University of North Carolina at Asheville
Minutes, January 24, 2002

Members: K. Bramlett, M. Burchard, F. Davenport, C. Ho, C. James, J. Kuhlman, B. Larson, H. Lee, C. Mitchell, D. Mullen, P. Nickless, S. Patch, J. Rackham, A. Weldon, G. Wilson; T. Cochran.

Visitors: D. Jenkins, E. Katz, G. Kormanik, M. Moseley, G. Nallan, L. Nelms, A. Shope, K. Skolnik.


I. Call to Order
Dr. Mitchell called the meeting to order at 3:17 pm and welcomed senators and guests to the meeting.

II. Announcements
There were no announcements.

III. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of December 6, 2001 were approved as distributed.

V. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Cathy Mitchell gave the Executive Committee Report.
General Education Review Task Force (GERTF) Report
Dr. Ed Katz reported on the progress of the General Education Review Task Force (GERTF).

Last semester GERTF completed its contributions to the SACS review. It has nearly concluded listening projects in the departments and programs; results will be posted on the website later this week. It continues to discuss recommendations from the APC reports, with particular attention to where the reports converge with the talking points in the Directive Recommendations. GERTF is inviting department chairs and programs directors to attend meetings when it discusses the components for which they are responsible.

Several features are available on GERTF's website: posted materials on General Education models; links to General Education programs at other schools (peer institutions, COPLAC schools, innovators in General Education); links to the APC reports; and a page with digitized versions of all departmental and program reports to APC.

GERTF has added a new website feature: New Links for General Education Curricular Design, which will have links to various topics central to General Education curricula, the first page of which is devoted to Diversity Resources for Curricular Design, Teaching, and Assessment. This page includes links to articles on Diversity, General Education, and Curriculum transformation. Each link is accompanied by a brief summary. Future topics will include: core programs across the country, service learning, learning communities, science education in general education curricula, arts and general education, problem-based learning, community-based learning, faculty development, and assessment. Faculty are encouraged to contact Dr. Katz if they have a topic they would like to include on the website. Also, if faculty have specific links on any topics they want added to the website, please contact Dr. Katz. It is a good educational tool for GERTF and for the faculty at large.

Other key topics of discussion as GERTF moves toward program design include absolutely free electives, number of credit hours in the program, and fiscal resources available for curricular development.

GERTF's first faculty forum last semester was very successful. There was a lot of good input -- much of which has been incorporated into the materials on the general education website. Dr. Katz is looking forward to more of these discussions for faculty and for students.

IV. Administrative Report
Vice Chancellor Cochran gave the Administrative Report.
Enrollment Report
Dr. Cochran distributed two enrollment reports -- a Spring Admissions Status Comparison and a Fall Admissions Status Comparison. The spring enrollment report provides supplemental data on in-coming freshmen transfer students. Overall, enrollment for spring is up over last year at this time. Dr. Cochran anticipates matching or exceeding our budgeted FTE this year.

The Fall admissions report indicates that the number of out-of-state applications continue to increase. If one compares this fall and last fall, the number of applications from the Piedmont region are beginning to increase. Applications from Western North Carolina are somewhat down.

Admissions has modified its decision-making and is accepting a slightly larger number of applications from students who qualify. SAT scores are still very much at the range that we would expect them to be. Last year's class enrollment was only 450. The target enrollment this year is 480. At this time, the pattern appears to be similar to last year in terms of applications. Dr. Cochran foresees reaching the enrollment target.

The only real negative fact to report in these statistics is that the African American numbers continue to be very, very low. They are half of what they were last year. This is a continuing problem and unfortunately there is little scholarship money to focus on diversity for next year.

The administration is preparing an ad to recruit a new Director of Admissions that should be going out in the next few weeks.

Dr. Cochran discussed early application acceptances and how scholarship money is usually a determining factor in whether or not students attend a particular school. This year the Laurels Program is increasing the amount of its awards by reducing the number of awards given. The Laurel interviews will be held in a couple of weeks.

VI. Student Government Association Report
Mr. Dave Jenkins, Executive to the President, gave the Student Government Association report.

On-line student elections will be held March 27 and 28. SGA's goal is to have an overall voter participation rate of twenty percent this year, compared to fourteen percent last year.

Mr. Jenkins distributed a Homecoming brochure printed by the alumni association. Homecoming will be held the weekend of February 16. There will be the traditional parade on Friday afternoon, a tailgate party Saturday morning, and a homecoming party in the Highsmith Center Saturday evening.

The Commission for Campus Radio has written a proposal to have a digital radio station at the university. The FCC license has been approved whereby the university would share the frequency with the NAACP chapter in Asheville. There will be a lot of issues to work out, but the goal is to have a campus-run radio station operational by the end of next school year.

VII. Academic Policies Committee Report
Dr. Jeff Rackham gave the Academic Policies Committee Report.
First Reading:
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:

APC 3: Honor Code.

APC 23: Political Science: Deletion of POLS 120 & 180; Addition of POLS 150.

APC 24: Political Science: Changes to 363, 365, 387; Addition of 331, 366, 369, 380, 384 and 389.

APC 25: Computer Science: New course titles and descriptions for CSCI 244, 344, 444.

APC 26: Multimedia Arts and Sciences Catalog Changes.

APC 27: Requirements for the Majors in French and French with Teacher Licensure.

APC 28: Catalog changes in Economics.

APC 29: Changes in Literature Seminars in Majors Authors; Deletion of LIT 481.

APC 30: Change of LR 102 to a Term I Offering.

APC 31: Deletion of Courses Mandated by Sunset Policy (SD0489F).

Second Reading:
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:

APC 9: Change in course credit hours & description of MGMT 499.
APC 9 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 1202S.

APC 10: Change in course credit hours & description of ACCT 499.
APC 10 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 1302S.

APC 11: Change in name for AACSB.
APC 11 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 1402S.

APC 12: New course additions for Environmental Studies in Ornithology.
The Senate accepted Dr. Kormanik's friendly amendment to delete the word "design" in the first sentence under 340 Ornithology. APC 12 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 1502S.

APC 13: New course additions for Biology in Ornithology.
The Senate accepted Dr. Kormanik's friendly amendment to delete the word "design" in the first sentence under 340 Ornithology. APC 13 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 1602S.

APC 14: Curriculum changes in Philosophy.
APC 14 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 1702S.

APC 15: Additions, deletions and changes in Engineering course offerings and descriptions.
APC 15 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 1802S.

APC 21: Curriculum additions, changes and deletions in Mass Communication.

An editorial correction was made to the document. APC 21 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 1902S.

APC 22: Absence from Class Policy.
The current catalog does not define how students should obtain absences from classes when those absences are predictable in advance. Examples include travel to attend the National Conference on Undergraduate Research, travel to regional or national conferences in various disciplines, performance of a musical or theatrical production, readings of poetry or prose, and performance in intercollegiate athletic contests. APC 22 will place in the catalog an explanation and instructions that clarify for both the student and the instructor how to deal with absences on university-sanctioned business that are identified in advance. Dr. Gary Nallan wrote the policy in his capacity as a faculty member. Dr. Merritt Moseley came in support of the policy.

Mr. Kuhlman noted that this document passed APC with two negative votes and asked members to address their concerns. Dr. Weldon replied that in her particular discipline -- in an interactive conversation language class -- absence from classes is a major problem. Dr. James added that it ultimately comes down to the final sentence in the policy -- "However, significant absences may affect academic performance and grades." A certain amount of work must be accomplished in the workbooks during class with laboratory equipment. Faculty do not want to punish students, and part of the overall education involves activity outside the classroom, but there comes a point where something gets lost if classes are missed.

Dr. Wilson asked if a student in his class has a conference to attend when he is giving an exam, must he give that student the exam when he returns? Dr. Nallan replied that there should be an accommodation about the points associated with that exam -- not necessarily a make-up of the exam. Perhaps he may chose something else to allow those points, so there would be no negative impact on the final grade. Dr. Moseley stated that he would expect the student to take the exam before leaving rather than giving him the benefit of having additional time. And he agreed with Dr. James' assessment that excessive absences will affect the student's grade. Dr. James suggested that in such a scenario, the accommodation might be to allow the student to withdraw from class. It is a legitimate reason to withdraw -- the student did not accomplish the work or the contract.

Mr. Kuhlman was concerned that the policy might create more conflict than what currently exists. For example, to continue Dr. Wilson's scenario, if he required the student to take the exam early, the student might consider this to be punitive because he will not have as long to prepare for the exam and therefore it could negatively impact his grade. It is a valid issue. Dr. Mullen stated that he made the same point in APC. This is a policy as agreed to by instructor and student. He does not give make-up exams -- so that is the point he and the student are going to agree upon.

Mr. Bramlett noted that a lot of the discussion had centered around students going to professional meetings. His observation is that generally speaking this has not been a problem. The larger issue is the university athletes and certain teams that miss an awful lot of classes and require a lot of make-up work and make-up assignments. He did not think they should be unduly punished, but there are faculty members who will accommodate that situation and there are others who will not. He did not know that passing this will change that situation. That is a problem that is not addressed by this policy. APC 22 passed by a vote of 12-1 with one abstention and became Senate Document 2002S.

VIII. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report
Dr. Bruce Larson gave the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report.
Update on Recent and Prospective Activities
Dr. Larson had the opportunity to address the Board of Trustees yesterday and talk about the Vision Statement and Goals passed by the Faculty Senate last year. There was valuable discussion about the vision statement in particular. The Board of Trustees passed both the Vision Statement and Goals without modification.

The strategic planning retreat will take place sometime during the spring semester. The Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance have been involved in the specific timing of the retreat. Dr. Larson asked Dr. Cochran for an update. Dr. Cochran explained that originally the retreat was planned to take place before the spring break. That changed because the VCAA search process could present a scheduling conflict. The possibility of having the retreat early in April was considered. However, the VCAA Search Committee has asked that the retreat be postponed until the new VCAA has been named so that he or she could be invited to participate. As of this morning the date was still elusive.

Dr. Larson asked if we have someone to facilitate the retreat. Dr. Cochran replied that Judy Futch, affiliated with Mars Hill College, has been retained to lead the strategic planning session and also to work with us during the year-long process to move the issues that are brought forward to the larger audience.

Dr. Mitchell asked for clarification as to whether participation in the retreat would include the entire Faculty Senate or just the Executive Committee. Dr. Cochran replied that the UPC would determine the participation list, but clearly the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate would participate. The UPC was identified as another likely group to be approached. Dr. Mitchell noted that the Senate will have a new composition in May. Dr. Cochran stated that he understood and that all those issues have to be addressed.

UNCA Institutional Goals and Indicators
For informational purposes only, Dr. Larson distributed the first-ever widely distributed version of the UNCA Institutional Goals and Indicators. This is the outcome of the work of Steve Patch, Jim Kuhlman, Archer Gravely and himself from last summer until now. The document is fluid and continues to evolve. He briefly summarized the document and highlighted the goals, ways of measuring the goal, and the variety of indicators for every goal. The appendices detail how each of the indicators were constructed. Questions were derived from student responses on the graduating senior survey as compared to other UNC student responses. The exact questions that students answered can be found on Institutional Research's website. Senators were encouraged to read the document carefully as the first stage to start the discussion process.

Mr. Kuhlman noted that these are not all the indicators, or necessarily the best indicators. They were looking for data that already existed and did not require that the entire institution change what we were doing in order to collect data. There is a full expectation that we will be able to replace some of these with more meaningful indicators. This is a survey that is holding a place until we can get the best indicators. Dr. Larson concurred with Mr. Kuhlman and emphasized that we have never had these in the history of UNCA. This is our first attempt to clarify the things that we really care about.

In response to questions about the establishment of the criteria, Mr. Kuhlman noted that the goals are interesting but what we pick as indicators are more important -- and within the indicator what we pick as our criteria for success are the most important part. There has to be an incredible amount of discussion, revision, and debate to define who we want to be.

Dr. Mitchell asked if there was a process by which people could suggest alterations in the criteria. Dr. Larson stated that faculty could send their suggestions to him. The first stage of the process is to inform people -- particularly the Faculty Senate -- of the existence of this document, so that discussions can occur. Mr. Kuhlman reminded senators that at the last faculty meeting the process was discussed. The UPC will annually review the indicators both for the appropriateness of the indicator itself -- or whether there should be a substitute -- as well as the criteria for success. And ultimately the Chancellor is the person who would bless them. But it would be UPC who reviewed it, and then passed its recommendations on to the Chancellor. That will presumably happen beginning next year -- as opposed to now.

Dr. Mitchell suggested that it might be useful to send the document to the Minority Affairs Commission and whoever handles student development issues, and other committees on campus that specialize in some narrow focus on some of these specific goals. Dr. Larson agreed. Several senators commended this group for their considerable work in putting this impressive document together.

Institutional Effectiveness Committee Report
Mr. Kuhlman gave the Institutional Effectiveness Report. IEC prepared two documents in response to Dr. Page's SACS recommendation. Dr. Gravely created a three-page document chronicling the history of planning and assessment at UNCA and IEC prepared a document providing examples of how assessment has been used to makes changes or improvements on campus.

IEC is considering a revision to the Institutional Effectiveness Report cycle. One possibility is to drop the annual report requirement and move to an every-other-year report. This change would eliminate the confusion of requiring two different kinds of reports in the cycle and would accomplish as much in terms of providing data. IEC plans to talk to Dr. Cochran about whether or not this change would impact departmental budgets.

IX. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. Gordon Wilson gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report.
First Reading:
FWDC 2: Faculty Rights and Responsibilities (revision of SD0294F)
FWDC 3: Proposal to Establish Intellectual Property Committee.

An editorial correction was made to FWDC 3.

Request waiver of Comer Rule
Dr. Wilson explained that the Faculty Senate was asked by those preparing our documents for SACS review to incorporate a "must" statement into our "Faculty Rights and Responsibilities" description. FWDC 2 makes the requested change. Senators received a copy of the document via email for their consideration. Dr. Wilson moved a waiver of the Comer Rule, which was seconded by Dr. Larson.

Dr. Mitchell explained that the Comer Rule was created nearly fifteen years ago and is based on the principle that Senate members ought to be able to have a document presented at one meeting and be able to consider it at leisure for a month before a vote occurs, as opposed to being presented with a document and then having to immediately vote on it. The Senate policy is that unless the Senate votes to waive the Comer Rule a document has to be presented for first reading at one meeting and then it is not voted on officially until the next meeting. The motion to waive the Comer Rule passed unanimously.

The Senate then considered the document. FWDC 2 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 2102S.

Second Reading:
FWDC 1: Statement on the Creation and Maintenance of University-wide Ad Hoc Committees and Task Forces.

FWDC 1 is an attempt to limit the number and duration of Ad Hoc Committees and Task Forces on campus and to ensure faculty receive recognition for their service.

This document requires that each university-wide committee/task force follow these procedures:

1) On formation of the committee/task force, the Chair of that entity must notify the FWDC of the Faculty Senate of the objectives, membership and anticipated length of service of the group;

2) At the time of its formation, the committee/task force must identify a finite time limit; and

3) If the committee/task force exists beyond a two year limit, it must convert to a standing committee or disband.

Discussion followed concerning how deeply within the university this policy would penetrate. Dr. Mitchell suggested that any committee/ad hoc task force created where a faculty member is drawn in would become university-wide. All university-wide ad hoc committees and task forces are subject to this policy. Editorial corrections were made to the document. FWDC 1 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 2202S.

Faculty Searches
Dr. Wilson stated that candidates for faculty positions routinely visit campus during the spring semester and part of their visit will include an interview with a senator. The senator interview could focus on opportunities for participation in faculty governance and other service at UNCA, and provide an outside interview for departments that value one as part of their recruiting. Ms. Gravely has been asked to coordinate this process so the burden is distributed equitably among senators. Dr. Mitchell added that senators who have been approached by a department chair to speak to a candidate should notify Ms. Gravely.

Faculty Elections
Dr. Pamela Nickless will be responsible for the spring elections. The Senate briefly discussed whether or not on-line voting impacted voter participation rates last year. FWDC may ask departmental secretaries to remind faculty members to vote.

X. Old Business
There was no Old Business.

XI. New Business
There was no New Business.

XII. Adjournment
Dr. Mitchell adjourned the meeting at 4:45 pm.

Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
                                        Gordon Wilson