University of North Carolina at Asheville
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, April 17, 2003
Excused: J. Rackham.
Visitors: E. Katz, P. Nickless, R. Sensabaugh, A. Shope, K. Whatley.
I. Call to Order
Dr. Melissa Burchard called the meeting to order at 3:19 pm and welcomed senators and guests.
II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of March 6, 2003, were approved as distributed.
The order of business was modified.
IV. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Burchard gave the Executive Committee Report.
Update on 2-Year Campus Based Tuition Increase Expenditures
Dr. Burchard distributed a handout on "Campus Initiated Tuition Increase" prepared by Mr. Steve Honeycutt, University Budget Officer. Dr. Burchard asked if the 2002-03 expenditures would continue into 2003-04 or change yearly depending upon need. Dr. Padilla replied that the support given to programs this year would continue next year barring some need to make a change. He did not anticipate any changes. Mr. Kuhlman added that the tuition increase (implemented over a two-year period) was continuing money that was allocated in fairly broad categories.
The Senate questioned when the tuition increase occurred and when a portion was reverted to the state. The original proposal was for three years, but it was changed to two years with a $200 tuition increase each year.
Dr. Alm questioned the supplies and materials being purchased with tuition increase money. She recalled that this was promised to student services to impact student life on campus.
Mr. Kuhlman stated that $100K a year was to come out of the total tuition increase toward instructional technology materials, such as VCRs and overhead projectors, as well as upgrading laboratory equipment in biology, physics, and chemistry. He did not want to challenge the figures but there were certainly differences in the figures in the handout and the original proposal.
Given the number of questions, the Executive Committee will talk to Steve Honeycutt again and also request the original proposal to use as a comparison. The Executive Committee will report at the May meeting.
The following document was considered for Second Reading:
EC 7: Proposal to Revise the Faculty Senate Constitution.
Dr. Konz asked if applications were being taken for the Constitution Task Force. Dr. Manns replied that the Executive Committee will submit names for the Senate to consider at the May meeting. Dr. Burchard encouraged senators to nominate faculty to serve on the task force. Dr. Alm volunteered Jeff Rackham as he has several ideas about the revision and will not be on the Senate.
Dr. Burchard commented that the Constitution sets forth the charge for each of its standing committees and APC's role needs to be revisited. As constituted, APC is not able to do the things it was set up to do, such as considering any long term policy. Dr. Dee James agreed that all the standing committee charges may need to be revisited to accurately reflect committee work.
Dr. Alm stated that this seemed to be the appropriate time to express a concern that has arisen. If UPC is no longer "watch-dogging" the budget process, then who from the faculty is? How is the Senate and faculty involved in the budget decision-making process? The Senate agreed that these issues need to be addressed. EC7 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 6703S.
V. Student Government Association Report
There was no Student Government Association Report.
Dr. Padilla reported that he met with SGA members Josh O'Conner and Rhi Matson about the status of their documents to re-examine the plus/minus system. There has been an apparent miscommunication between SGA and the Faculty Senate. The students were anticipating some action or attention this semester and Dr. Rackham and Dr. Burchard were unaware of any actionable items coming forth from SGA. Dr. Burchard received paperwork from SGA but thought it was for informational purposes. Dr. Padilla suggested gathering data over the summer to determine how many faculty are using the new grading system and how many sections are using it. Dr. Dee James suggested that the Executive Committee meet with the students and suggest a process for submitting documents. Data can be gathered over the summer and the appropriate body can review the documents next fall. Dr. Burchard will discuss this with the Executive Committee.
VI. Academic Policies Committee Report
Dr. Melissa Burchard gave the Academic Policies Committee Report.
APC 61: Proposal for a Revised General Education Architecture
Dr. Burchard thanked Dr. Katz and the General Education Review Task Force (GERTF) for their work on the proposal, their responsiveness to APC's suggestions and requests, and their collaboration with APC. To each of APC's requests, GERTF responded speedily and with grace.
APC 61 has three parts:
an introductory statement from APC,
a set of stipulations and questions to be addressed by GERTF,
and the proposed architecture (including a rationale and impact statement).
The stipulations and questions were added to the proposal because APC's own review of general education two years ago showed that there were many areas that were particularly important for the well-being of general education. Responses to the stipulations and questions will give APC criteria for evaluation of the documents. APC wanted to include those concerns at the beginning of the process of formulating documents.
One concern APC has about the proposal that is perhaps not clearly articulated in the stipulations is the importance of faculty oversight at UNCA. This is our tradition, and faculty's role in the oversight of the general education process has to be stipulated. For example, what decisions will be made by faculty and faculty groups as opposed to an administrator?
Dr. Burchard will email the proposal to faculty/staff tomorrow. A Special Faculty Senate meeting will be held on April 24, 2003, at 3:15pm in Karpen Hall 005 to discuss and vote on the proposal. Dr. Burchard encouraged faculty to read the document, give it their consideration, and let senators know their thinking on the proposal.
Dr. Katz thanked APC for all of its help, especially since it came at a particularly busy time in their schedule. He also thanked APC for its help in refining and working through the stipulations, which were very helpful for the task force in plotting out the next six months of work, should this be approved.
VII. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report
Mr. Jim Kuhlman reported for the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council (IDC/UPC).
UPC's March 27, 2003 meeting
1) UPC recognized that there would not be adequate time before the end of the semester for UPC to review: the recommendations of the indicators subcommittee, allow the campus respond to those recommendations, approve the recommended changes, secure approval from the Chancellor, AND have the Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) prepare its executive report on how the campus is doing. It was agreed to postpone IEC's report to the fall semester and to proceed with work on the indicators.
2) Steve Patch, chair of the indicators subcommittee, walked UPC through recommended changes, deletions, and additions to the indicators for the seven University goals. In general, the changes reflected efforts to reduce the quantity while increasing the quality of indicators. The recommendations will be made available to the campus community for feedback. UPC will consider them at either its 4/17 or 4/24 meeting.
3) It was agreed to proceed with reporting data on minority enrollment and employment without stating criteria for success, but with a statement that criteria would be developed next academic year. This
will allow UPC, perhaps working with the Shape of the River reading groups, to sponsor campus discussions on what those criteria should be and allow time for the Supreme Court to decide the Michigan case.
4) There was an inquiry into the status of contracting with an external consultant to facilitate the development of the campus' new master plan. Mark Padilla indicated that there was no contract as yet. Jim Kuhlman was asked to inquire further.
UPC's April 3, 2003 meeting
1) Mark Padilla reported on the results of the Office of the President study of the feasibility of engineering at UNCA.
NC does NOT have a need for additional engineering programs.
Creating a program in an area without an engineering school does not lead to jobs coming to the area.
One area where NC does fall short is in Masters level training for engineering.
The greatest need in NC is for computer science/software engineering graduates.
No schools or colleges of engineering at UNCA, WCU, or ECU.
UNCA not develop independent, freestanding engineering programs.
UNCA continue to work with NC State in offering Mechatronics.
UNCA and NCSU consider development of a computer-engineering program following the Mechatronics model.
Office of the President implement a policy whereby students completing programs like Mechatronics receive dual degrees (e.g., from UNCA and NCSU).
Office of the President study other administrative and accounting policies that are barriers to joint degree offerings.
Office of the President consider additional funding to both UNCA and NCSU to support expansion of these programs.
2) UPC discussed the earlier presentation by John Stevens concerning PARI and NEMAC with special emphasis as to what UPC's role should be in the development of campus centers. This led to agreement that UPC should review the recently submitted request to plan document related to NEMAC in order to make recommendations to the Faculty Senate and the administration. UPC currently has one recent planning document and is attempting to identify the request to plan.
In further discussion it was the sense of UPC that it and the Senate should be systematically involved in planning for centers and preparing the request-to-plan centers in a process closely paralleling current procedures for creating new academic programs. This should be considered and incorporated into next year's revision of the Senate constitution.
3) Mark Sidelnick reported on Education's plans for a new Birth-Kindergarten Teacher Licensure Program at UNCA. This program is being mandated by the Federal Government and the state under the umbrella of "Leave No Child Behind." It is currently in an early stage of development. Some classes may be taught next year as special topics in order to accommodate Birth-Kindergarten caregivers' need for licensure. At least one additional faculty position will be requested via Academic Affairs' normal faculty slot allocation process and program/catalog changes will proceed through APC and the Senate.
VIII. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr. Mary Lynn Manns gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee (FWDC) Report.
- Election results
Assistant Professor: Melissa Burchard
Associate Professor: Jim Kuhlman
Professor: Pamela Nickless
Humanities: Virginia Derryberry
Natural Sciences: Irene Rossell
Social Sciences: Bill Sabo
Academic Appeals Board
Alternate: Anita White-Carter
UNC Faculty Assembly
Alternate: Gwen Ashburn
Senate Elections to Standing Committees
Dr. Manns distributed the following nominees to Standing Committees. In accordance with SD0889F, the 2003-04 Faculty Senate will vote on these Standing Committees at its first meeting:
Distinguished Scholars Committee [10.3.1] (SD5500S) Election for term 2003-2005
Minority Affairs Commission [10.3.2] (SD5000S) Election for term 2003-2005
- Heon Lee
List for Alternate Faculty Conciliator [10.3.3] (SD2695S) SGA chooses the Alternate at the end of each academic year from a list of Tenured faculty nominated by the Faculty Senate. After one year the Alternate becomes the Conciliator. [2003-04 Faculty Conciliator -- Marcia Ghidina]
4 Senate Alternate Faculty Conciliator nominees
University Research Council [10.3.5] (SD0981) Election for term 2003-2005
University Teaching Council [10.3.6] (SD1588S) Election for term 2003-2005
University Service Council [10.3.7] (SD0700F) Election for term 2003-2005
Graduate Council - MLA [10.4.22] (SD3090S) Election for term 2003-2005
University Foundation Board [10.6.1] Election for term 2003-2005
University Relations Faculty Advisory [10.6.2] (SD0790F) Election for term 2003-2005
Intellectual Property [9.4] (SD3402S) Election for term 2003-2006
Dr. Manns explained the process for petitioning to become a standing committee (SD0694F). The requests have been reviewed by Dr. Padilla and he is bringing FWDC 2 and 4 to the Senate for consultation.
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 10: Proposal to establish the Library and Media Services Advisory Com. as a Standing Committee.
FWDC 11: Proposal to modify the purpose and membership of University Teaching Council (UTC)
(Replaces SD1588S and SD3190S).
FWDC 12: Proposal to delete the Center for Teaching and Learning Advisory Committee.
FWDC 13: Proposal to establish the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee as a Standing Committee.
FWDC 14: Proposal to establish the Recreation Committee as a Standing Committee.
FWDC 15: Proposal to establish the Pre-Health Professions Advisory Committee as a Standing Committee.
FWDC 16: Proposal to Revise the Africana Studies Advisory Council (SD1794S).
FWDC 17: Proposal to establish the Honors Program Advisory Committee as a Standing Committee.
FWDC 18: Proposal to establish the Radiation Safety Committee as a Standing Committee.
FWDC 19: Proposal to establish the Sexual Harassment Advisory Committee as a Standing Committee.
FWDC 20: Proposal to Revise the Women's Studies Advisory Committee (SD1991S).
FWDC 21: Proposal to establish the Teaching Fellows Advisory Council as a Standing Committee.
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
Dr. Alm addressed an inconsistency in how committee chairs are appointed -- some proposals specify who is to be the chair or how the chair is chosen, while others do not. Dr. Manns stated that unless the chair selection is stipulated, the chair is elected at the first meeting. To correct the inconsistency, Dr. Rossell suggested adding to the Faculty Handbook: "Unless otherwise stated, the chair will be elected by the voting members at the first meeting."
FWDC 1: Proposal to establish the International Programs Advisory Committee as a Standing Committee.
FWDC 1 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 6803S.
Dr. Padilla thought it was more appropriate for this committee to be a part of Public Safety or Student Affairs rather than a faculty committee but wanted the Senate's advice. The Senate agreed with Dr. Padilla and asked Dr. Manns to return the proposal to Dr. Iovacchini.
Dr. Rossell asked what animals are protected by this committee. Dr. Whatley explained that the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act covers both research and teaching and it addresses what is covered and what is not covered. For example, amphibians and insects are not covered. The records are kept by Sponsored Scholarship and Programs.
Friendly amendments were made for clarity: add: "Live animals as directed by relevant legislation, i.e. Public Law 99-158 and Public Law 99-298, and the 1985 Health Research Extension Act." Under "Duties" add" "The Chair should send out a yearly reminder about the appropriate use of animals." Dr. Manns will clarify what sort of scientist is needed for committee membership. Dr. Konz moved to table FWDC 3. Dr. Charles James seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
FWDC 4: Proposal to establish the Energy and Safety Committee as a Standing Committee.
The Senate questioned whether this should be a faculty committee as it makes recommendations to the Director of Facilities Management and reports to the Vice Chancellor for Financial Affairs. It was determined that a faculty committee should either report to the VCAA or have a compelling argument for being a faculty committee. Having heard no compelling argument, FWDC 4 died for lack of a motion to approve.
FWDC 5: Proposal to establish the Undergrad. Research Programs Advisory Com. as a Standing Committee.
FWDC 5 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 6903S.
FWDC 6: Proposal to establish the Cultural and Special Events Committee as a Standing Committee.
An editorial change was made. FWDC 6 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 7003S.
FWDC 7: Recommendation to Consider Academic Spouses/Partners in the Appointment of Faculty.
During the discussion, the word "stellar" was deleted in a friendly amendment.
The Senate discussed the need for the VCAA to have flexibility in the recruitment and retention of faculty accompanied by an academic spouse/partner, yet acknowledged that this can be controversial as there is a finite salary pool and a finite number of faculty positions.
The following points were raised:
The VCAA has the prerogative to make available job-share/split position options where each spouse/partner is appointed to a 3/4 FTE position and would have benefits.
A 3/4 position counts as a person and it precludes the department from using that slot for their instructional resources.
This may or may not be creating jobs -- it depends upon whether the partner is applying for an existing job as well.
The VCAA has the prerogative to appoint appropriately qualified spouses/partners without a search, using the "opportunity hire" mechanism. However the department receiving the spouse/partner normally has to accept that person.
This is an investment by the entire university in one person that we are hiring and trying to keep, and it can limit another department from growing in the way they want to. Some universities have decided to do it for the sake of a stable faculty. Other schools say no - they have a specific vision and they know where they want to go and do not want to take the chance of having a person they do not want.
In terms of personality, this can work better if people are in different departments. But in terms of procedure, it usually works better if the people are in the same department.
One impact can be diversification of one department while hurting the diversification of another department.
There have been instances of 3/4 time faculty being severely exploited by their department. In other instances, 3/4 time faculty have more time to work on scholarship and faculty may be resentful.
Dr. Nickless stated that this document asks the VCAA to take an active role in looking after community interests and not just let the departments decide on the basis of departmental autonomy. Dr. Padilla noted that these will not succeed very often and he did not see split 3/4 positions as being feasible in the state system. Also, the tenure review process has to be blind to the spousal/partner relationships. Dr. Padilla favored the proposal -- it does not force us to do anything but it makes us realize institutionally that we are aware of the trailing spouse/partner problem.
Mr. Bramlett went on record as saying that while this might seem very progressive, it is a totally unacceptable substitute for actual partner benefits. FWDC 7 passed as amended by a vote of 12 to 0 with one abstention and became Senate Document 7103S.
III. Administrative Report
Dr. Mark Padilla gave the Administrative Report
According to the latest admission figures (in comparison to last year at this time):
on track to have the largest incoming Freshman class in history with 500 Freshmen
Applications 2,483 compared to 1,979 (25% increase)
deposits -- 341 new Freshman deposits compared to 252 (35% increase).
transfer students -- 66 versus 64
deposits received -- 407 versus 316 (28% increase)
Freshman African Americans:
Applications -- 92 compared to 52
Acceptances -- 33 compared to 12
Minority deposits received:
4 other minorities (from self-reporting data - typically bi-racial students)
The Senate discussed the enrollment budget, retention, and the need to staff more lower-level classes.
Organization of AVC-4 Position
Dr. Padilla reviewed the Academic Affairs organizational chart which -- barring unforeseen needs to revamp -- we will begin the 2003-04 academic year. The new structure offers improvements of organizational clarity and will focus administrative resources where they are currently most needed.
The structure is now organized with four Associate VCAAs and one Assistant VCAA. The four program areas are: humanities, natural sciences, social sciences, and "University Programs."
The Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs for University Programs (AVCU) would work with the VCAA and would chair a new Integrated Liberal Studies Task Force. The ILS would work somewhat autonomously from APC but the ILS chair would be an ex officio member of APC and would report to APC. Areas under the AVCU include: Directors of Integrative Liberal Studies Programs; Honors; Undergraduate Research; External funding for ILS; Teaching Fellows; Interdisciplinary Studies; and Ethics and Social Institutions (ESI). The job description will be forthcoming.
The fifth area under the rubric of "academic support" will be overseen by an Assistant VCAA for Academic Support who will serve on a 12-month contract as a non-faculty EPA employee. Areas under academic support include: Writing Center; Center for Teaching and Learning; Key Center; Center for Career Development; First Year Experience; Advising and Retention; Study Abroad and Study Away; and Summer School. The duties of an existing administrator will be expanded to fill this position.
The five AVCs, in their administrative roles, will be funded in 2003-04 through roughly 90% administrative funding and 10% instructional salary funding. Dr. Padilla continues to work on funding the administrative roles 100% from administrative funding.
IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New Business
Dr. Burchard distributed the agenda for the April 24, 2003, Special Faculty Senate meeting to discuss and vote on APC 61: Proposal for a Revised General Education Architecture.
Dr. Burchard encouraged senators to think about who they want to serve on the Executive Committee next year.
Dr. Burchard adjourned the meeting at 5:58 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
Mary Lynn Manns