·      Dr. Fernandes said the level of concern over UNC Asheville not complying with the Board of Governors standard is extremely high.  We need to do everything possible to meet the BOG standard.  Initially she thought about making the workload five and five.  That proved to be a disastrous approach.  She is now trying to gain more control over the information and how faculty are assigned work, and to make it more equitable. 

·      Dr. Larson said UNCA was the only school in the UNC system that failed to meet the BOG’s course load standard.  That catches the attention of state legislators, Board of Governors, and the President of the university system.  According to UNC Policy Manual 400.3.4 our standard annual course load is eight courses per year.  The Legislature has told the universities to measure course load by using “organized class sections” which is part of the Delaware Study.  Humanities courses (a 4 credit course) count as two organized course sections.   That is one way that we have chosen to work this semester so that we might be better recognized for our work.  We are working to find ways to meet the expectations to bring financial resources to the university that will enable us to teach our students well and to have a thriving academic life as well.  This proposal tries to present it in a way that was logical and clear. 

·      Dr. Frank expressed profound concern about the document, particularly its apologetic tone in comparison to earlier manifestations of delivering the curriculum (Sept and Oct 2008.)  The focus is on two concerns: 1) respond to external pressure, and 2) eliminate the inequities on campus.  What is missing, and perhaps most important, is 3) can we become the UNCA that we strive to be?  Do we get there with the kinds of documents that we are approving? 

·      Dr. Frank gave examples of reports a different spirit than the document under consideration:  

o        In the report of September 2008 brought to the Senate in October 2008, the challenge of delivering a liberal arts curriculum that emphasizes student learning at a state funded institution is complex.  Its dimensions include: 

·         Offering a curriculum in general education and majors that enables students to progress toward graduation,

·         Providing students a closely-supervised individual experience entailing advising, undergraduate research, independent studies, internships and/or practica,

·         Organizing faculty time so as to reserve time for individual scholarship, creativity and service, and

·         Meeting expectations of the state with regard to student credit hours generated.

o        Phase I of UNC Tomorrow, page 2: 

·         “Not enough people understand who we are and what we do.  Just as important is the need to help voters, legislators, educators and business leaders understand the value of a liberal arts education to our communities and our economy.  New Program: We will lead the national conversation…”  

·         We need to present evidence (page 3) in relation to student learning outcomes and making the case for deliberate interdisciplinary learning to demonstrate our success and effectiveness (Action 3).  In same paragraph:  We believe our mission is credible enough to warrant some revision of these teaching load expectations to better match faculty expectations of our peer institutions. 


·      Dr. Dohse agreed with Dr. Frank, but he also saw a huge problem: we have big ideals and we do not have the resources to follow through.  When the state is rich, we can get away with it.  But when the state begins to run out of money, it does not look at the extra work we do – it looks at the nuts and the bolts.  When we are not in compliance we are in trouble.  We are doing a tremendous amount of work, yet in the BOG’s measurements we fall short.  This highlights what UNCA has been very poor at addressing -- matching our ideals to our resources.  We, as a faculty, need to realize that.   

·      Dr. Frank agreed.  Let us make sure that we do not become a victim of memory loss so that at some point we can revisit these issues that speak to the characteristic of what our institution is and can do. 

·      Dr. Fernandes said this will sound ironic, but when she started to work on this and set up on the committee to develop this proposal, the motivation for doing that was exactly what Dr. Frank was saying.  The reason why we developed the proposal is because we are under attack and we need to put up a defense so that we when we are not under attack we can come out in charge of our own destiny.  If we do not do this, the other options are what will rob us of being who we want to be.


·      Dr. Pierce said the language when reassigned time may be granted (page 7) is so vague that he feared it would compound inequity across campus.       

·      Dr. Fernandes said this document will help us gain clarity about why people get reassigned time and it will be equitable.   

·      Dr. Moorhead noted that we have a current Reassigned Time Policy in the Faculty Handbook that lists responsibilities for which reassigned time may be granted.  It also says that each academic program will be equivalent to three credit-hours for each full-time faculty position occupied by a faculty on a continuing contract.  In essence, the Chair is going to get enough reassigned time that everyone would have a chance at it.  He would not want more detail than this.  The weakness in our system is how we account for activity.  We need to do a better job in our annual faculty records explaining how we used our reassigned time.  The Handbook also addresses scholarship: a faculty members’ minimum effort needs to be that I demonstrate effort at professional self-development through teaching improvement and keeping abreast of the state of the art in my field.  He considered that to be “routinely expected.” 


·      Dr. Lanou asked if this document would supersede this section of the Faculty Handbook. 

o        Dr. Dohse said this will not change the Faculty Handbook.   


·      Dr. Konz referred to page 4 (responsibilities of department Chairs) and the references made to department goals and to individual performance.  We need to be careful about how we devolve from a university metric down to departments and individuals in measuring course preparations per faculty member and student credit hours generated without paying attention to differences across departments (not just by funding categories) and differences between individuals.  Student credit hours differ greatly by the activity that we are doing.  Leading undergraduate research or leading a senior research seminar are very different activities from teaching a principles section, and the credit hours generated require a different level of work load. 


·      Ms. Nelms reiterated Dr. Pierce’s question:  What are we going to do with this document?  Where will the document go?  What will be the follow up to this document, and when could we expect that?

o        Dr. Fernandes said the proposal was written as an internal document.  If the Senate endorses the concepts, she will lead the process to take each section and translate it into policy or practice.  Any changes in the Faculty Handbook would go through FWDC and the Senate.  There could also be administrative changes such as mechanisms in Academic Affairs for tracking and reviewing reassigned time.  This would likely take the rest of the academic year. 

·      Ms. Nelms found this to be very helpful.  She asked that the bullets from the September 2008 task force recommendations that Dr. Frank referred to be appended to this proposal so that nothing goes through without looking at the core values that we aspire to.  It reads: 
The challenge of delivering a liberal arts curriculum that emphasizes student learning at a state funded institution is complex.  Its dimensions include: 

·         Offering a curriculum in general education and majors that enables students to progress toward graduation,

·         Providing students a closely-supervised individual experience entailing advising, undergraduate research, independent studies, internships and/or practica,

·         Organizing faculty time so as to reserve time for individual scholarship, creativity and service, and

·         Meeting expectations of the state with regard to student credit hours generated.


·      Dr. Haas said he would be willing to pass EC 1 now with the stipulation that it return to the Senate for a vote.  Then the Senate could see that the items Dr. Frank referred to were included. 


·      Dr. Pierce asked for clarification.  He understood that reassigned time is only going to be allocated in certain special situations. 

·               Dr. Moorhead read the policy in the Handbook that says every department will be given reassigned based on the number of faculty.  That is current policy. 

·               Dr. Dohse clarified that when this proposal was written the group assumed every full time faculty member would receive three credit hours.  They were aiming towards 21 hours; three credit hours could easily be documented as additional work – research or service. 

·               It was apparent that several Senators had misunderstood the reassigned time policy.  Dr. Pierce said there is a lot of misunderstanding about this on campus.  Faculty were under the impression this was changing reassigned time and that faculty would have to compete for it. 

·               Dr. Lanou asked for clarification.  If a department has several people who receive reassigned time, does that mean there would be one reassigned time per faculty on average?  If it is in a small department would no one receive reassigned time?

·               Dr. Dohse said that should not be.  The idea is, in addition to what you normally get, how do you get additional reassigned time.  There will be a process that requires more accountability.  Currently there is no cohesive rule for how this is allocated. 


·      Dr. Konz said most of the concerns are about how we position ourselves and how we view ourselves.  There have not been significant objections to the specific policies other than the clarity on reassigned time.  That suggests that we can move forward on the specific policies that are articulated about adjunct usage and equivalent credit hours.   

·      Dr. Pierce preferred more specificity regarding the program directors.  

·      A friendly amendment was accepted: the word “ranked” was added to the sentence on page 7:  It should be noted that the Faculty Senate Constitution defines, for senate service and voting purposes, a full time ranked faculty member who teaches at least 6 contact hours per semester.  


Dr. Haas moved that EC 1 move forward, that the bulleted points that Dr. Frank referred to be incorporated in subsequent documents, and that as the policy is created it will come back to the Faculty Senate for review and approval.  The motion was seconded by Dr. Lanou.  A friendly amendment was accepted to add to subsequent documents:  “This document is clarifying how we implement the reassigned time guidelines that currently exist in the Faculty Handbook.”  EC 1 passed as amended without dissent and became Senate Document 0609F.


IV.     Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report

         Dr. George Heard reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.

·         FWDC has completed revisions of the Phased Retirement section in the Faculty Handbook per Code 600, and will present them to the Senate in November. 

·         They are reading the annual committee reports that were submitted using the new on-line system. 

·         Gary Ettari will represent FWDC in assisting the Provost in selecting a new director of the Center for Teaching and Learning.

·         Jeff Wilcox has been appointed to the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee (2009-2011.)

·         The Senate approved the following committee appointments:

o        Rodger Payne to replace Scott Walters on the University Research Council (2009-2010.)

o        Linda Cornett to replace Don Lisnerski on the University Research Council (2009-2011.)


         Second Reading

         The following document was considered for Second Reading:


         FWDC 1: Revision to Post-Tenure Review Policy (revision of SD0208F; Faculty Handbook 3.7)


         Two editorial corrections were made to FWDC 1:  the effective date was changed to Fall 2010; the word “note” was changed to “not.”    FWDC 1 passed as amended without dissent and became Senate Document 0709F.


V.      Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Reports

            Ms. Linda Nelms reported for Institutional Development Committee and University Planning Council.

IDC Report

·      The Chancellor discussed the requirements from General Administration to reduce the number of administrators who had the words Chancellor, Provost, or Dean in their title back to a level that is commensurate with an appropriate growth figure set by GA.  As a result, a number of positions have been re-titled, there have been some reassignments, there have been two vacancies lost, and regrettably, one position lost that had an individual in it from Alumni and Development.  There was no desire to reduce academics or student activities.  These changes might not have been necessary except that the measurement of administrative growth was based on a date that did not represent customary staffing.

·      Discussed sacrifices that have been made due to the current work load. 

·      Briefly revisited IDC’s role regarding UPC and the planning process.  

UPC Report

·      Discussed the changes required by General Administration to reduce what they have termed “administrative bloat”. 

·      Revisited the Dashboard, the device that will measure our progress towards some of the goals set as a result of the Strategic Plan.  Some goals are still missing.  UPC is reminding people that at present these will be internal, experimental measures, but they need to be established in order for their validity to be determined. 

·      UPC addressed cost savings items under the purview of Vice Chancellor John Pierce. 


VI.     Academic Policies Committee Report

         Dr. Chris Bell reported for the Academic Policies Committee.

         APC has begun its review of the major curricular changes and of the General Education program.  It met last week with Dr. Sabo, a principle author of the charge under which it is conducting the review. 

         APC completed its review of the ILSOC annual report and liked the trajectory of the reports.  The current report was created using a highly useful template; future reports will be comparable to the past and similar questions will be addressed.  The template also makes it easier to compare different components of ILS.  The annual report is useful for a number of reasons:  it is inspirational as the Subcommittees see what other Subcommittees are doing; it identifies lagging ILS Subcommittees; and it will help ILSOC address weaknesses and formulate goals for the coming year. 

         APC thanked Dr. Alan Hantz, who is the principle author of the template.  It is a great service to APC, to ILSOC, and ultimately to our students. 

         APC will encourage ILSOC to complete next year’s template early this year so it can serve a formative purpose: the Subcommittees will know what information is needed to complete the template in the spring.

         Dr. Bell noted that our culture of evidence that will involve a lot of assessment.  APC is concerned about the time requirements as well as the competence of its assessment unless it gets significant support from the administration in creating and administering appropriate assessment tools.  APC will meet with Dr. Lisa Friedenberg and Dr. Archer Gravely to discuss these concerns.   


VII.    Administrative Reports 

Academic Affairs 

Report from Institutional Review Board (IRB)

         Dr. Bob Yearout reported on changes the Institutional Review Board (IRB) is making to ensure that the reporting process is timely and organized.  The Office of Sponsored Scholarships and Programs (OSSP) is now the record-keeper for the IRB and will provide continuity as IRB committee members rotate. 

         The IRB wants to ensure that we adhere to the Federal Institutional Review Board guidelines. In the event of an interaction with human subjects in an international environment, international statutes require host country approval before IRB can act on a request.  These changes are intended to protect human subjects as well as our faculty and students.  For example, a student may no longer be a principle investigator (PI) where human subjects are used.  Students may conduct the research, but the PI has to be the advisor or the instructor.

         IRB will help faculty through the process.  A new homepage with instructions will be posted soon.  The proposal submission process includes: 

·      Email proposals (prefer pdf files) to Louis Toms ( in OSSP and send him one hard copy with original signature via campus mail at CPO 2260. 

·      The IRB will meet the first and third Tuesdays of every month to discuss submissions.  It hopes to be on a two week cycle and will notify faculty if there is a problem with the proposal. 

·      OSSP will track proposals to ensure the principal investigators’ submit final reports. 

·      Principal Investigators involved in human subjects will be required to be certified by August 2010. 

·      Note: any activity that falls within medical IRB’s (anything invasive, such as drawing blood) is not conducted at UNC Asheville.  Approval will have to be received from an institution with a medical IRB (Memorial Mission Hospital, East TN State, and UNC Chapel Hill.)   

         Follow up: Closing Mossbauer Data Effect Center and the Environmental Quality Institute

         Dr. Fernandes said at the last Senate meeting an issue related to Policy 101 was brought to our attention.  She acknowledged that as Provost, and as an administrator, she should know our policies and she should follow them.  She did not follow Policy 101.  She asked that the policy be included in the minutes.  We would be better served if all policies related to faculty are in the Faculty Handbook; this is where most of us look for Academic Affairs guidance.  FWDC will bring the necessary document to the Senate.  In the meantime,

Policy 101: Administration of Institutional Centers at UNC Asheville is available at:

         Dr. Konz noted that elements in the Faculty Handbook have been superseded by UNC Code.  Should FWDC be in charge of the Faculty Handbook in total, or should Academic Affairs?  Dr. Fernandes said as Provost, it is her responsibility to work with FWDC.   

         Dr. Heard said that Dr. Fernandes asked him if there was a policy for closing Centers.  He searched the UNCA website for “Policy Centers” and it did not bring up Policy 101.  The policy page is poorly organized.  Archaic language is being reviewed as FWDC puts Code 600 into the Faculty Handbook.  FWDC will address why policies, such as Tenure, are in multiple sections of the Handbook.   

Student Government

Mr. Stephen Haas reported for the Student Government Association.

SGA Senate Bill 044: Standardization of Course Grades

         The Senate discussed SGA Senate Bill 044: Standardization of Course Grades.  Ms. Nelms did not believe this was possible -- even if faculty use the same rubric, they still grade differently. 

         Mr. Haas said SGA’s intent was not to judge the way that professors chose to grade.  The bill speaks to the unfairness of professors using different grade scales for the same course.  For example, one student received a B in a course for a 91.  Another student taking the same course number with a different professor also had a 91 but received an A in the course because the professors used different grade scales.  This was not because of the work done or the way they graded.   

         Ms. Nelms asked if it was the same test.  Mr. Haas said it was the same course.  Dr. Bell, Dr. Berls and Dr. Haas spoke against the bill.  Faculty who teach humanities do not give the same tests even for the same class.  Professors include the grading scale in the course syllabi so students are not surprised. 

         Dr. Dohse said a high percentage of the faculty would not endorse this bill because the requirements are so different.  He appreciated the document but fortunately the Faculty Senate does not have to endorse it or vote on it.  It is good that we have a system where student concerns are brought to the Senate’s attention. 

         Mr. Haas said many faculty do not post syllabi on-line.  Dr. Fernandes explained that faculty are not required to post syllabi on-line.  GA determined that syllabi are the intellectual property of the individual faculty member and each individual would decide whether or not to post the syllabi on-line.  This would not be a matter of standard policy.  

         SGA Senate Bill 045: Keeping Free Periods Free

         This bill resolves that the scheduling of mandatory events for classes be forbidden in order to keep the free periods open for student organizations. 

         Dr. Heard asked Mr. Haas to clarify the bill.  Faculty are unable to schedule a class on a Tuesday or Thursday during the free period and he would be concerned if people were not observing the rule. 

         Mr. Haas said lab courses in the sciences have been scheduled during the free period.  There are also lectures on campus during the free period that course instructors require students to attend. 

         Dr. Lanou acknowledged that she had done this when there is a cross-course activity where four different courses need to meet twice over the course of the semester.  She did not understand that this time was specifically for student organization meetings.  She thought it was time when over kinds of curricular or co-curricular activities could take place. 

         Dr. Ettari and Dr. Konz agreed with Dr. Lanou.  The original idea was that at least one of those two days could be used; there was a distinction made between departmental activities and campus-wide activities.  One of those days may be an appropriate time for co-curricular and required activities. 

         Dr. Haas said it would help if a specification was given; one day for co-curricular/required activities and the other day for student meetings.  It would be a reasonable compromise.  Senators agreed that this needs to be clarified.     


IX.     Old Business

         There was no Old Business.


 X.     New Business

         There was no New Business.


XI.     Adjourn

         Dr. Dohse adjourned the meeting at 5:35 pm.


Respectfully submitted by:        Sandra Gravely

                                                Executive Committee