University of North Carolina at Asheville
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, May 8, 2003
Excused: I. Rossell.
Visitors: T. Brown, D. Davis, B. Holmes, D. Lisnerski, P. McClellan, S. Mills, P. Nickless, D. Pierce, M. Ruiz, A. Shope, E. Snyder Hook, R. Tynes, K. Whatley.
Dr. Rackham called the meeting to order at 3:20 pm and welcomed senators and guests.
II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of April 17, 2003, were approved with an editorial correction.
The order of business was modified.
IV. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Rackham gave the Executive Committee Report.
Faculty Salary Report
Dr. Duane Davis distributed the annual report on "Faculty Salaries at UNCA." The complete report is available at: www.unca.edu/ir/report.
Data from student surveys in 2000 and 2002 indicate that our faculty are consistently rated at or near the top in every category. Our students are among the best in the system -- Fall 2002, our new freshman SAT score was the third highest in the system (1160 average).
Over the last nine years, salaries of full professors increased slightly while salaries of associate professors decreased slightly. Dr. Davis noted that the minimum UNCA salary for full professor is $48,378 while the maximum assistant professor salary is $61,138.
Data on faculty salary by gender and rank follow:
* assistant professor, 29 females to 21 males; the average female salary is slightly higher.
* associate professor, 21 females to 27 males; the average male salary is slightly higher.
* full professor, 6 females to 45 males; the average male salary is about $2000 higher. These issues are relevant when we consider equity issues.
UNCA faculty salaries compared to our peers are similar to what was reported last year -- only worse. Data from AAUP Statistics (2002-03) show that average UNCA faculty salaries are lower than those at most of our peer institutions. UNCA salaries are next to last for assistant professor, last in associate professor, and third from last in the full professor category. The disparity is not even close. In addition, our cost of living compared to our peer group (from those of whom we received data) is higher -- Asheville has the third highest cost of living compared to our peers.
UNCA faculty salaries compared to other UNC schools:
* UNCA assistant and associate professor salaries are at the bottom
* full professor salaries are near the bottom
* census data show that the cost of living in Asheville is higher than many metropolitan areas with public universities
* GA budgeted average salary per faculty FTE is at the bottom for all UNC schools with rank.
Dr. Davis noted there is a different funding model for different kinds of institutions. The cost of living comparison within the UNC system ranks Asheville as the third highest cost of living.
* The average budgeted teaching salary based on GA funding model and targeted tuition increases show UNCA was next to last because our campus-based tuition increases were not used for faculty salary increases.
Last year the Faculty Senate passed a resolution:
* that the FWDC continue to give annual reports on faculty salary;
* that the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor of Administration and Finances, and VCAA in consultation with the Office of the President develop a plan during the Academic Year 2002-2003 to fund us fully as a Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Institution;
* that future local tuition increases include a portion for faculty salaries; and
* that efforts continue to be made to move those with administrative duties from faculty salary lines.
Dr. Davis reminded senators that tuition increases have been frozen. However efforts have been made to move administrative duties from faculty salary lines.
III. Administrative Report
Dr. Mark Padilla gave the Administrative Report.
According to the latest admission figures, we will have the largest incoming Freshman class in history with roughly 600 students. The campus must prepare for the imbalance in schedules next year. We will continue to offer courses required for students to graduate next year while also shifting instructional resources to the freshman classes where they are most needed.
The mean SAT score of deposits is down 10 points (1166 mean SAT vs 1176).
Dr. Padilla has been told there will be room for the influx of students.
Although $600,000 was allocated for adjuncts last year, less money is available this year as a number of tenure track positions from searches were approved prior to Dr. Padilla's arrival (these were normal return positions) and extra slots were filled with lecturer positions. New faculty will add 56 new sections next year. Funding is available to hire adjuncts this fall but class enrollments may increase slightly next spring.
Minority deposits received as of May 2 compared to last year:
Blacks (12 vs 4)
Indians (4 vs 2)
Asians (11 vs 8)
Hispanics (14 vs 10)
other minorities (from self-reporting data - typically bi-racial students) (7 vs 7)
unknown (4 vs 4)
Dr. Padilla believed all scholarships have been awarded although there could be some narrowly defined scholarships that we have been unable to match.
Total headcount enrollment is about 800 and next year's budget enrollment is 2900 FTE. Dr. Tynes expressed concern that there be faculty in place so classes are not overloaded. Dr. Padilla commented that there is a slowdown in retirement across the country because the stock market dropped; consequently more salary is tied up at the upper end, preventing schools from hiring at the lower end.
Dr. Alm referred to the earlier Faculty Salary Report and asked for an update on the Senate resolution: "That the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor for Administration and Finances, and VCAA in consultation with the Office of the President develop a plan during the Academic Year 2002-2003 to fund us fully as a Baccalaureate Liberal Arts Institution." Dr. Padilla replied that the Chancellor recognizes we have a serious problem and it is a priority. Other schools increased faculty salaries with campus-based tuition increases and UNCA decided not to use campus-based tuition for salaries. Our higher admission numbers pose us for another increase. President Broad has placed a freeze on the campus-based tuition processes, but Dr. Padilla believes we should move in this direction when feasible. His highest priority is to increase the salaries of assistant professors as well as associates. He noted that this was not his decision to make and that there will be a lot of campus involvement in the decision to use a campus-based tuition increase for faculty salaries.
Dr. Burchard asked if the tuition equity money would be put toward faculty salaries. Dr. Padilla replied that the state allocated the funds but has delayed releasing them for a year. Dr. Charles James commented that this occurs repeatedly. Dr. Padilla noted that Mr. Steve Honeycutt is aggressively arguing our case (to the legislature, the budget offices and the office of the president) that the reversion request is beyond our capacity. The university is an important solution to our ailing economy and can be a means by which the economy can recover.
On behalf of the Senate, Dr. Rackham expressed appreciation to Dr. Padilla for his first year of work, for working with the Senate so successfully, and for working on faculty concerns, including the reorganization of the administration. He thanked Dr. Padilla for consulting with the Senate and for his candor and honestly.
Senate returned to Executive Committee Report.
Review of 2 Year Tuition-Increase Expenditures, Continued
Dr. Rackham summarized the Executive Committee's inquiry into the tuition-increase expenditures. The Executive Committee expressed their concerns to the chancellor and vice chancellors this week and listened to observations and historical data from the various chancellors involved -- perhaps Wayne McDevitt most importantly. The Executive Committee asked two specific questions that have come up repeatedly. There seems to have been confusion because most faculty thought that the original tuition increase would go for some specific funding items. The other issue was the fact that the faculty salary increase was not included in the specific funding items.
According to the chancellor and the various vice chancellors, the original intent of the tuition increase proposal was presented to various groups, including the then Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate. That Executive Committee recommended to Chancellor Mullen that salary increases not be included in the first round of tuition increases -- that it be used for across-the-board improvement in programming of various kinds. The chancellor also talked to other groups, including students and other faculty and vice chancellors, and his final decision was to go with that recommendation. In the beginning, the purpose of this tuition increase proposal would be to move the university -- not in terms of salaries but in terms of programming -- to a higher level. Dr. Rackham quoted from a January 5, 2001, letter that Chancellor Mullen wrote to the Board of Trustees, where he discussed his rationale for a tuition increase.
First, the reality is that we have been consistently under funded relative to our peers. Without a substantive increase, I fear that we will be severely constrained in our capacity to create new and important academic opportunities for our students....Fourth, with a tuition increase of the level I am proposing, we will be in a position behind Chapel Hill and NC State, and approximately equal to the School of the Arts. Given our special mission, I would argue that is where we belong. ....Sixth, none of this new revenue would go to increase faculty or staff salaries. This money goes to allow us to fully achieve the mission set out for us. I believe strongly that we are on solid ground.
It was Dr. Rackham's understanding that the problem occurred when -- in that same year -- the state requested a reversion of approximately $1,000,000 out of the budget that this expansion was going to increase. So, in fact, the money from the tuition increase only substituted for some of the $1,000,000 that was taken away by the state from the original budget. The intent was to expand the budget, but it instead shrunk. Without using the tuition increase as a replacement for funding, the cuts in the university would have been significantly more serious.
The original proposal to the BOT was in January 2001 and the cuts were likely announced spring 2002. The tuition increase did not match what we had expected. It may have been a failure of communication that the Chancellor or the Vice Chancellor did not communicate that there had to be a change in the way that the money was used. It would have perhaps solved some of the concerns that we have all seen expressed recently had that happened.
Dr. Rackham recommended that the 2003-04 Faculty Senate use the Senate Constitution revision process to include in the revision a more formal organized way in which representatives of the Faculty Senate work with the Vice Chancellor of Finance (and other appropriate areas) so there is significantly more input from the faculty about budget matters, as well as significantly more understanding of the process. A special portion of the FWDC or a separate Senate committee could be assigned to work with finances to ensure that the faculty understands how the budget is being constructed, how it is being distributed, who is making the decisions, and whether the faculty is having input into the decisions. These kinds of things need to be built into the revision of the constitution to have a formal mechanism so we do not have to go through the problem of an emotional upset occurring when we have not been, in fact, participating in the process and do not know what is going on.
Dr. Tynes asked if they discussed the budget for the next year of tuition increase (2002-03) and where the funding was distributed in that year. Dr. Rackham replied not specifically, except insofar as they were told that the state is asking for more reversion of funds -- to the point that we perhaps could not continue to operate at all if we reverted everything that the state is requiring that we give back.
Dr. Tynes referred to Steve Honeycutt's latest handout "Campus Initiated Tuition Increase" and noted that the VCAA received $176,067. Referring to the letter that Chancellor Mullen wrote to the BOT, the chancellor seemed to imply that money would not be used for faculty and staff salaries -- he states it directly. His question had to do with clarification of the $176,067 -- does that not go against his intention in that letter? Dr. Padilla replied that one of the purposes of the campus-based tuition increase was to start paying faculty who were performing administrative duties out of administrative budgets to relieve the faculty budget lines. We were adding administrators and paying for those roles out of the faculty salaries. The money was going to be added in the VCAA budget to pay for those administrative functions out of administrative lines. That is putting money back into the faculty salary pool. Portions of the salaries for the new AVC positions were identified for conversion from the faculty pool to the administrative pool in the amount of $176,067. Additionally, the salaries of the math lab director and the director of management internships were also converted from faculty to administrative budgeting pools.
Dr. Tynes noted that in the letter Chancellor Mullen said that the money would not be used for faculty or staff salary increases. Dr. Padilla clarified that it did not raise or lower salaries -- it increased the pool of money that was available for faculty salaries. Dr. Tynes stated that it depends on how you interpret it. Dr. Padilla replied that this was a goal of the campus-based tuition increase and it was accomplished -- all the money that was set aside for administrative roles went back into the faculty salary pool.
Dr. Tynes referred to the handout under "operating funds academic support" where the art gallery along with teaching fellows, writing center, math lab, faculty committees, and others were listed. As the director of the University Gallery on campus, he noted that the art gallery budget is very meager and it probably received less than $3,000 of the $63,649 allocated. Dr. Padilla agreed, stating it was probably closer to $2,000.
Dr. Charles James asked for clarification. According to Dr. Davis's report on Faculty Salaries, the other campuses used their tuition increase for salaries from the beginning. UNCA and one other school did not do this the first year and then the freeze occurred. The money we raised is still going mostly back to the state in reversions. Our tuition increase is still helping to pay our budget back to the state. Dr. Padilla stated that we have "x" amount of money at the beginning of the year. There is no special "lock box" for the campus based tuition increase money. When the state wants money back, it is all discretionary money from their perspective. When we have budget cuts, do we buy equipment on the preference list or do we lay people off? We chose to delay buying the equipment this year. It is still our goal, but it was not as desirable as our staff and faculty.
Dr. Burchard asked for clarification. The figures on the handout indicate how the tuition increase was budgeted but because we had to revert money, the money was not necessarily spent in the ways listed here. Dr. Padilla stated that is most likely true. The money was budgeted in these lines and it was spent in these lines, except the portion that we had to give back in reversions. In order to manage reversions, we keep money in reserve. We had two layers of reserves this year -- the budget officer had one and Dr. Padilla had another one in Academic Affairs. The reversions have eaten through both reserves and we now have another reversion that we are not prepared for.
Dr. Rackham stated that to a great extent it is the Chancellor's perception that had we not, almost by accident, timed the tuition increase to occur when it did, we would have been in truly serious financial problems. Unfortunately in most cases it did not go for what was intended. It merely replaced what the state was taking back -- and not in its entirety. Chancellor Mullen is fully conscious of the pressure on him to increase salaries. If we had a Finance Committee through the constitutional structure of the Faculty Senate (or a portion of a committee that served as a Finance Committee) that would work directly with the chancellor and vice chancellors on finance issues, we might at least stay better informed and might provide our views more directly to the academic officers.
Faculty Assembly Report
Dr. Don Lisnerski highlighted recent Faculty Assembly issues and noted these are subject to change by the Legislature.
Salary Increase -- unless specifically directed by the Legislature, faculty increases will be based on merit. Present indications are that increases will be around 1.6%.
Increased Funding -- $500,000 be provided to UNCA for its unique mission and small size to be able to continue its mission.
New Legislation -- went into effect January 1, 2003. Allows 403(b), 457 and in some instances 401-k funds to be used to purchase creditable State service if under the State Retirement Plan. Visit www.treasurer.state.nc.us left side link to "Retirement Systems" and another left side link to "Applications and Forms" to see various service possibilities.
State Health Plan -- House accepted Governor's revenue sources to support part of the projected deficit. Still have a projected shortfall of about $150 mil. Possible ways of making up the deficit include: increased premiums, increased deductible, increased out-of-pocket maximum, increased prescription co-pay, reduced coverage from 80% to 70%, etc.
Legislation -- various bills have been introduced that would affect the retirement system, State Health Plan, Optional Retirement Plan, etc.
401-K -- carrier change effective 9/30/03. Will change from BB&T to Prudential.
Resolution -- to waive current one-year residency requirement for spouses and dependents of all eligible state employees.
Resolution -- concerning Administrative growth. Calls for the establishment of a Task Force to review the increase in administrative positions on campuses over the last 10 years.
Resolution -- to create a "Teaching and Technology Policy" covering faculty and student rights, responsibilities and ownership with regards to development of intellectual property.
Resolution -- to require all campuses to recognize the importance of "SERVICE" for all faculty in matters of promotion, tenure and post-tenure review.
Potential New Student Increases -- The UNC consultant stated that he made an erroneous assumption in determining the increase in the number of new students that would enter the system within the next 10 years. The correction may result in up to 2,000 more students than originally estimated. It was stated that schools who did not wish to grow might have to accept additional students for a period of time until this growth spurt diminishes.
Continuation Budget Increase -- House has reduced this category by over $20 mil. These funds are generally used to fund the opening of new facilities. If this reduction remains, it may be possible that some new facilities built with bond money might not be able to operate.
UNC/NCCCS Task Force -- Articulation agreement with Community Colleges and UNC reviewed. Recommendations call for an increased cooperation between the two organizations. Some recommendations include:
- Expand 2+2 programs to include Teacher Education.
- E-teaching on-line degree programs (Business Administration).
- Establishment of articulation agreements to cover transfer students with AAS degrees in specific areas.
- Increased working relationships in the Nursing Education program.
- Articulation agreements to be reviewed annually.
Dr. Burchard expressed concern over the disturbing trend in the Legislature to attempt to fix budget problems by taking benefits away from state employees. She asked if there was anything this body could do that could be taken back saying this is a terrible way to adjust budgets. Dr. Lisnerski stated that the Faculty Assembly passed a Resolution and asked a member of the Oversight Committee to meet with them to no avail.
Recommended names for Senate Constitution Revision Task Force (SCRTF)
The Faculty Senate approved a slate of nominees recommended by the Executive Committee to serve on the Senate Constitution Revision Task Force. The 2003-04 Senate will elect the Chair of the Task Force who will report to the Senate.
Mary Anna LaFratta
Update on University Relations Annual Report (SD3290S)
Dr. Rackham summarized the section of Senate Document 3290S that required the Vice Chancellor for University Relations to report its activities and plans to the Faculty Senate each fall. The proposal came from UPC in 1990, in an effort to define the relationship between the office of University Relations and the faculty, and to promote better communication and coordination between the UNCA Foundation, the faculty, and the University Planning Council.
University Relations has been undergoing change and the interim Vice Chancellor asked that the report be delayed this year. It seems odd that the Senate would request a report from only one Vice Chancellor. The Senate receives monthly reports from the Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs.
The 2001-02 Faculty Senate opted for informal reports by inviting each Vice Chancellor to participate in a campus wide "Tea with the VC". Every Vice Chancellor, with the exception of University Relations, participated in a tea.
Dr. Rackham suggested that the 2003-04 Faculty Senate consider how to proceed -- whether to adhere to SD3290S where only the VC for University Relations was asked to report to the Senate -- or whether all Vice Chancellors be asked to report to the Senate.
There was no Student Government Association Report.
VI. Academic Policies Committee Report
Dr. Melissa Burchard gave the Academic Policies Committee Report.
Dr. Burchard reported that APC was unable to address a number of agenda items because of the general education revisions this year. These items will be forwarded to the 2003-04 APC.
APC is working on the long-term goal of trying to help with the University's mission to improve diversity -- particularly in the curriculum -- by looking at mission statements from departments and programs. Dr. Wood and Dr. Burchard will be reviewing the mission statements over the summer with Dr. Dwight Mullen. In terms of other long-range goals, APC has done some work on consistency issues and guidelines for APC that will be forwarded to the next Senate.
Dr. Booker has agreed to serve as the liaison with the General Education Review Task Force in its continuing work. One of APC's major tasks next year will be to continue working with GERTF in the revision of general education.
Dr. Burchard thanked APC members for their diligent work this year.
VII. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report
Mr. Jim Kuhlman reported for the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council (IDC/UPC).
Mr. Kuhlman stated that at the last regular Senate meeting, he reported that UPC had recognized that there would not be adequate time for UPC to review the recommendations of the indicators subcommittee, let the campus respond to those recommendations, approve recommended changes, secure approval from the Chancellor, and have IEC prepare its executive report on how the campus is doing by the end of the semester. UPC then agreed to postpone IEC's report to the fall semester and to proceed with work on the indicators. Unfortunately, when an unexpected snow induced postponement of one Senate meeting and then the special Senate meeting to consider the proposed APC architecture preempted another meeting opportunity, UPC was unable to meet for final consideration of recommended revisions to indicators of success for UNCA goals. Accordingly, this important task will also be deferred until fall.
UPC's May 1, 2003 meeting
Chancellor Mullen joined UPC at its meeting of 1 May to discuss the concept of the "inter-generational campus". Chancellor Mullen noted a variety of long-standing campus programs and initiatives (e.g., Center for Creative Retirement, summer computer literacy programs for youth, Super Saturday) reflecting the fact that UNCA has been and continues to be an active, successful multi-generational learning community. To enhance these successes, however, it is necessary to conceptualize them as a package in order for all of our students, staff, and faculty to reap the full benefit available as well as to maximize the benefit to our larger community. After discussion and a variety of specific suggestions, it was agreed that UPC's most effective contribution will be to further the campus infrastructure ensuring continued mindfulness of the multi-generational effort. To this end it was suggested that next year's UPC consider a way to more explicitly reflect the inter-generational campus among UNCA's goals and to develop indicators to monitor progress.
John Stevens joined the meeting for a discussion of UPC's role in the development of Centers at UNCA. Dr. Stevens pointed out that at no institution in the UNC system did the Faculty Senate or other faculty governing body, such as IDC/UPC, have a role in either endorsing or recommending against the creation of Centers. He further emphasized that in his role as Chief Research Officer at UNCA he welcomed dialog exploring the strengths and weaknesses of proposed Centers as well as their relationship to the institution's mission. He did not feel, however, that this should involve a procedure similar to the review of new academic degree programs during which UPC and/or the Senate officially expressed either a favorable or unfavorable recommendation on proceeding. Following considerable discussion there was no motion or definitive statement as to whether the Committee should have a formal, procedural role with respect to the development of Centers.
Discussion also addressed the specific proposal for the creation of the National Environmental Modeling and Analysis Center (NEMAC) at UNCA. Several comments acknowledged the exciting potential for creation and exploitation of intellectual capital and the potential for job creation in the community from the Center and its ensuing partnerships. Concern, however, was also expressed over current plans to house the Center, if it materializes, in space in Rhoades/Robinson to be vacated by the WCU nursing program. While NEMAC would not displace any UNCA faculty and could create its own space in the future, the Center would initially occupy much desired space. At least two members urged the University to seek other accommodations for NEMAC.
Mr. Kuhlman thanked members of UPC/IDC for their work this year.
VIII. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr. Mary Lynn Manns gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee (FWDC) Report.
Dr. Manns thanked Mark Walter and Mary Culbertson in the Computer Center, and Ken Wilson in Institutional Research, for their work in making the faculty elections a success this year.
Student Rating of Instruction Evaluation Task Force
FWDC has discussed the need to establish a Student Rating of Instruction Evaluation Task Force to revamp the process next year.
Slate of nominees for Alternate Faculty Conciliator
The Senate approved the following slate of nominees for Alternate Faculty Conciliator. The SGA will choose the Alternate Faculty Conciliator from the slate of tenured faculty. After one year the Alternate becomes the Conciliator. The 2003-04 Faculty Conciliator is Marcia Ghidina.
The following documents were distributed for Second Reading:
FWDC 3: Proposal to establish the Animal Care and Use Committee as a new Standing
Committee (formerly the Animal Care Committee)
FWDC 3 was returned from the table. The Senate amended the membership of the committee. FWDC 3 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 7303S.
The Senate amended the committee membership. FWDC 10 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 7403S.
FWDC 11 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 7503S.
FWDC 12 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 7603S.
The Senate amended the committee membership. FWDC 13 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 7703S.
FWDC 14: Proposal to establish the Recreation Committee as a Standing Committee.
Following several questions, FWDC 14 was tabled.
FWDC 15 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 7803S.
Following discussion, FWDC 16 was tabled.
FWDC 17: Proposal to establish the Honors Program Advisory Committee as a Standing Committee.
FWDC 17 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 7903S.
FWDC 18 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 8003S.
FWDC 19: Proposal to establish the Sexual Harassment Advisory Com. as a Standing Committee.
FWDC 19 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 8103S.
FWDC 20: Proposal to Revise the Women's Studies Advisory Committee (SD1991S).
FWDC 20 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 8203S.
An editorial correction was made to the document. FWDC 21 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 8303S.
IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New Business
Dr. Rackham thanked Executive Committee members Melissa Burchard, Jim Kuhlman, and Mary Lynn Manns for their exceptional work on the Senate this year.
Dr. Burchard presented Dr. Rackham with a gift from the Senate for his work as Faculty Senate Chair.
Dr. Charles James presented Dr. Burchard with a gift from APC for her significant work this year.
On behalf of UPC/IDC, Dr. Patch expressed appreciation to Jim Kuhlman for his work this year and especially his ability to find humor in a very trying year.
Dr. Manns and Dr. Charles James presented Ms. Gravely with gifts from the Senate and the APC in appreciation for her work this year.
Dr. Rackham adjourned the meeting at 5:45 pm. The 2003-2004 Faculty Senate met immediately after the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
Mary Lynn Manns