FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, November 5, 2009
Senate
Members: C. Bell, R. Berls, L. Dohse, G. Ettari, V. Frank, G. Heard, J.
Konz, B. Larson, A. Lanou,
K.
Moorhead, L. Nelms, E. Pearson, K. Reynolds, M. Sidelnick; J. Fernandes.
Excused: G. Boudreaux, B.
Haas, D. Pierce, L. Russell.
Visitors: G. Ashburn, L. Friedenberg, S. Haas, E.
Katz, K. Krumpe, R. Pente, J. Pierce, A. Reagan,
A. Shope, T. Tieman.
I. Call to Order, Introductions and
Announcements
Dr. Dohse called the
meeting to order at 3:16pm and welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Approval
of minutes
The
minutes of October 8, 2009, were approved with editorial corrections.
III. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Lothar
Dohse reported for the Executive Committee.
Finance and Campus Operations Annual
Report
Vice
Chancellor John Pierce reported on Finance and Campus Operations. The report is available:
Vice
Chancellor Pierce responded to the following questions:
· Ms.
Nelms asked if there were existing positions that are unfilled in his area.
o There may be one position that is budgeted
that has not been filled.
· Dr.
Sidelnick asked about the pros/cons to the Craft Campus project.
o The
administration took a hard look at the finances at the landfill site. While the methane was free, the operational
cost of bringing it out of the ground and providing it for the campus was not
free. There were also costs associated
with having a remote location. With the
exception of moving the site, the project is moving forward at this point. .
· Dr.
Reynolds said the cool thing about having it at the landfill was the use of the
methane. Is there still going to be this
tremendous use of electricity to power the kiln?
o There
will be some use of natural gas. When we
looked at the cost of the natural gas compared to the cost of the methane, it
was much more efficient to use natural gas.
Natural gas will be piped into whatever site is chosen.
· Dr.
Dohse asked if there would be a construction site on a dormitory soon.
o
· Dr.
Larson referred to the money losing operations that were shut down (Convenience
Store, Leadership Asheville, Central Stores) and asked to what extent mission
considerations were part of that discussion.
o They
factored in. Consideration was given to
bringing in someone from the outside to run the Convenience Store. Losing Leadership Asheville was a more
difficult decision. We were happy to
have Leadership Asheville continue within the university but there was a fund
raising conflict. It was not acceptable
to have, every year, a $50-60K subsidy to Leadership Asheville and to have fund
raising with a lack of clarity. It was a
mutual understanding that Leadership Asheville needed to be a stand alone 501c3
to be viable. He continues to serve as
the university representative on the Leadership Asheville Board.
· Dr.
Larson commented on the improved relationships between UNC Asheville, General
Administration and NC state government. How
did this happen?
o It
is good old common sense. It is building
relationships, paying attention to specifics, being honest, being transparent
and being open. General Administration
has been very supportive with the land use money to acquire the Rhoades
property, the Zeis internal loan, and receiving counsel on the continuing
budget last year.
Dr. Dohse thanked Mr. Pierce for his report.
Report from Faculty Assembly
The Faculty
Assembly report has been postponed until the December meeting.
Meeting with the Chair of
the BOT
Dr.
Dohse, Ms. Nelms, Dr. Heard, Dr. Konz and Dr. Fernandes met with Mr. James
Buckner, Chair of the Board of Trustees, for dinner last month. Dr. Dohse thanked the Provost for inviting the
group to a dinner as it was a pleasant way to hold a discussion. He also thanked the Chair of the Board of
Trustees for speaking to them. Dr. Dohse
said he asked the Chair two questions:
· Is the role of the Board beginning to change
-- becoming more proactive?
o
Mr. Buckner’s response was yes, the Board is
changing – but not its role. They are going
into a more committee-structure and plan to do more work. He does not see the Board as being any
different from the past in terms of its decision making.
· Why did the Board remove the phrase “Small by
choice” from the university Mission Statement?
o
Mr. Buckner response was that the Board felt the
phrase was not appropriate. “Small by
choice” was not a mission and those words should not be in the statement. He does not see the Board as being proactive
in making the university larger.
o
Dr. Konz quoted Mr. Buckner: “It is not our mission
to be small.” Size is a means for
delivering the mission but it is not our mission to be small. That is why it was removed.
The Senate discussed its relationship with the
Board. Dr. Dohse said years ago the Chair
of the Faculty Senate addressed the Board of Trustees for 5-10 minutes during its
meetings. The current Chair of the BOT
does not believe that is appropriate. The
contact person that he likes to work with is the Chancellor. Dr. Dohse said in his experience, the role of
the BOT changes as the personalities on the Board rotate. It is the Senate’s responsibility to be
proactive.
Senior
Grades/Academic Calendar
Dr. Dohse serves on the Academic
Calendar Committee. A student
representative also sits on the committee.
Four criteria have emerged for the Spring calendar for next year. He requested feedback, particularly on the
fourth criteria.
· Have each semester be 15 weeks long (State requirement)
and have a final exam week.
· Equally represent all days of the week.
· Include a reading day. (Strongly endorsed by
students)
o Because
there is an official Monday holiday during each semester class instruction will
end on a Monday. The following Tuesday
is a reading day and exams start on a Wednesday.
· Have senior grades due after Final Exams
(Strongly endorsed by faculty)
o As a consequence, the Commencement Program
would list the graduates and degrees but it might not include Latin
honors. It may or may not include
Departmental Distinctions, depending upon when final grades are submitted. Students could still be recognized in the
ceremony the day before commencement.
o This year, final grades for seniors will be
due as early as possible. Ms. Shope will
want the grades submitted the day after final exams are taken.
IV. Faculty Welfare and
Development Committee Report
Dr.
George Heard reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
FWDC
has been discussing ideas on delivering the curriculum, specifically reassigned
time and professional development leave.
Committee Reassignment
The
Senate approved the following committee reassignment:
· Dr. Lanou will replace Dr. Trautmann on the
ILS Topical Cluster Subcommittee for term 2009-12.
First
The
following documents were distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 2: Revision to UNC-Asheville Phased Retirement
Policy
(Revision
of SD2098S; Faculty Handbook 2.11.2)
General Administration now
requires that universities mandate the number of years that phased retirement
is permitted. Previously it was allowed
to the faculty member’s discretion of one to three years. FWDC 2 mandates that phased retirement will
be for a three year period.
FWDC 3: Proposal to change term of Faculty Athletics
Representative
(Faculty
Handbook 10.5.11)
Currently, the
faculty athletics representative serves a three year term with the possibility
of one reappointment. FWDC 3 extends the
term to four years. Dr. Pearson spoke
with the Athletic Director and she supports the proposal.
V. Institutional Development
Committee/University Planning Council Reports
Ms.
First
The
following documents were distributed for First Reading:
IDC
2: Proposal to Establish a New Degree
Program in Anthropology
IDC
3: Proposal to Eliminate the
Institutional Effectiveness Committee
(Revision
of SD4002S; Faculty Handbook 10.2.2.3.1)
· Institutional Development
Committee (IDC)
The Role of IDC in Assessment
Dr.
Friedenberg met with IDC where she gave a presentation and discussed assessment
and accreditation. IDC received
affirmation that faculty governance in the form of the IDC will be involved in
oversight of both the policies and the processes associated with the university
assessment.
· University Planning Council
(UPC)
UPC discussed the dashboard (a form of assessment) and
accepted a proposal to use a color system to indicate the status of goals: green = has achieved goal; red = has not achieved
goal; yellow = close to achieving goal. UPC
will have annual meetings with the work group leaders who set these goals to get
a better understanding of what they are doing and to provide input.
The Provost
gave a presentation on assessment and accreditation. She will report on this during the
administrative report today.
VI. Academic Policies Committee
Report
Dr.
APC
Review of 2009 Perceptions Survey
APC Report of 2009 Faculty Perceptions
of ILS
In Spring 2009 APC distributed a
survey to full and part time faculty with the intention of measuring
perceptions of the Integrated Liberal Studies (ILS) curriculum (see Senate
Document SD0808F).
It is APC’s intention to work
towards the goal of improving ILS and general education at UNC
On October 2nd and 21st
2009, APC Chair Chris Bell met with Archer Gravely to discuss the statistical
significance of the findings of the 2009 survey. Archer Gravely performed a
number of statistical analyses of the results. First, he created correlation
matrices. Next, he identified statistically significant correlations.
The following conclusion was drawn:
1)
Respondents
who expressed satisfaction with particular elements of the program were more
likely to express satisfaction with others, and vice versa. Psychologists have a name for this -- the
Halo Effect -- and it was clearly present in survey responses.
On October 22 the Academic Policies
Committee met to discuss the survey results.
The following conclusions were
drawn:
1)
There
is a notable level of concern about the clusters and the variation in faculty
collaboration that seems to exist today, everything from loose or non-existent
confederations to highly formalized links. APC recognized that the clusters
were initiated intentionally with broad expectations to invite faculty
involvement. APC further recognizes that defining a set expectation for faculty
coordination is problematic. If the expectations for coordination are set too
high, the clusters will generate an unreasonable amount of work for faculty.
The “Food for Thought” cluster sets a high standard, but may not be practical
for all groups. Still, most respondents indicated that the clusters needed more
management, oversight and clearly stated expectations. APC recognized that
ILSOC has also identified the clusters as the component of ILS with the most
need, and that ILSOC committee members are developing criteria and procedures
to tighten this element of ILS.
2)
Concern
about the complexity of ILS relative to the general education system it
replaced may be related to the clusters requirement. The clusters requirement
is by far the most complex of the various ILS components (choices restricted to
course categories, science course meeting cluster requirement can't also be
used to meet lab science requirement, etc.).
3)
The
writing intensive requirement has perhaps had the biggest impact on classroom
practice at the university, insofar as it encourages teachers to engage
students on several levels through their writing process. At the same time,
this application process was repeatedly cited for its difficulty. Streamlining
the application process, especially for renewals, should help alleviate these
concerns.
4)
While
the overall response rate of the survey was good, APC had concerns about the
low participation rates in the survey for junior and part-time faculty.
5)
The
survey was rich in useful criticism, and these critical comments demand
response and consideration. APC recognizes the need to “close the loop” by
addressing specific faculty concerns through a range of communications (senate
minutes, formal reports, etc.) that outline ILSOC and APC responses and
initiatives.
6)
The
survey revealed some discrepancies between perception and reality. For example,
the numbers of petitions for ILS components has reduced dramatically, and
transfer students are having fewer problems completing requirements, yet
respondents consistently identified these areas as problematic. APC will need
to disseminate information to the university about how things are changing in
the course of ILS implementation and development.
The following actions steps were
established:
1)
APC
has invited ILSOC chair Patrick Bahls, cluster coordinator Kim Brown, and Dean
of University Programs Ed Katz to meet and discuss specifically how ILSOC is
addressing the issue of clusters and to help formalize the response to the
faculty.
2)
APC
will continue to monitor expressions of faculty concern regarding ILS
complexity. Evolution of the cluster requirement
and greater familiarity with ILS may resolve the complexity question. If not, future action should be discussed.
3)
APC
will administer the ILS Perceptions Survey spring semester every other
year. APC will consider adding
incentives to encourage participation (e.g., a drawing for a consumer
electronics product limited to those who have responded to the survey).
4)
APC
commends the Cluster Coordinating and the Writing Intensives Committees for
initiating efforts to address the concerns raised by the survey and encourages
them to continue doing so in the future.
The faculty
perceptions survey results are available at:
http://www3.unca.edu/facultysenate/2009-10/ILS_Perceptions_Survey_2009[1].pdf
VII. Administrative
Reports
Academic
Assessment Process
Dr.
Third
draft of the university-wide Student Learning Outcomes, and Assessment FAQs
· We
expect all of our students to achieve all of these objectives but we do not
expect each department to address each of the objectives. This suggests that we are going to have to be
very attentive to the ways that the ILS program achieves these objectives to
ensure that all of our students achieve these.
· In
the interest of brevity and to not call attention to a specific area of the
university, edit the last sentence in the Preamble to read: “These provide the basis for our student
learning outcomes.”
· Outcome
2: edit to read: Students develop mastery of a specific major and an
understanding of the connections among disciplines.
· Outcome
6: “Students engage in lifelong learning.”
For assessment purposes, think about learning outcomes as being manifest
over the lifetime of our students. We
can work with Alumni and Development to assess careers, but it will eventually
be necessary for departments to follow alumni more closely than they do now.
o
Dr. Friedenberg said Student Affairs is
involved in important kinds of learning.
Part of the lifelong learning emphasis might be assessable now through
the co-curriculum outside of the classroom.
It can be used with two populations of students: current students
through co-curriculum activities, and then through graduates. Perhaps there should be two clauses to better
address what we do.
· The
verbs as are broad and generic as possible so that departments can tailor them
to their particular environments.
· It
will be difficult to assess lifelong terming in the life of our students. It is a methodological problem. Be careful that we can show that students
have the foundation that lasts a lifetime.
o
Dr. Friedenberg has met with the Alumni Office
to refine the procedures for the distribution of the alumni survey. It has different items on it that would be
germane to this outcome: continuing formal education, informal education,
participation in workshops and conferences, and continuing education credits
for professionals. We are not going to
track people for their lives. The goal
is to move to 3-5-10 year cycle – rotating across different cohorts of
graduates so we can get a ten year cycle on graduates.
o
Dr. Fernandes said the purpose of the outcomes
is to get information that will help us to improve our programs. We must derive the outcomes from the
mission. We have learned through this
process that we will end up with something that reflects the learning in the
mission. Outcome 5: “Students
demonstrate that they are responsible, engaged citizens” may cover lifelong
learning. It is possible that we do not
need Outcome 6.
o
Dr. Friedenberg noted that there are
substantive differences in Outcome 5 and 6.
There are people outside of Academic Affairs who feel strongly about
Outcome 6 and she would be uncomfortable making any further commitment here,
now, to strike it.
· Dr.
Friedenberg said the goal is, after today’s meeting, to distribute the third
draft to the campus community. Senators
have an opportunity to give feedback today that could change what is sent to
the rest of the campus. Dr. Fernandes added:
if Senators are generally comfortable with the document, it would go to the
campus and also to the Executive Committee.
The Senate committees could discuss it further. Her hope is that APC will bring it forward as
a document to the Senate for consideration in February.
Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools (SACS) Timeline
Dr.
Larson reported on UNC Asheville’s preliminary preparations for the
reaffirmation of accreditation process with SACS (Southern Association of
Colleges and Schools.) He has learned
that UNC Asheville is a Track B Institution (a school that has at least one
masters program) and the timeline has consequently moved forward five months. Several activities are scheduled during spring
semester. New to the process is a Compliance
Audit. This formal draft statement of
where we stand with regard to the various dimensions of certification for SACS
will tell us what we need to work on for the formal report.
The
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) process will start in 2011. A QEP is a carefully designed and focused
course of action that addresses a well defined topic or issue(s) related to
enhancing student learning. This will
connect with the Student Learning Outcomes.
It will have many opportunities for people to be involved and share
their ideas.
Student
Government
Mr. Stephen Haas
reported for the Student Government Association.
No bills
have passed in SGA Student Senate, other than the commonplace bills, which
include: resignations, appointments, and allocations.
Questions/Comments
Dr. Dohse asked for clarification on two issues from the
SGA Academic Affairs (AA) Committee.
Mr. Haas explained
that AA is looking at the consistency of the senior requirements overall
between departments. It is also looking
at how the advising system works for faculty so that they can address student
concerns.
Beginning next
month another member of the SGA will report to the Faculty Senate as Mr. Haas will
begin student teaching.
Dr.
Fernandes noted that it was important for SGA to send student comments on the
Student Learning Outcomes to Dr. Friedenberg and herself soon.
IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New Business
There
was no New Business.
XI. Adjourn
Dr.
Dohse adjourned the meeting at 4:45pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra
Gravely
Executive
Committee