University of North Carolina at Asheville


Minutes, December 8, 2011



Members: R. Berls, R. Bowen, 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, S. Subramaniam;

                  J. Fernandes.


Excused:    G. Nallan.


Absent:      G. Boudreaux, B. Schaffer.


Visitors:     G. Ashburn, S. Capone, P. Catterfeld, J, Cope, J. Flora, C. Fogg, L. Holland, L. Langrall, B. Larson,

                  E. Katz, J. Konz, K. Krumpe, ML Manns, P. McClellan, P. Mitchell, R. Pente, J. Pierce, A. Ridenour,

                  R. Ridenour, A. Shope, R. Shorts.



I.       Call to Order and Announcements

         Dr. Volker Frank called the meeting to order at 3:16 pm and welcomed senators and guests.  Several of our guests will be introduced later in the meeting.  Dr. Nallan has a concussion and is unable to be with us today.   

         Dr. Frank asked for a moment of silence for the victims of the shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech today. 


II.      Approval of minutes:

         Dr. Ettari asked that the minutes of November 3, 2011, include more details of the discussion on preparing and budgeting for QEP and SACS.  Everyone in the room needs to be accountable and having records of those transparent conversations would help.  The minutes will be amended.  


III.     Executive Committee Report

         Dr. Frank reported for the Executive Committee.

         Rob Nelson’s meeting with the Senate has been postponed until next semester. 

         UNC Asheville Bookstore

         Vice Chancellor Pierce introduced guests from the bookstore: Joy Flora from finance, helped with the bookstore transition; Jim Cope, Follett regional manager; Amy Ridenour, bookstore manager; and Richard Shorts, textbook manager. 

         Mr. Pierce said we made a decision to outsource the bookstore at the beginning of the year given the combination of technology, limited resources, and additional capabilities that a strong provider could give us.  Three groups participated in a bidding process and we feel very good with Follett who won the bid from a financial and performance standpoint.

         The guests commented on increasing customer services, learning what our needs are, and providing a service to faculty and students.  They are going through a lot of change as 80% of what Follett does is textbooks -- digital and rental textbooks will be evolving over time. 


  Dr. Hook asked where the money comes from to give scholarships.  Does it add to the cost of the books?

o   The bookstore pays a commission to the university based on the sales.  Outside of the commission, the bookstore agreed to a dollar amount that goes toward scholarships.  The financial arrangement is similar to what we had previously with the bookstore.  It is a little better for the school if a book is purchased from the bookstore. 

  Dr. Burchard said because we are a smaller school a lot of courses are offered once a year, but we still might use the same textbook for a couple of years.  Can students use the buyback program?

o   We can get them on a local rental program where students save 50% up front and turn the book in if we know we are going to be using it.  That is the best option for books that we are using multiple times but are phased out. 

  Dr. Meigs asked what happens if a student rents a book and later changes his/her mind and wants to keep it.

o   This is handled on a case by case basis, but it is okay within 30 days.

  Dr. Roig asked if the rental program requires a commitment on the part of the professor.

o   There are two rental program lists.  (1) The national list includes popular textbooks among universities in the US and requires no commitment from the professor.  (2) The local list includes titles requested by professors who have committed to using a particular title for roughly two years.  These titles require a commitment because they are not on the national rental list.  Custom textbooks are generally not on the national list.

  SGA representative Ryan Ridenour said students are glad that Follett is here – they are doing a fantastic job.  


         Faculty Assembly Report

         Dr. Lora Holland reported that the November 4, 2011 Faculty Assembly meeting in Chapel Hill had two areas of concentration.  The first initiative was looking at academic policies across the 16 campuses: 


  students’ satisfactory academic progress and what that means on the different campuses

  repeat and replace policies for courses

  drop, add, and withdrawal dates across campuses.


There is a lot of variation in these policies.  Some of the policies seem to be driven by federal financial aid regulations, especially with satisfactory academic progress.  The thrust from the meeting was that it would be good to standardize what we can, but only at a minimum level -- that is, this is the bar below which the campuses should not fall.  More stringent policies should be allowed to continue on the campuses.

         The afternoon session was devoted to campus safety and security.  The security officer who spoke with them wanted to know what the campuses do for their emergency training, especially what the campuses offer faculty in terms of this kind of training: whether it is an active shooter, severe weather threat during class time, or medical emergency when either the faculty member or a student has a medical emergency during class.  He asked three questions: 


  What do faculty need to help them prepare for some extraordinary event?

  What are the areas that need improvement in how we are preparing?

  What are faculty concerns about security and safety issues on campus? 


         Dr. Holland and Dr. Nickless will be working with campus security and safety to answer what we currently do, but they would also like to hear from the faculty about your concerns.  What do you feel would be helpful for you if something of that nature were to happen on this campus? 

         The January meeting will focus on the campus initiated tuition increases.   


         Dr. Frank asked what the mood was in the Faculty Assembly given that this is Suzanne Ortega’s first semester at General Administration and we also have a new president.  Dr. Ortega came in with ideas about increasing communication and perhaps even cooperation among the campuses. 

         Dr. Holland said Dr. Ortega does want to get feedback from as many people as possible but she is still in the information gathering stage.  It will be spring semester before we can make a judgment. 


         5-Year QEP Budget

         Dr. Mary Lynn Manns said this budget has been approved by senior staff and the chancellor.  She took suggestions from Senators and reduced the funds allocated to marketing to the bare minimum.  This means we will use a lot more people-power to market the program rather than tangible and visible things around campus, such as mugs and pens.  The stipends to faculty remain unchanged.  However, the stipends were increased to the ten faculty who will pilot the QEP.  She added the grant program for our students because the QEP Leadership team highly recommended it.  The budget has been reduced since she last met with the Senate.  We have $549,000 to create a fabulous initiative with critical thinking and most of the money goes to faculty and students with little overhead. 

         Dr. Ettari asked Dr. Manns to explain the educator stipends on professional development and assessment.   

         Dr. Manns said $15,000 is $1,500 per ten faculty in year one to do the professional development, the assessment and to bring the Inquiry ARC framework into their courses.  These faculty members will also have grant money available to help them with the projects in class and there is travel money for students to present their projects.  In subsequent years the allocation will be $1,000 a year for 20 faculty.  For the assessment, we are using the critical thinking disposition test at $9 per test ($9 x 1000 = $9,000).  The test will be administered on moodle and will be graded by the assessment company.

         Dr. Subramaniam asked about reassigned time for the director and for clarification on the travel budget.

         Dr. Manns said reassigned time for the director was increased to half-time: 6 credit hours in both the fall and spring semesters.  The travel budget for the director is $5,000 per year.  The director will travel to the SACS conferences and will hopefully be presenting at conferences about the initiative our campus is building.   

         Dr. Roig asked if there were many applications for the director’s position.

         Dr. Manns did not have any information on the applications which go directly to the Provost. 



         Vice Chancellor Pierce introduced Mr. Clayton Fogg (director of budget) and said Clayton has been invaluable in providing financial information and keeping up with all of the reports to the state. 

         On behalf of the Chancellor, Mr. Pierce invited everyone to the holiday party next Wednesday from 3:00-6:30pm in the Highsmith Union. 

         At Dr. Frank’s request, Mr. Pierce provided the academic spending as a percent of our total general fund spending on an historical perspective for about five years.  The figures from Code 101 for instruction are remarkably consistent: 


                                                2007                                        2011

            Instruction portion      42% of general fund budget   44% of general fund budget

            Institutional support    14%                                         14%

            Plant operations          17%                                         16%

            All other                      27%                                         26%

            (“All other” includes student services, academic support, library, and financial aid)


         In dealing with the budget cuts, we have followed the UPC criteria of trying to protect the academic core, student experience and things that generate revenue as best as we could. 

         Our plant operation is about 20-30% below the state average and we have not received funds for repair and renovations (R&R) the last two years.   This is frustrating when we need to fix the roof of Carmichael Hall and the Humanities Lecture Hall, and we need to get rid of the asbestos in Carmichael Hall.  Mark Mondell from fiscal research visited campus and we explained our situation, but it is a time of austerity.  Last year there was an 11.8% cut (about $4.6 million), we did not receive $1.6 million in R&R, and the state ran short of money at the end of last year and we returned about $1 million.  The tuition increase (which we may or may not receive) will be less than a fifth of the over $6 million after financial aid which is twenty-five percent.  State revenues are up slightly right now but they have some fairly significant increases built-in in terms of revenues for the rest of the year.  The Medicaid portion of the budget in the state is one that is constantly under stress. 

         Mr. Pierce has been working with the Provost, the Dean of Admissions and others to match fundraising with our scholarship needs.  We looked at restricted and unrestricted to make sure the dollars are spent well and that we utilize these resources appropriately. 


  Dr. Gant asked where we stand on purchasing the MAHEC building on W.T. Weaver Blvd.

o  Mr. Pierce said we are very close – it will probably take a year before MAHEC relocates to its new building.  The MAHEC building was in the proposed student fees.  The first floor of the building would be used for student health and counseling.  This move puts us in a position where student health and counseling can be accredited.  The second floor would use non-state appropriated funds for development and alumni affairs.  We would then relocate campus police from Vance Hall to Weizenblatt Hall.  That would lead us toward accreditation on the police department but keep the police on campus.  Those recommendations came from the 2007 VA Tech shooting of trying to have both student counseling and police departments accredited.

  Dr. Kormanik asked, in terms of percentages, how have the total amount of dollars spendable varied over the past five years.    

o  Mr. Pierce said instruction has increased from about $20.2 million to $24.4 million – about 5.2 percent.  The overall expense has increased from $47.9 million to $55.8 million – 4.2 percent.  The instructional part has increased at a higher percent than the remainder of the spending.  Plant operation has increased below 2 percent and student financial aid is growing at a rapid rate. 

  Dr. Kormanik said his point was that we are talking about a 5-10-15% budget cut, yet the dollars we are spending every year has been increasing the last five years. 

o  Mr. Pierce agreed.  We have enrollment growth where funds come back and in some cases we have building reserves that come back.  

  Ryan Ridenour said SGA had some concerns about moving the police department.   

o  Mr. Pierce said this was debated and there was a little concern about it, but much less so than when we considered moving it to the second floor of MAHEC.  We are moving from roughly 4,000 square feet in Vance Hall to about 7,000 square feet in Weizenblatt Hall.  We have not had enough room for evidence, interviews, confidentiality and storage. 

  Dr. Frank asked if the Alumni Office is moved to the second floor of the MAHEC building would this be the first location for parents to come to campus.   

o  Mr. Pierce said it could be.

  Dr. Frank said that would not be a perfect idea.  He is familiar with other campuses and one thing that parents and alumni want to do is to see where their daughters and sons walk.  This may not be the warmest signal that we can send to our parents and alumni.  They want to be in the middle of campus.  The concept could work but he urged for caution.  At the MAHEC building parents and alumni do not see the campus, they do not see the library, they do not see faculty, they do not see the flag, and they do not see the quad.  They need to be in the center of attention when they get to campus and they need to feel that way. 

o  Mr. Pierce said the MAHEC building can be an initial point – there are some benefits of having development and alumni affairs together from the standing point of better integration towards fundraising.  Our parking has been so frustrating for a lot of people coming to campus and there is adequate parking at MAHEC.  Trying to make sure that when the alumni come they do get integrated.  In our long term master plan we need to make sure than we are presenting our best foot forward with admissions as well – this is a point well taken. 


IV.     Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report

         Mr. Rob Bowen reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.

         Committee update

         FWDC accepted Melissa Smith’s request to step down from ILS-Writing.  Dr. Irene Rossell is a current member of the subcommittee and she has agreed to serve as chair.  FWDC will recommend a nominee to replace Dr. Smith at the January meeting.  

         First Reading:

  FWDC 2:    Merit Categories for Annual Evaluation of Faculty (Faculty Handbook 3.4.3)

  FWDC 3:    Annual Evaluation of Chairs and Program Directors (Faculty Handbook Sections 3.4.4; 3.3.4.; 3.3.5)

  FWDC 4:    Supplemental Pay Policy (Faculty Handbook Section 2.9.4)

         FWDC 5:    Proposal to Eliminate the Library, Information Resources & Technology Committee

                            (Revision of SD5507S, SD07706F; Faculty Handbook 10.4.4)

         FWDC 6:    Proposal to establish the Library and Instructional Technology Committee as a Standing Committee (Faculty Handbook 10.4.4)


         Mr. Bowen called attention to FWDC 2 and FWDC 3.  These proposals concern merit categories for annual evaluation of faculty and the annual evaluation of chairs and program directors.  These two documents were held up in the Executive Committee because they are very closely tied to the Tenure and Rewards System documents which are also under review at this time.  A lot of faculty input went into FWDC 2 and 3; they were considered at the chairs meeting and they went to the entire faculty.  Because of this input FWDC thought the Senate should make this decision.


         Response to Tenure and Rewards System Report

         Senators received via email information on Academic Affairs’ response to the Tenure and Rewards System report presented to the Provost’s Cabinet on October 17, 2011 to read at your leisure.  Attention should be given to the proposed steps and timetable response to the report on Tenure and Rewards System:

    Discussions about the criteria for reappointment, tenure and promotion to respond to the question:  How do we ensure that we develop and retain the best faculty for UNC Asheville?

      Discussions about process safeguards: How do we ensure that the Committee of Tenured Faculty with rotating faculty members maintains continuity in the evaluation and decision process?

      Discussions leading to a clear definition for “engagement” and how it manifests in teaching, scholarship, service and related professional activities. 

Proposed action steps need to lead to: 

1.             Development at the department level of a clear set of expectations for reappointment and tenure of faculty at UNC Asheville, including contributions to the ILS Program, interdisciplinary teaching, engagement, and other areas central to the wider liberal arts mission of the University. 

2.            Changes to the annual review of faculty

     Revisions to the Faculty Record process and form

     Revisions to the Faculty Handbook description

3.             Changes to the institutional review of faculty for reappointment, tenure and promotion

     Revision of sections in the Faculty Handbook

     Re-instating the Provost’s charge to the Committee for Tenured Faculty at the start of each year

The FWDC and the Provost’s Cabinet will begin meeting in January with the intention of having draft documents prepared for Faculty Senate discussion and review in May 2012.


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 – November 18, 2011
             1.   Chancellor Update
                    The Thomas Howerton Endowed Professorship in Humanities is complete and will be advertised soon.  A small astronomy lab/observatory has been proposed near the top of Chestnut Ridge.  A donor is providing the funding for the entire project.  The Board of Trustees will have to approve the project.  The MAHEC property may be available for acquisition by UNC Asheville.  Ideas for using the space include using the bottom floor (street level) for the health and counseling center currently housed in Weizenblatt Hall.  The second floor would be used for the office of development and alumni affairs.  The property also includes 118 parking spaces.  The health and counseling centers can be paid by a debt service fee for students of about $45 a semester.  The space could be available as early as January 2013.  Public safety would move into Weizenblatt Hall. 
           2.  Social Sustainability
The Provost announced that only 7 of 94 standards were in noncompliance for SACS.  Of the seven standards, only two will require substantial work. 
           3.  QEP Update
Mary Lynn Manns provided an update on the
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP).  The budget for implementing the QEP has been adjusted to $548,900 over six years.  The budget was revised through input from several sources.  Dr. Manns also explained the timeline for marketing the QEP.
           4.  Institutional Effectiveness
Jessica Dunsmore described the work of Institutional Effectiveness (IE) over the past year.  Accomplishments include having all 95 academic and administrative units with IE plans and a year of assessment results entered into the TRAC-DAT system.  Administrative units will have an annual reporting cycle.  Academic units will remain on a biennial reporting system.  UNC Asheville is in compliance with SACS institutional effectiveness requirements.
           5.  Benchmark changes for the Dashboard
John Pierce proposed a new strategic plan benchmark for economic sustainability.  The benchmark would be the proportion of operating expenditures funded by state appropriations.  The goal is to increase state funding over time.  UPC will continue discussion of the proposed benchmark at our next meeting.
                Provost Fernandes proposed a change in a benchmark for undergraduate education.  The change would be replacing the current use of NSSE data that measures the extent of senior satisfaction with their education with a more objective measure of student learning provided by the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA) test.  The CLA test is a nationally normalized measure of writing and critical thinking.  UPC will review more information about the CLA tests and continue a discussion on the proposed change at our next meeting.   

         Report on Institutional Development Committee meeting – November 17, 2011
Present:  Kevin Moorhead, Gregg Kormanik, Ted Meigs, Gary Nallan, Melissa Burchard, Eric Gant.
Guests: Archer Gravely, Gwen Ashburn, Jessica Dunsmore
             1.  Update on Campus Master Plan
                   Rob Nelson provided an update on the campus master plan.  He described the work of the two primary groups that participated in the process of developing the master plan: a steering committee and the working group.  The main accomplishment of the working group so far is a set of guiding principles that align with the strategic plan.  The guiding principles can be found on the web page dedicated to the master plan.  The guiding principles articulate our values and will help guide decision making.  The long-term comprehensive plan may be deferred due to the lack of resources.  However, several recommendations will be made that can be implemented.  The short-term recommendations include 1) provide better signage and way finding on campus, 2) develop a sustainability plan that includes guidelines for new facilities, 3) institutionalize governance for making decisions, and, 4) develop plans to improve the appearance of campus.  Dr. Nelson explained that the past year of work was focused more on process and that the actual master plan will come later.  IDC members asked a few questions related to signage and improved lighting for campus safety.
             2.  Sophomore Survey
Archer Gravely, Director of Institutional Research, provided IDC with copies of the recent sophomore survey that is required every two years.  Data from UNC Asheville are compared with the university system averages.  Jessica Dunsmore explained how Institutional Effectiveness is using the data for IE plans.  IDC discuss several of the categories of data and Dr. Gravely provided historical context for the data.  The information derived from the sophomore and senior surveys has been used in the past for resource allocation decisions.  We do not use the data consistently and Dr. Gravely suggested that faculty could use the data to communicate weaknesses and strengths of the university.
            3.  Chestnut Ridge Astronomy Lab/Observatory
 Keith Krumpe, Head of Natural Sciences, explained the recent proposal to build an astronomy lab/observatory at the top of Chestnut Ridge (at the end of Campus View Drive, also known as the road to Nowhere).  Funding will be provided by the Community Foundation of Western North Carolina on behalf of the Astronomy Club of Asheville.  A planning group was established to review the merits of the project.  The recommendation from the planning group for the Board of Trustees was to move the project forward.  IDC members Kevin Moorhead and Gregg Kormanik served on the planning group.  The facility, roughly 600 square feet in area, would be located below the ridge top and house two 14-inch telescopes.  The facility will not be heated to protect the telescopes and will have a motorized roof to open the facility for night viewing of the skies.  The footprint and the resources required to operate facility are minimal.  IDC discussed the benefits and potential issues of the observatory.  Main concerns were the operating costs, neighborhood issues, and scheduling of the lab among the many potential users. 
             4.  Update of the Joint UNC Asheville/UNC Chapel Hill Medical Degree.
No change in status at this point.

            Dr. Reynolds asked if there was a map to see the proposed observatory site.  Dean Krumpe said there is a map but it is not on the web site.  Dr. Reynolds asked if David Clarke, Jonathan Horton, and Jen Ward are involved in this and aware of its location.  Dean Krumpe said Jen Ward was a member of the planning group and indicated that she has discussed this in detail with Jonathan Horton.  The site is below the ridgeline nearer to campus and is not near the research cooperative activities.    

VI.     Academic Policies Committee Reports
             Mr. Rob Berls reported for the Academic Policies Committee.
         First Reading [Unanimously approved by APC]
             The following documents were considered for first reading:

APC 7:   Add Academic Credit for History International Baccalaureate Exam

APC 8:   Add new course, HIST 309, History of the Old South;

  Add new course, HIST 391, The History of the Atlantic World, 1492-1820

         APC 9:   Add HIST 309 and 391 to list of elective options for Africana Studies minor

         APC 10: Restore HIST 349 to the catalog

         APC 11: Require Instructor’s Permission to Register for HIST 250, The Historian’s Craft

         APC 12: Delete ENVR /ATMS 331, Principles of Air Pollution;

                       Replace ENVR 331 with ENVR 381 in the elective options in the Earth Science concentration

         APC 13: Add new course, ENVR 312, Effects of Air Pollution on Ecosystems listing it as an option for Ecology Concentration students

         APC 14: Add new courses, ENVR 311, 410, 411;

                       Add Mineral Processing as an option for students in the Earth Science Concentration in ENVR

         APC 15: Academic Calendars: 2013-14, 2014-2015

         APC 16: Add concentration in K-12 Health and Physical Education to the HWP major;

                       Add K-12 Health and Physical Education to licensure areas


Second Reading [Unanimously approved by APC]

The following proposals were considered for second reading:


         APC 2 Revised:  Proposal to amend Class Attendance Policy

         Dr. Burchard noted that this proposal no longer says that absences may affect student grades or academic performance – it says it may affect student learning.  Mr. Berls asked Mr. Capone to comment.  Mr. Capone said rather than a threat, he suggested wording it more positively.  Others agreed that it could have been interpreted that there would be punitive action taken against the student for missing class.  A number of faculty do not have an attendance policy – students are not required to come to their class.  But we all know that not attending lectures, generally speaking, speaks negatively to the ability of the student to learn.  Dean Krumpe said that was what drove the change – to take it away from a punitive nature in terms of grades and put it on the shoulders of the students:  If you are not in class, that will impact your learning, but you will not be penalized.  In an editorial correction, the word “days” was deleted under section 2.  APC 2 passed as amended without dissent and became SD0611F.


APC 3:     Add CHEM 132 as pre-requisite for ENVR 364. 

APC 3 passed without dissent and became SD0711F.


         APC 4:   Change description for MLA 670, Scholarly Inquiry Seminar. 

         APC 4 passed without dissent and became SD0811F.


         APC 5:   Change MCOM 201 from 4 hours to 3 hours; Reduce required hours for MCOM major and minor

APC 5 passed without dissent and became SD0911F.


         APC 6:   Change when Oral Competency will be tested for majors in French

APC 6 passed without dissent and became SD1011F.


VII.    Administrative Reports 

         Academic Affairs

         Update on Diversity Action Council

         Provost Fernandes said Chancellor Ponder has reconstructed the membership of the Diversity Action Council (DAC).  The number of students has increased from one to six and she already sees new energy in the group which includes some new faculty, staff and administrators.  Dr. Bill Haggard is now a member; having two senior staff in the group will make our efforts more university-wide and more widely embraced and enacted.

         Priorities for DAC:  the new director of the Intercultural Center will start a diversity dialogue initiative spring semester where hopefully many students, faculty and staff will participate in a variety of topics in diversity.  Last summer we sponsored a university-wide institute on diversity with trainers from the National Multicultural Institute.  Early next spring we will have follow-up training with people from our campus to ensure we have fully understand and are enacting the group’s recommendations. 

         DAC has been asked by the Muslim Student Association to sponsor a speaker spring semester. Dr. Subramaniam and Dr. Katz are working with students and others to bring the speaker here in a series of learning activities. 

         DAC put a lot of work into researching the possibility of equitable benefits for all employees and it was not very promising.  This issue is deeply ingrained in state law and policies.  Dr. Fernandes said she is not an expert on all of those areas, but in the spring Keith Bramlett, Debra Miles and Chris Dahlquist can meet with the Senate and explain the research.  We will be able to do some minimum level of initiatives about this issue on our campus.  Shane Snowdon, whom we met at the Queer Conference last year, advised us to do what we can here.   

         DAC will make recommendations for the Curriculum Review Task Force to influence and maintain an emphasis on diversity in our curriculum. 

         We have had some success in attracting diverse candidates in our faculty searches.  Last year about half of the faculty hired were from underrepresented groups. 

         Dr. Fernandes suggested having a more intense dialogue about these issues in the spring.   


         Dr. Frank concurred that equitable benefits for all employees is an uphill battle which is reiterated in Faculty Senates across the system.  The activities we do on our campus in the spring will hopefully set an example that our representatives can take to the Faculty Assembly, and help to reenergize the campuses out of the feeling that nothing can ever be done.


         SACS update

         Dr. Bruce Larson thanked Ed Katz, Pat McClellan and Patrice Mitchell for their astonishing work in relation to our SACS reaffirmation activities in addition to their daily responsibilities.  Senators gave a round of applause. 

         Dr. Larson discussed the SACS Off-Site Team report and noted that we were found to be non-compliant on only seven standards. Five of these non-compliant standards are either minor, deal with on-line learning, or have already been resolved.  The most problematic issue was the percentage of terminal degree faculty in one program.  UNC Asheville must also respond to changes made to existing SACS standards at the December SACS Annual meeting.  Additionally, there are four new federal standards, three of which deal with on-line learning, and a new requirement on the definition of credit hours. UNC Asheville responses will be submitted with the Focused Report in February 2012.

         Dr. Frank thanked Dr. Larson for his steadfast work and Senators extended a round of applause.


         Student Government

            Highlights of Ryan Ridenour’s report from the Student Government Association (SGA):

         SGA hosted a meeting with the mayor and commissioners of Asheville with Warren Wilson and other colleges in the area.  They would like to provide more internships and career opportunities for college students, both while they are still in college and right out of college. 

         SGA is working on planning and assessment for spring; proposing new sustainability initiatives for the campus and continuing the annual rights week, and starting our second annual faculty lecture series. 

VIII.   Old Business

         Ad Hoc Task Force

         The FWDC and the Executive Committee came to an agreement to postpone the work of the ad hoc task force until after the FWDC has completed reviewing the annual committee reports.  Let Dr. Frank know if you are interested in serving on the task force.  


IX.     New Business

         There was no New Business.


X.      Adjourn

         Dr. Frank thanked everyone for their hard work, and wished everyone a wonderful holiday season and new year.  He adjourned the meeting at 5:12. 


(Portions of the minutes are from the UPC meeting:


Respectfully submitted by:     Sandra Gravely

                                                Executive Committee