University
of North Carolina at Asheville
FACULTY
SENATE MEETING
Minutes,
November 3, 2011
Senate
Members: R. Bowen, G. Boudreaux, M. Burchard, G. Ettari,
V. Frank, E. Gant, B. Hook, G. Kormanik, T. Meigs,
S. Mills, K. Moorhead, G.
Nallan, K. Reynolds, R. Roig, N. Ruppert, B. Schaffer, S. Subramaniam;
J. Fernandes;
A. Ponder.
Excused: R. Berls.
Visitors: G. Ashburn, P. Catterfeld, L. Friedenberg,
L. Langrall, E. Katz, J. Konz, K. Krumpe, ML Manns,
P. McClellan, P. Mitchell, R.
Pente, R. Ridenour, A. Shope.
I. Call
to Order and Announcements
Dr. Volker Frank called the meeting to
order at 3:15 pm and welcomed senators and guests.
Rob Berls is in Kansas, and we will
keep him and his family in our thoughts and prayers.
II. Approval
of minutes:
The
minutes of October 6, 2011 were approved with two editorial corrections.
III. Executive
Committee Report
Dr. Frank
reported for the Executive Committee.
Remarks by Chancellor Ponder
Summary:
• We had a very
successful scholarship luncheon event today in the Kimmel Arena with students,
faculty and both current and endowed donors who provide scholarship support for
our students. Nothing is more eloquent
than students who are receiving scholarships, thanking those donors and
explaining why that is important for students of the future as well.
• The inaugural address
for President Ross last month begins a wonderful era for the university. Not since President Friday have we had a
president who conceives of the university system in a way that leaves such
possibilities for us. Thanks for your
help and the work you do so well that perhaps for the first time we have more
influence than our 1.6 percent of the university system would suggest.
• I commend and thank
the faculty for responding to the prolonged budget emergency in an incredibly
proactive, generous, embracing way to make sure that our students are still
marvelously served in your classes and in your lives. I understand that the teaching load weighs
heavily around your shoulders and that it is in the way of the excellence that
is defining to UNC Asheville. I am
grateful for all the people who benefit from your efforts.
• We have launched our
search for the Vice Chancellor for Advancement (formerly “Development”). The Foundation is affording for us a
professional search firm. The search
committee includes Dr. Frank, one other faculty member, and five others. As is the case with all members of the senior
staff, I will make the hiring decision and will recommend my choice to the
Board of Trustees.
• In the last UPC
meeting we had a report on the strategic benchmark on energy usage and agreed
to adjust some benchmarks so that we measure more appropriately and more
clearly what we do. The benchmark on
energy usage was adjusted to more accurately express our position as a leader
in this area.
• The university is
positioning itself to acquire property on W. T. Weaver Blvd., at the MAHEC
Family Practice building. MAHEC wishes
to build in south Asheville and they asked if we would be interested in about
three acres, about 118 parking spaces, and a two-story building with different
entrances and exits. We want to examine
any opportunity to acquire a contiguous property. We were especially pleased because the first
floor of that building has been used for a family health practice and our
second highest capital priority is our health and counseling area. Our current
facility located in Weizenblatt Hall cannot be certified, is not handicapped
accessible, and does not provide the confidentiality that health practitioners
and counselors require. The second floor
will be assigned to Alumni and Development and will be paid for by the increased
productivity from that area. We have
reached a purchase agreement for this property.
This remains to be decided at the December Board of Trustees meeting.
The health and
counseling area would be paid for from a “debt service fee” that is under consideration.
UNC Asheville has not increased its debt service fee in a dozen years, so the
opportunity to amortize that acquisition over a number of years at a low fee to
students is an important process. The
details of how that fits into the tuition and fee process are under
consideration with the Tuition and Fee Committee. The current debt service fee is $220 and this
would add $90 – UNC Asheville would still be in the bottom half of debt service
fees university system wide. We would
occupy that space in spring 2013 assuming decisions and schedules unfold in the
way that we predict.
• Construction is
starting on a new residence hall that is part of our strategic plan where the
renovation of Governor’s Village and the addition of 300 beds will allow us to
influence significantly the retention and graduation rates, since 43% of our
students will live on campus instead of the approximately 34-35% this
year. The estimated time of receiving
the building is in time for the opening of the fall semester.
• I encourage the
faculty leadership to work carefully and courageously on the curriculum
revision project. Even as the budget of
North Carolina improves, the improvement in the university system budget and in
the UNC Asheville budget will be exceedingly gradual. A 4-4 teaching load is not sustainable over a
career of time when you have the obligations that you chose and enjoy in
relation to research and community service and belonging here at the
university. What students cherish about
their work with you is your presence, time and expansive interest in their
whole lives. As much as I care about a
more sustainable teaching load for you, I really care about the sustainability
of your teaching load because of who you are to our students.
As you are working
through the curriculum revision, we need to make sure that we distill and
refine what is most important to be taught and learned here and that we
right-size that offering to the number of students we have, the number of
faculty we have and a sustainable teaching load for us over time. It is this year that recommendations need to
come forward from the faculty, and then implementation in the year or two after
that. In terms of teaching
sustainability and the work you are doing, my only role internal to the
university is to affirm for you that this is the time to do it and it is really
important work.
• Outside the
university, now is not the time to advocate with the legislature or with the
Board of Governors for an adjusted teaching load requirement. However, the BOG has created a task force
through the educational planning and program committee on which I sit, and that
group has commissioned a group of BOG members to look at this topic. That is
the other reason I want you to respond with your curricular plans this year – I
want us to be down that road before they tell us how to do it because the way
we construct our curriculum is distinctive to UNC Asheville. It is at that point that I will be our
tireless advocate.
• Five faculty searches
will be authorized this year and our Provost will talk more about those.
• Results from the CLA
suggest what a huge difference you make in the lives of our students.
• I would like to inform
the faculty formally that I am in the process of reconstituting the Diversity
Action Council. That group has in the
last three years done some extraordinary work on diversity in a number of ways
– the diversity champions, the professional development, and additional
diversity in the faculty, staff and students.
I have asked that some folks who have been on the group be thanked for
their work and that about two-thirds continue.
Then I, in consultation with that group, have added faculty and will add
more students to include voices and experience from across campus. I will post the membership when it is
complete and I thank the faculty especially who have stepped forward in this
busy time to serve in that way.
IV. Faculty
Welfare and Development Committee Report
Mr. Rob Bowen reported for the Faculty Welfare and
Development Committee.
• The administration asked FWDC for feedback on
whether, if given a choice, faculty would prefer professional development leave
(PDL) versus discretionary reassigned time (RAT). FWDC responded that PDLs are important for
faculty development but in the short term it prefers discretionary RAT as a
means of boosting faculty morale and looking at PDLs as the primary source down
the road.
• FWDC discussed digitalizing faculty records at a
later date so records could be submitted online.
• FWDC brought two documents to the Executive
Committee: the annual evaluations of
chairs and program directors and merit categories for annual evaluation of
faculty. These documents were tabled
based on a meeting of the Provost’s cabinet regarding tenure and promotion and
the report on review of tenure and rewards system. The Executive Committee tabled the proposals
so as not to have to change the documents twice. However, there seems to be a great push by
the administration to have these documents in place by the end of the school
year. The Provost can speak to the
reason for pursuing it quickly. There
needs to be more clarification between FWDC, the Executive Committee and
Academic Affairs.
Second
Reading:
The
following document was considered for second reading:
FWDC 1: Clarification to Family and Medical Leave
(Revision of SD4900S; Faculty Handbook 4.2.1.2)
This document makes several clarifications to the Family and Medical Leave
policy:
a) Defines
full-time status for faculty members to be 12 contact hours per semester of
teaching and formal reassigned time,
whether administrative or discretionary.
b) Limits
brief absences from faculty duties which are accommodated by other members of
the faculty to four weeks; absences longer than four weeks require Family and
Medical Leave.
c) Specifies
that Family and Medical Leave is limited to twelve
weeks or the end of the semester in which it is granted. This enables twelve weeks of leave to be
spread over two semesters if necessary.
d) Revises
qualifying conditions for Family and Medical Leave to exclude bereavement and
to include complications from family members serving in the military and care
for family members injured while in military service; the latter allows for up
to 26 weeks of leave.
e) Specifies
that only the Provost will request medical verification before authorizing
Family and Medical Leave.
Discussion
• Chancellor
Ponder said by federal law, the university is required to provide 12 weeks of
unpaid leave with job security.
• Dean Konz
said our current policy grants up to one full semester, but does not account
for leaves that may be needed over two semesters. This clarification limits the total over two
semesters to 12 weeks.
• FWDC
accepted a friendly amendment to add “otherwise” to the first sentence under
Section VII to read: “… a leave of
absence due to maternity or primary-care duties automatically extends the
probationary period of tenure-track faculty by one year unless otherwise requested by the faculty
member and authorized …”.
• The
Senate discussed extensions to probationary periods prior to being awarded
tenure (Handbook 3.5.3 Extensions to probationary periods) and whether
or not faculty could seek a leave of absence during the second portion of the
probationary period after declining to seek it during the first probationary
period. Dr. Kormanik asked if there is a
conflict or a lack of clarity in FWDC 1 and Handbook section 3.5.3. Does it apply only during the probationary
period during which time the medical leave was granted? The Senate concluded that Section 3.5.3 did
not define the probation period but it also did not conflict with FWDC 1. FWDC 1 passed as amended without dissent
and became Senate Document 0511F.
V. Institutional
Development Committee / University Planning Council Reports
Dr.
Kevin Moorhead reported for Institutional Development Committee and University
Planning Council.
Report on University
Planning Council meeting – October 21, 2011
1.
Chancellor update –
Chancellor Ponder provided an update of our participation of President
Ross’s inauguration, our university leadership role in sustainability as noted
by Lyons Gray (Assistant to the President) and plans for the 40th
anniversary of the consolidated university system, including a panel with four
of the past presidents and the current president.
2.
SACS Compliance Report –
Bruce Larson provided an update on
SACS process for reaccreditation. He
gave the timeline for document deadlines and when other activities take
place. Bruce also described the four
phases of the reaffirmation process, starting with the preparation of
documents, an off-site review, an on-site review, and the final judgment by the
SACS Broad of Trustees. The budget for the QEP was discussed.
3.
Benchmarks for Undergraduate Research and Environmental Sustainability
The strategic plan benchmarks were
reviewed for undergraduate research and for environmental sustainability. Both benchmarks overlap. Ed Katz and Mark Harvey recommended a change
in language for the strategic plan related to undergraduate research – UNC Asheville will be a (currently stated as
“the”) leading undergraduate research institution for faculty-mentored,
student-directed Undergraduate Research. The UPC agreed to the
change. UPC members also discussed the
quality vs. quantity issue of reporting undergraduate research projects. UNC Asheville did not make the latest U.S.
News and Report list of universities with notable undergraduate research
programs after having done so for several years. UPC also discussed the limitations of the
benchmark related to courses with integrated sustainability content.
Ed Katz presented benchmark data that
showed a declining number of undergraduate research projects related to
environmental sustainability although the goal is for a 20% increase over five
years. Dean Katz also described the
current Student Energy Internship and Fellowship Program that includes funding
(funding of $281,000) for recent graduates and current students to engage in
campus projects related to education and outreach, facilities management, and
energy policy.
A modification to the energy
consumption benchmark was recommended by Ed Katz and David Todd. Currently the benchmark is based on a gradual
decrease in the energy consumption per square foot of space over time. Adding Zeis Hall increased our energy
consumption per square foot substantially.
The Sherrill Center is also expected to increase our average energy
consumption. A better metric would be
for UNC Asheville to have lower energy consumption compared to the state
mandated level. We are way below the
state mandated level. UPC agreed to the
modification. A presentation by David
Todd and Norm Richards highlighted the facility management efforts for
improving campus environmental sustainability.
4. Social Sustainability
On-going discussion on social
sustainability will be carried forward to our next meeting. UPC members were given an opportunity to ask
question or express concerns and we had a brief conversation on how to improve
communications on campus.
Complete minutes of the UPC meeting: http://www.unca.edu/node/3112
Discussion
•
Many of the schools on the U.S. News and Report
list of universities with notable undergraduate research programs were Research
I schools with doctoral programs and post-docs.
There has been a trend at these schools to launch these undergraduate
research initiatives which have a lot of publicity.
•
UNC Asheville needs to do a better job of getting
its message out: we are unique in the
way we do undergraduate research because our professors are dealing directly
with undergraduate students. Our
students are not competing for the professors’ time with graduate students or
post-docs.
•
We are often on the defensive and we do not need to
follow the latest trend. We should be
proactive in a humble but consistent and convincing way.
•
We should compare ourselves with other programs
that can help us recognize where we are strong, where other institutions are
strong, and ways we can enhance what we do.
•
The National Conference on Undergraduate Research
which is the premier annual event, is undergoing
changes. It has been absorbed into
CUR. CUR’s emphasis has been on
supporting faculty to do undergraduate research, not supporting students who do
undergraduate research. This could change
the character and nature of the NCUR.
One indication of change is that in recent years there has been
continued growth in the size of the event.
The first conference had 400 students.
In 2006 when we last held it on campus there were 2,000 students – and
each year since the number of students has increased. Small schools are increasingly strained in
terms of being able to handle such a large event. Over time, only larger universities or large
conference venues may be able to handle the event and then the quality of the
event changes.
•
Things are happening that may take the attention
away from a small school like ours with higher quality undergraduate programs
where students are performing at higher levels.
We need to pursue what we do aggressively and compare ourselves
legitimately against strong programs.
•
Our faculty may have less time to devote to
undergraduate research.
Report on Institutional
Development Committee meeting – October 20, 2011
Present: Kevin Moorhead, Gregg
Kormanik, Ted Meigs, Eric Gant, Gary Nallan, Jessica Dunsmore, Archer Gravely
1.Resource
Implications of the QEP
The resources implications of
implementing the QEP were discussed with Mary Lynn Manns. Mary Lynn provided a timeline summary of how
the QEP would be implemented and a draft budget for the current year and the
next five years. She emphasized that the
budget was in draft form. The draft
budget created the most discussion. The
total budget for the six year period was $581,787. A ½-time faculty position will be used to
help administer the QEP as program director.
A ¼-time administrative assistant position will also be required. The budget included funding for the testing
of critical thinking, stipends for faculty and staff to be trained as QEP
educators, marketing, travel funds for faculty and students to present QEP
projects, general supplies, and other categories. Students would be assessed for critical
thinking skills as new students, graduating students, and as part of QEP course
projects. Many concerns were expressed
about the draft budget, including the total amount needed, and the amount
needed for various line items. IDC
members were surprised by the amount of money needed to implement the QEP, and
how the budget might impact academic programs. [The budget will be discussed
during Dr. Manns’ report.]
2. Overall Budget Process
John Pierce and Clayton Fogg
presented to IDC an overview of the budget process for UNC Asheville. John described a philosophy of management
flexibility for the university, where various entities are given a fair allocation
of the budget and the entities decide how the money is spent. He provided an overview of the state budget
as it relates to our budget and how the university has responded to budget
cuts. Roughly 46% of our budget comes
from the state. The university took a
proactive stance on the 11.8% cut, eliminating 51 positions, 10 of which were
filled. The academic core was protected
but John acknowledged the loss of adjuncts and short-term lecturers, in
addition to raising tuition for students.
A potential loss of renovation and repair monies will correspond to an
additional 4 to 5% cut for UNC Asheville.
We do not anticipate receiving the R/R money because of the impacts that
Hurricane Irene and Medicaid payments have had on the state budget. Clayton provided IDC members with a month-to-month
overview of how the budget is developed, approved, and awarded. IDC members were concerned about future
budget problems. Although no major
issues are anticipated, it is difficult to predict how the university will fare
in the next few years due to several factors, including a legislative body
opposed to raising taxes, a state economy that has become more service oriented
relative to manufacturing without changes in the tax code, the weak economy,
and the potential for another recession.
In response to IDC questions, John mentioned that there was no talk at
this point about university consolidation, that our arrangement for graduate
programming through Western Carolina University and Appalachian State has fared
well for us financially, and that there was no state appropriation for the
Pharmacy degree at UNC Asheville. The
fiscal arrangement for the pharmacy program was kept simple. UNC Asheville receives funding by charging
rent, and through fees and construction costs.
About 13,000 square feet of space have been given to the pharmacy
program. The budget for academic affairs
is about 47% of our total budget, which includes financial aid. IDC members were appreciative of the time and
information provided by John and Clayton.
3. Task Force on University Policies
and Procedures
IDC members also talked about the
creation of a Task Force on University Policies and Procedures, as suggested by
the Executive Committee at the last senate meeting. IDC members were interested in a potentially
larger scope for the Task Force and that the membership not be
limited to IDC and FWDC members. Gary
Nallan has agreed to serve on the Task Force.
VI. Academic
Policies Committee Reports
Dr. Bryan
Schaffer reported for the Academic Policies Committee in Rob Berls’ absence.
First Reading [Unanimously approved by APC]
The
following documents were considered for first reading:
APC 3: Add CHEM 132 as pre-requisite for ENVR 364
APC 4: Change description for MLA 670, Scholarly
Inquiry Seminar
APC 5: Change MCOM 201 from 4 hours to 3 hours;
Reduce
required hours for MCOM major and minor.
MINOR [APC considered proposal to be Minor]
APC 6: Change when Oral Competency will be tested
for majors in French
Submission of Grades at the end of the semester
Dr. Schaffer said Pat McClellan brought the issue of
submitting grades at the end of the semester to APC. Pat McClellan spoke on the issue:
• We have
grading deadlines and when faculty do not turn the grades in at that point it
prevents the staff from processing steps such as: whether a student is eligible to graduate;
academic standings which affect students’ ability to get financial aid; and
sending transcripts to prospective graduate schools.
• The last
two Decembers when grades were due, over 400 grades were missing each
semester. We were missing grades from 32
faculty members one semester and 42 faculty members the other semester. It typically takes 24 hours to track down the
faculty members. This prohibits staff
from taking their holiday break and from getting information out to the
students.
• We are
excited about shifting Banner to the General Administration server but it also
means that we lose some of our control.
GA will be taking the system down starting on Friday afternoon after
grades are due and will keep it down through Saturday. This is typically used as work time. If we are waiting to get grades from faculty
when the system is shut down, we will be working well into the next week.
• We need
to have every grade in on Thursday, December 15th at noon to get our
work done for the students.
• Senators
suggested bringing in Chairs as more forceful players in getting grades in on
time.
VII. Administrative
Reports
Academic Affairs
Enrollment briefing
for Fall 2011: Provost Fernandes
UNC Asheville welcomed 540 new freshmen
and 330 new transfer students for Fall 2011. The Full Time Equivalent (FTE) is 3,364
reflecting 102 fewer FTE than last fall.
Given the magnitude of the budget cuts we have handled, this represents
an appropriate enrollment for this year.
We have lost 10.5 faculty FTE and over $800,000
in state funding that we had previously used to hire adjunct faculty.
Freshman Class of 2015
The Class of 2015 has an average SAT
score of 1174 (six points higher than last year) and an average weighted GPA of
4.0. While 14% of the freshman class is
from out-of-state, in-state freshmen hail from 190 different North Carolina
high schools. In keeping with our
diversity initiatives, 12.8% of the class is from underrepresented groups
compared to 10% last year.
Continuing
Students
Retention for the Fall
2010 entering freshmen is 80.6%. This is
the 3rd consecutive year in which freshman retention has been >
80%. The number of continuing
undergraduates from fall 2011 (2390) is almost identical to fall 2010
(2399). In the last ten years, overall
retention has exceeded 80% in only four of the years and has ranged from 76.3%
to 81.9%. Graduate
student enrollment remained steady with almost the same number of students as
fall 2010 (49 compared to 52).
88.5% of non-graduating, undergraduate,
degree seeking students from Spring 2011 have enrolled
for Fall 2011. We have all been reading
about students “stopping out” of school for financial reasons. At UNC Asheville, for Fall
2010, 26% (56 students) of the non-returning students indicated that costs, a
need to work, or financial aid were factors in their decision not to enroll
this semester. For Fall
2011, 39% (100 students) of the non-returning students indicated that costs, a
need to work, or financial aid were factors in their decision not to enroll
this semester. This is evidence that the
economy is affecting our enrollment and evidence that we need more financial
aid of all types.
Impact
of Budget Reductions
With a reduced number of faculty, and with those faculty now teaching a very full
load, it is quite literally not possible to grow the enrollment unless we can
obtain more faculty FTE to accommodate the increase. As far as faculty availability to teach
students, we are maxed out.
Looking
Ahead to 2012-2013
As we are now in the midst of
recruiting for the 2012-2013 academic year, we obviously need all hands on deck
to assist the Admissions Office efforts.
While we cannot admit more students than we have the capacity to teach,
we must assure that we admit the quality and number of students and achieve
gradual improvements in retention and graduation rates as well.
Our
enrollment goals for 2012-2013 include:
Discussion
• We have a simple process where
students who “stop out” can return without having to reapply as long as they
have not attended another institution during this time period.
• African American students represent
4.25% of the freshman class (23 of 540).
• Goals are to increase the academic
profile, and both under-represented and out-of-state population.
• We are starting a scholarship in
Academic Affairs by combining different sources that will allow us to give more
consideration to students with merit who may not have need. We hope to see a higher academic quality result
from that effort. We are trying to
recruit students who intend to stay here.
• Last year we accepted an amazing
group of students with high academic skills.
We need to develop some strategy to encourage more of these skilled
students to enroll.
• The Faculty Senate and chairs/program
directors need to ensure that all faculty know the
significance of retention and graduation.
This will be stressed at the January faculty meeting: every faculty
member has a great deal of influence on students’ decisions.
• Provost Fernandes
will report on these at the next Senate meeting:
Of the 156 students in the last two years that did not return – what percentage
were out-of-state?
How many of the students that we are losing due to costs are minority students?
College Learning Assessment
Provost
Fernandes discussed a graph on college learning assessment that UNC Asheville
gives to freshmen and to seniors. The
test measures how much skills and knowledge increases from freshmen to seniors. The graph shows UNC Asheville’s outstanding
performance. Faculty can have pride in
the work you are doing with students.
The entire report is available on the Institutional Research web site.
Announcements
Search
for new Chief Information Officer
• Provost Fernandes is leading a search for a
new Chief Information Officer (CIO).
Faculty will have an opportunity to meet the candidates and give
feedback. The CIO will report to
Academic Affairs and will be over the directors of network and security, user
services, and administrative computing.
Those areas will continue to be a focus but bringing in a new person may
change some of the structure. It will
not include the library.
Jim Kuhlman Resignation
• Jim Kuhlman, our university
librarian, decided to resign to take a new job at Kentucky Wesleyan
College. We will have an appropriate
recognition, remembrance and celebration of his time here. She will be leading a search for a university
librarian.
QEP Budget report
Dr. Mary Lynn Manns
gave an update on the draft Quality
Enhancement Plan (QEP) budget. Our
QEP budget is in line with other QEP budgets at other universities. The
majority of the money goes to faculty and students, while 25% goes to
overhead. The budget will increase if
the leadership team’s recommendations are approved. In response to IDC concerns, funds allocated
for marketing have been reduced in future years.
Discussion
• The
Senate discussed line items in the budget: advertising, training, stipends,
travel to present and the economic climate.
Dr. Ruppert said that if this was a good
economic time she would support the budget, but we are not in a good economic
climate. Dr. Reynolds asked what was
going to be cut in order to afford this.
o Provost Fernandes
said the funds for QEP will not be taken from any department budget. No impact
will be felt from academic departments.
When the SACS reaffirmation process ends that money will go toward the
QEP. Money set aside for institutional
effectiveness will be redirected to support the QEP, as well as undistributed
funds.
• Dr. Ettari asked if any of the funds could be used to ease the
curriculum burden, such as hiring adjuncts.
o Provost Fernandes
said no, they could not be.
• Provost Fernandes noted that the curriculum review, the restoration
of reassigned time at a desirable level, and the restoration of professional
development leave should be seen as a package. She does not envision that
reassigned time will be restored without a significant modification in the
curriculum.
• Dr.
Boudreaux asked if the director had been identified and how much reassigned
time she/he will receive.
o Dr. Manns said the
director of QEP has not been identified; this person will receive four classes
of reassigned time in year one, three classes in year two, and three classes in
year three. The QEP leadership team has recommended that we increase the
reassigned time.
• Dr.
Boudreaux asked why we are trying to keep up with other institutions; he would
be proud if we came under budget.
o Dr. Manns said we did not try to be in line with others. She put together the budget and then looked
to see if it was out of line. Jessica Dunsmore, who has worked with SACS groups, said the budget
was in line with others.
• Dr. Kormanik said it would be wonderful if we had this much
money to put toward the project. SACS
guidelines on QEP state: it must be
large enough to matter, but small enough to be manageable; it need not be new;
it need not require substantial investment; it must balance significance and
institution capability; and it must be complete and affordable. This does not need to cost a lot – it needs
to be manageable given the resources.
o Dr. Manns was familiar with all of the guidelines except the
one that says it need not be new. We ran
a plan by our SACS Vice President last year and it was not going to be new
enough – it was not going to be enhancing enough.
o Dr. Kormanik noted that enhancing something means taking
something you already have and making it better as opposed to having something
new.
o Dr. Manns said this program will enhance our critical thinking
skills, improve our undergraduate research program and improve service learning
program. She looks to the Senate for
recommendations on where we can reduce the budget.
• Dr. Roig referred to Dr. Manns’
comment that she was aware of the dollars that might be involved. He asked if those numbers were discussed such
that the Senate or everyone was aware of the cost. If we started out knowing this might cost
$500,000 would we have developed such an ambitious plan – or would we have
recognized that we should think on a smaller scale? We have a great QEP program, but it would be
easier if we had known the figures early in the process.
o Dr. Manns said she did not believe our QEP plan was overly
ambitious. SACS requires that our QEP
touches a significant number of students.
To have a significant enhancement for a significant amount of students,
this is the bare minimum that we need.
• Dr.
Moorhead said IDC was interested in the money involved in the critical thinking
testing. After administering the test for a couple of years, can we then write
our own test?
o Dr. Manns said purchasing the tests and having the ability to
compare ourselves with other schools is cost effective. She was open to
suggestions on where to cut the budget, and also to see if the Senate is okay
with the leadership team’s recommendations that would actually increase the
budget.
• Dr. Ettari asked how often accreditation occurs. He questioned the rationale for SAC’s
requirement that the institution fund an expensive QEP plan when the
institution has already demonstrated its educational quality.
o Dr. Friedenberg said accreditation occurs every ten years, but
it has to be updated every five years.
SACS criteria always change, and it will be different next time
too.
o Dr. Ettari said rather than being blindsided by this expense,
we need to start planning now how to fund the next SACS. The SACS person we hired should do this.
o Dr. Friedenberg said we did not hire a SACS person. Dr. Larson was appointed to be in charge of
the reaffirmation component of the SACS review.
o Dr. Ettari said surely someone is responsible for anticipating
expenses associated with SACS reaffirmation.
o Dean Katz
explained that at the last SACS review there were several recommendations that
we establish an ongoing SACS committee and we did not do it. Now we have an Institutional Effectiveness
Committee (IEC) with ongoing assessment.
SACS and other accrediting agencies have universities demonstrate what
they do in lieu of requiring a systematic standardize approach that
universities typically do not want to do.
o Dr. Ettari referred
to Dr. Katz’s comment that we did not follow the recommendation to establish a
SACS committee.
o Dr. Friedenberg said
the recommendation was specifically in terms of the university’s assessment
work. The IEC is designed to monitor
efforts at institutional improvements based on assessment work. We are in a better position now with the IEC
standing committee. We have a process in
place – not only for SACS, but for all of the regional accreditors.
The QEP is a separate aspect of SACS. An
important point in Dr. Katz’s comment is a subtext: SACS may do this to motivate universities,
who, unlike us, are not focused on enhancing the undergraduate experience.
o Dr. Ettari wanted someone to go on record as saying when we did
not form this committee years ago we dropped the ball. Would you characterize that as dropping the
ball?
o Dr. Friedenberg said only in terms of institutional assessment
– yes, we did. We had the program in
place and it fell apart.
o Dr. Frank said it is no surprise that we are
having this substantive conversation because we are already doing what SACS is
asking us to do. We are investing time
and money to demonstrate that we are doing something and that has a cost. That is the very nature of the process. Today
has been a fruitful conversation and we thank Dr. Manns
for giving the Senate an opportunity to give feedback on the budget. It behooves us to not lose sight of the
meaning of the process. We may not agree on it, but we need to move through the
process that is open, transparent, and consensual.
Student Government
Highlights of Ryan Ridenour’s report from the Student Government
Association (SGA):
•
Tuition and Fees process
VIII. Old
Business
Ad Hoc Task Force
The
Executive Committee will meet with FWDC next week to discuss feedback on the ad
hoc task force.
IX. New
Business
There was no New Business.
X. Adjourn
Dr.
Frank adjourned the meeting at 5:51pm.
Respectfully
submitted by: Sandra Gravely
Executive Committee