University of North Carolina at Asheville
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, October 17, 2002
Visitors: B. Cain, L. Friedenberg, D. Lisnerski, R. Matson, K. Moorhead, A. Shope, B. Spellman.
I. Call to Order
Dr. Jeff Rackham called the meeting to order at 3:20 pm and welcomed senators and guests.
There were no announcements.
III. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of September 12, 2002 were approved following editorial corrections.
Dr. Wood commented that a goal for next year is to increase the number of Freshmen. It would have been appropriate for the Senate to have also reaffirmed the goal of increasing minority enrollment. Dr. Rackham agreed and suggested that Dr. Wood offer a motion to this effect under Old Business.
IV. Administrative Report
Dr. Mark Padilla gave the Administrative Report.
Dr. Padilla reported that the Office of the President (OP) feels very fortunate to have only a 2.88% budget reduction for the university system. At one time the anticipated reductions were much higher. Although we were fortunate this year, the lack of an across-the-board increase is a cut when inflation is considered. Dr. Padilla will distribute individual department budgets when he receives a certified budget for Academic Affairs.
V. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Rackham gave the Executive Committee Report.
UNC Faculty Assembly Report
- Resolution in Support of Academic Freedom
Dr. Don Lisnerski distributed the Faculty Assembly's Resolution in support of academic freedom:
Whereas, it is the duty of university boards, administrators, and faculty to resist politicizing institutions of learning, and
Whereas, the considered professional judgment of scholars, not politicians or legislators, must determine academic content and curricula, and
Whereas, it is the responsibility of universities to prepare students to become effective citizens in a global society, and
Whereas, the university owes its students opportunities to go to the source of controversial ideas, and
Whereas, academic freedom becomes a necessity, not a luxury, in times of war even more than in times of peace, and
Whereas, the reputation of a university, as well as its accreditation, depends upon its ability to withstand legislative incursions into its domain; therefore
Be it resolved, that the Faculty Assembly of the University of North Carolina reaffirms the value of academic freedom and a society based on genuine understanding, and
Be it further resolved, that the Faculty Assembly of the University of North Carolina commends the University of North Carolina Board of Governors, President Broad, and all servants of the pubic good for their courageous defense of academic freedom in the face of economic and political pressures.
Dr. Lisnerski noted that additional cuts remain in the State budget, some of which may have to be absorbed by the universities. In addition, there is a general consensus that the revenue projections in the final budget are too optimistic. It is expected that the governor will ask for additional cuts later in the year and agencies are being advised to withhold funds in reserve.
The Faculty Assembly discussed the use of tuition increases to supplement faculty salaries. All but two schools have passed tuition increases to supplement faculty salaries. The money has been distributed in one of two ways. Some institutions use a marketing equity approach, which result in a few faculty receiving fairly large salary increases. However, concerns have been expressed by a number of individuals at these institutions that the highest paid individuals are getting the largest increases. Some institutions distribute the salary funds to their faculty on a merit basis, resulting in a larger number of faculty getting very small increases.
As a result, the BOG Committee of Tenure passed a Resolution to no longer use increases in tuition to cover faculty salary increases on a merit basis. It will only be used to supplement faculty salaries due to market equity circumstances. The guidelines outlining what is considered "market" and what is considered "equity" adjustments will come from Gretchen Bataille's office. There is some question as to whether this actually began at the BOG or was introduced by President Broad.
The relationship between administrators and faculty varies on campuses and the Resolution has pitted the faculty against administrators in some instances. Some campuses have an open, genial relationship between the faculty and administrators. Others tend to have more of an authoritarian dictatorial process. One is management, the other is labor, and they work toward different purposes. During this past year some administrators received salary increases, and the question was asked -- why is it when the faculty don't get salary increases, administrators still do?
Chairman Souza responded that the primary source of salary increases for faculty available this year, and in prior years, is from tuition. However, campuses have the flexibility to adjust salaries from funds available on vacant lines or from non-state sources. These funds are quite limited and are the only source of funds for non-faculty EPA adjustments. It was not the intent of the BOG that administrators' salary increases exceed faculty increases. The salary ranges were adopted several months ago and are based on current data. There is no question that many of the UNC administrators are paid well below the 80th percentile set by the BOG, just as faculty are. Limited funds available this year will preclude large adjustments for any group of employees. But administrators can use vacant lines or any savings of non-state funds for salary adjustments for themselves and, in fact, they can be used for faculty adjustments too. Some delegates have been very vocal on the BOG Resolution and very vocal against President Broad and Vice President Bataille for supporting it.
A number of campuses are also concerned with the increasing number of faculty being taken out of the classroom and made into quasi-administrators -- especially on campuses identified as "growth institutions." The response from Vice President Bataille was that this is a local campus issue; they are really not administrators, they are faculty who are given some administrative assignments. Based on comments made from the 6-7 growth institutions, this issue will not go away.
Dr. Burchard asked if we have campuses where the faculty are getting increases but staff are not getting increases. Dr. Lisnerski replied yes; UNC-Greensboro had a fundraiser where the faculty were contributing dollars to be allocated to the staff members.
Dr. Padilla highlighted information from the Office of the President on salary adjustments for 2002-03. There will be no cost of living or across the board salary increases. The lack of salary funds for salary increases based on salary merit does not diminish the need for regular and on-going evaluations. It is important however for employees to recognize that this year such evaluations will not be linked to salary increases. Salary increases that are given must be based on market equity or significantly increased responsibilities. The campuses must use an all-funds approach to salary increases, using funds from multiple sources, including grants and private gifts, and make position lines to address the most critical needs. Non-faculty EPA may not receive an average salary increase that exceeds the average percentage of salary increases provided faculty. Salary increases for administrators for whom salary ranges exist must not be increased above the 80th percentile of the range without receiving the prior concurrence of the President. In rare circumstances, non-faculty EPA funds may be used to provide increases in faculty salaries or vice versa.
Dr. Lisnerski anticipated more specific guidelines would be forthcoming. The BOG recently passed the Resolution; now the Resolution and general guidelines will go to General Administration, which will determine the actual process. Dr. Padilla read an email message from Vice President Bataille dated 10/16/02: "The expansion budget requests 6 percent each year of the next biennium for academic salary increases and will be among our highest priorities. We believe that the General Assembly must recognize the overall salary problems that exist on our campus. Only with substantial funds can we address the overall cost-of-living and merit requirements."
Dr. Lisnerski added that benefits are another concern. We are compared to major institutions and systems, and our benefit package is an issue in recruiting.
Dr. Lee asked if UNCA faculty are penalized within the UNC system due to our small enrollment. Dr. Lisnerski replied that the ranges are set based on the institutions' Carnegie classification. The Legislature now recognizes that UNCA is unique. The next step is to persuade the Legislature that our salary classification ranges need to be increased.
Dr. Rackham asked to hear the SGA report before proceeding with lengthy documents from the Executive Committee.
VI. Student Government Association Report
Student body Vice President Brian Cain gave the SGA Report. Sophomore Senator and NC Teaching Fellow Ms. Rhi Matson was also present.
The SGA senators unanimously approved three bills dealing with academic affairs:
1) Requested a repeal of the plus/minus grading system;
2) If the repeal cannot be made, they request that an "A+" grade be instituted, and
3) A lot of students were finding that there was a discrepancy in grading within different sections of the same class. For example, two students in HUM 214 both have a grade of 92; one could receive a 4.0 from an instructor not using the new grading system, while the other student could receive a 3.6 from an instructor using the new system. More details will be included when the bills are forwarded to the Faculty Senate.
SGA is working on an internship package to increase student participation on campus.
Dr. Rackham explained that documents brought before the Faculty Senate were presented for first and second readings.
Mr. Bramlett asked if there would be resistance if all faculty used the plus/minus grading scale. Mr. Cain explained that there were two sides to the issue. Some wanted the system repealed outright. Following debate, it became clear that students felt it was unfair to use different grading scales in the same course; there should be a uniform grading system within a department or a course.
Dr. Charles James noted that faculty can say there is a plus/minus grading system but still not give plus/minus grades. Mr. Cain stated that even if faculty do not give plus/minus grades, the opportunity is still there. He believes the hesitancy in using the system exists for students and faculty; hopefully this will change over time.
Dr. Burchard asked what number of students are represented in the bills and what canvassing had been done to determine the proportion of students resistant to the grading system. Mr. Cain replied that 18 student senators voted to repeal the grading system and to have consistency within a department or a course. The Banner has had articles on this, and students voice their opinions to senators. There is broad support for the bills.
Return to Executive Committee Report
First and Second Reading:
EC 1: Revision of UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations (revision of SD3502S)
EC 2: Tenure Task Force Revisions to Faculty Handbook (revision of SD3602S)
Dr. Rackham stated that UNCA was asked by the Office of the President to make revisions to the Tenure Policies and Regulations passed by the Senate last year (SD3502S). The Faculty Senate asked the Tenure Task Force (TTF) to reconvene to consider the request. The Senate must waive the Comer Rule to consider the documents today. The spirit of the Comer Rule has been followed, as senators received the documents several days ago. Dr. Alm made a motion to waive the Comer Rule. Dr. Konz seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Dr. Patch outlined the history of EC 1 and EC 2. Tom Cochran formed the Tenure Task Force (TTF) two years ago at the request of the Senate Executive Committee. The TTF was asked to study and revise the tenure and promotion policies. Later that year, the Faculty Senate passed a document that revised some of the procedural issues in the Faculty Handbook and made clarifications.
Last year the TTF made fairly substantial changes to both the Tenure Policies and Regulations documents and the Faculty Handbook. The most substantive changes made were to combine the review for tenure and promotion of assistant professors and to make the decision equivalent. The structure was changed slightly, and tenure was made effective immediately upon the decision the next fall rather than waiting a year. Less substantive changes were also made.
Last spring the Faculty Senate passed the Revision of UNCA Tenure Policies and Regulations (SD3502S) and the corresponding Revisions to the Faculty Handbook (SD3602S). Chancellor Mullen and the Board of Trustees approved the documents. However, Dr. Padilla was informed that the policies were not acceptable to the Office of the President and to Charles Waldrup, Associate Vice President for Legal Affairs at GA. The documents contained statements inconsistent with the NC policy and some areas needed further clarification. Dr. Padilla revised the documents, incorporating suggestions from the Office of the President as well as changes he thought were appropriate. Dr. Padilla requested that the TTF reconvene to study the documents and make further revisions.
Dr. Patch noted that TTF would have preferred more time to look at the documents, but they accomplished what they wanted to do. Revisions went to the faculty at large prior to fall break. They received comments, made further revisions, and distributed the documents to senators on Monday. The TTF is thankful that Gretchen Bataille returned the document because there were issues that needed further consideration and clarification.
Dr. Patch moved approval of EC 1. Mr. Kuhlman seconded the motion. The Senate went through the document page by page and made several friendly editorial amendments.
Dr. Konz moved to amend page 7, section 2b, to read: "If the department has fewer than three tenured faculty members, the Chair will consult with faculty members outside the department chosen in consultation with the candidate and approved by the VCAA. No fewer than three tenured faculty members shall participate . . . " Dr. Booker seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Following discussion of section F, Leave of Absence During Probationary Terms, the Senate requested that this section be covered during new faculty orientation.
Under section I, Provisions for Less Than Full-Time Employment, the last sentence as amended to read as follows: "Faculty members who drop to part-time employment due to maternity or primary-care duties for any part of the academic year are entitled to extend the probationary period by one year upon request to the VCAA." EC 1 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 0102F.
EC 2: Tenure Task Force Revisions to Faculty Handbook (revision of SD3602S)
Dr. Alm moved to accept EC 2. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kuhlman. The Senate agreed to discuss substantive issues first, given the late hour. Changes made to EC 1 that affect EC 2 will be made.
Discussion turned to section 3.5.2 Policy on Granting of Rank and Tenure to Administrators (Board of Trustees adopted 1/18/79). The rationale follows: "Faculty who serve in administrative positions should not be penalized by giving up the right to promotion; otherwise there is a disincentive to faculty who can be both a good administrator and a productive faculty member." Dr. Burchard commented that the basis for making promotions in rank does not seem to apply to people who are in fully-administrative positions. This is particularly problematic when those administrative positions are coupled with special rank, such as a research associate professor. How does it make sense to promote people in professorial rank who are not doing the work that we evaluate for promotion in professorial rank? Dr. Patch replied that the TTF's interpretation is that there is one set of guidelines for promotion to a given rank; these guidelines also apply to administrators. When someone is serving more than 50 percent in an administrative position, the Chair must consult with the supervisor of that individual. This ensures their administrative work is taken into account but it does not lessen other aspects of the guidelines for promotion. A friendly amendment was added for clarification: "The same standards for promotion apply to all candidates."
Dr. Alm questioned the wording concerning Lecturers in section 3.5.3 Guidelines for Awarding of Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion for Faculty. For clarification, the first sentence was amended as follows under 22.214.171.124 Summary of the Evaluation Procedure: "With the exception of lecturers on the first two one-year contracts, the evaluation procedure is applied to all faculty members who are on at least a yearly nine month contract and who are eligible for reappointment, tenure or promotion."
Dr. Padilla suggested sending EC 1 to the Office of the President, while continuing to make editorial changes to EC 2. Formatting discrepancies also need to be corrected. EC 2 passed unanimously in terms of its substance and became Senate Document 0202F.
Dr. Rackham thanked Steve Patch, Lisa Friedenberg, Kevin Moorhead, Henry Stern, and Dr. Padilla for the enormous amount of work they have put into these documents.
VII. Academic Policies Committee Report
Dr. Charles James gave the Academic Policies Committee Report.
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
APC 1: Addition of AP credit for World History exam; non-duplication of credit for European and World History AP exams; change of AP credit for US History.
VIII. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report
Mr. Jim Kuhlman reported for the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council (UPC/IDC).
Since the last Senate meeting, IDC/UPC has invited Chancellor Mullen to meet with the UPC to discuss the strategic planning process and the role of UPC. Following a conversation with the Chancellor, Mr. Kuhlman began preparing a working-paper to revise how UPC will operate, which will be discussed on November 5. The Chancellor will attend a UPC meeting later in November.
Dr. Patch's subcommittee will begin revising the institutional indicators.
IX. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr. Dee James gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee (FWDC) Report.
FWDC is working to ensure that any active committees which the Senate views as necessary standing committees be established formally by Senate document.
One of FWDC's goals this year is to improve morale on campus. In this regard, Dr. Manns has discussed, with the Chair of the Chancellor's Staff Advisory Committee, ways to improve morale among faculty and staff.
FWDC is also working on the election process.
X. Old Business
Mr. Bramlett encouraged the Faculty Senate to respond to the UNC Faculty Assembly Resolution
on Academic Freedom. Dr. Rackham stated that the Executive Committee will bring this back to the
XI. New Business
Dr. Wood made the following motion: "In light of the fall in minority enrollment, particularly the fall in African American enrollment, the Senate strongly affirms the administration's goal to increase minority enrollment in next year's Freshman and Transfer admissions." Dr. Reynold's seconded the motion. The following friendly amendment was added: "...and offers its full support in this endeavor."
Dr. Lee stated that if the Senate is serious about increasing minority enrollment, it should delay a vote until the November meeting so senators can contemplate how faculty can help achieve this goal. Dr. Rackham suggested the Senate vote today; the Executive Committee would bring suggestions or open the floor for discussion of specific contributions faculty might make at the next meeting.
Dr. Padilla agreed time should be set apart to discuss recruiting a diverse class. There are a lot of steps that we are taking and maybe we could do more or different things. But we need to recognize how difficult this might be, and talk about what steps we are all willing to take. In order to move from rhetoric to action, we need to see what the impediments are and the campus needs to get engaged.
Mr. Kuhlman commented that he deeply wanted to support the motion and did not want to abstain or vote against it. However, he was troubled by the Senate's passing a resolution at the end of a meeting and coming back to it later. He preferred that a draft go through the Executive Committee and be placed on the agenda. Then the Senate can discuss both the resolution and other things it might want to do at the same time. The motion was withdrawn and the Senate agreed that the Executive Committee will consider this issue and put it on the agenda.
Mr. Bramlett noted that if this is on the Senate agenda for discussion, senators should be required to read the Chancellor's Task Force Report on Diversity, which 35 people worked on for two years. Senators need to know what has been recommended and what has happened. The report contains comprehensive work in advising, retention, and the curriculum. Mr. Kuhlman added that the draft resolution could contain language reminding the campus of the Task Force Report.
Dr. Rackham adjourned the meeting at 6:45 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
Mary Lynn Manns