University of North Carolina at Asheville
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, November 14, 2002
Visitors: B. Cain, P. McClellan, S. McDonald, J. Mitchell, DB. Mullen, G. Nallan, A. Shope, B. Spellman, K. Whatley.
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
Dr. Rackham announced an internal policy change in approving the minutes. In the future, the Senate will consider only substantive corrections to the minutes. Editorial corrections will be written and handed to Sandra Gravely. The minutes of October 17, 2002 were approved with editorial corrections.
The order of business was revised.
V. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Rackham referred to John Wood's request at the last meeting for a statement indicating the Senate's concern about UNCA's continued failure to achieve its diversity goals, specifically in recruiting a diverse student body. A senator raised the argument that a statement of concern was easy enough, but was inadequate. It was suggested that the Executive Committee bring to the Senate something stronger than a mere expression of concern about the failure to achieve a diverse student body.
The Executive Committee met with Dwight Mullen, Director of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs. Dr. Rackham asked Dr. Mullen whether the Faculty Senate should become more actively involved in UNCA's commitment to diversity, and if so, how it might become involved. In their discussion it became apparent that Dr. Mullen felt strongly that a statement of concern would be appreciated, but it also would be inadequate. It also become apparent that if UNCA is indeed committed to bringing about both diversity in the educational program itself, as well as in the student body and faculty, that the lead must ultimately be assumed by the faculty. This is not in any way to say that the administration's commitment to diversity is not sincere. Rather, it is to say that at a university such as ours, where strong faculty governance is a tradition, we cannot in good conscience simply turn this matter over to someone else to bring about. Diversity cannot be the sole responsibility of a five or six person Admissions Office, nor of a one person office of Multicultural Affairs, nor of a single committee. It is too easy in such cases to put the whole issue out of mind, and to complain later when the reports reveal we have not met our goals. Instead, after more than two decades of "concern," it now seems evident that unless our commitment to diversity is embedded in a permanent body of the faculty, such a goal may never be more than wishful thinking. And the Faculty Senate would seem not only the appropriate body, but perhaps the only university body which has both the authority, the will, the continuity, and the leadership potential to actualize our beliefs. By assigning a specific charge of concern for diversity to each of our three standing committees (even though the make-up of each Senate committee evolves) we can make permanent the faculty commitment to this goal.
Diversity will not be pushed off onto yet another committee or task force (which would make yet more recommendations and then go out of business), nor will it be assigned to yet another administrative office. It will be specifically and morally the duty of the faculty to work steadily in concert with the administration and with our own departments and educational programs, to ensure a systematic development of multicultural outcomes.
Exactly how we will incorporate our will into action will vary from committee to committee, and from year to year, but with a permanent charge to each committee to turn desire into action, the Executive Committee believes that deliberate and responsive changes can be brought about. It was Dr. Rackham's personal feeling that this Senate can take on no more relevant and crucial work for the direct enrichment of a liberal arts college education, than this one.
EC 3: Resolution Affirming the Faculty Senate's Mission in Support of Diversity was distributed. Dr. Rackham noted that the charge was open for revision, but he asked that the Senate vote on the document today. If approved, the Senate's goal will be to develop specific modes of action which are appropriate to each standing committee, and then find ways that the Faculty Senate as a whole can ensure that those actions are brought about.
Mr. Kuhlman noted that EC 3 links our goal for diversity among the student body with our desired educational outcomes. Dr. Patch moved to waive the Comer Rule. Dr. Alm seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Dr. Mullen noted that the Board of Trustees is interested in diversifying the student body, as well as the faculty and the curriculum. If the Faculty Senate approves a resolution and adopts it as part of its fundamental mission, it will make a difference in what his office can do.
Dr. Alm moved to amend the document by adding the word "administration" twice in the fourth paragraph. Dr. Rossell seconded the motion, which passed.
Mr. Bramlett moved to amend the fourth paragraph by adding the words "...and gender expression", and changing "sexual preference" to "sexual identity." Dr. Rossell questioned the wisdom of listing various groups in a document which was not prioritized, and where someone could be excluded. Following discussion, Dr. Manns suggested the following addition: "...diverse in every respect including, but not limited to, ....". Mr. Kuhlman commented that one of our problems as a campus has been that we have not talked about what we mean by diversity and interpretations vary from individual to individual. It is not at all clear in the mission or goals what we mean by diversity. A broader definition of the diverse community strengthens our legal position in trying to build categories we are weak in.
Dr. Rossell argued that it is an impossible task for the Senate to resolve to increase all of these categories. For example, the UPC has discussed the issue of increasing transfers versus freshmen. Are we going to become a community that increases our FTE by admitting 18 year old students right out of high school so they can spend four years at UNCA? That seems to be the preferred model -- as opposed to filling half of a class with transfer students. If we accepted transfers we would increase the age diversity on campus.
Mr. Kuhlman contended that we are committed to a curriculum to deal with different socio-economic backgrounds and different age groups, regardless of who we may be recruiting or admitting into our campus. It is not simply race or ethnicity or gender identification; it is also other things -- and it is important that we are aware of them and include them in our thinking and our sensitivity. In the legal issues and policies that would address admission preferences and so forth, they should be things we are aware of and think about. It may well affect whether we want more transfers or not.
Dr. Manns suggested adding the phrase "diverse in such qualities as.....in every respect including, but not limited to....". Dr. Charles James supported Dr. Manns' suggestion for being inclusive without listing every category.
Dr. Konz asked to hear from others who have thought about these issues. He was leaning toward a statement such as "diverse in every respect" without delineating the dimensions of diversity that exist. How important is it that we delineate this? Or, if it is important, that we worry about whether people interpret this to mean nothing more than race and sex.
Dr. Mullen stated that the policy out of his office is very inclusive and is an expansive definition of diversity, with the touchstones of race and ethnicity. Dr. Dwight Mullen, Dr. Padilla, and Mr. Scot Schaefer attended a conference in Atlanta by the College Board Workshop on Diversity and Higher Education. An attorney discussed the courts' readings on university admissions' policies. He stated that we could use race as long as it is included with a variety of other categories. He was also very clear to say that race in itself was not a goal; it has to be connected to the educational ends of the university. Dr. Mullen supported the list, although he understood it is awkward.
Dr. Lee expressed concerns over the long list of multi-dimensional aspects of diversity because the process will be diluted. Instead of working harder, it is likely that we will be working less because there are so many different areas of diversity. However, he preferred leaving it as it is with the amendment. The list can be prioritized at the strategic planning session. UNCA has to narrow down the list to be more feasible and more focused, for the best educational opportunities.
Dr. Patch could see benefits to the list and supported the qualifying amendment, but noted that hidden problems may arise. For example, does "diverse learning capabilities" imply that we will admit students who are incapable of handling the coursework? Dr. Manns stated that her amendment indicates we are encouraging diversity in every respect.
The Senate returned to Mr. Bramlett's amendment to add "gender expression" and replace "sexual preference" with "sexual identity". Dr. Reynolds addressed the issue of prioritizing the hierarchy of the list. Some categories are considered more important than others, but the Senate is not addressing that issue. Dr. Rackham replied that this document does not attempt to address that issue. The Senate is making a general commitment, and each committee of the Senate would define the issues it might work on in a given year and bring that information to the Senate. Mr. Kuhlman agreed with Dr. Lee that we can not address every group on the list and we need to prioritize our efforts. Mr. Bramlett's amendment passed.
The Senate returned to Dr. Manns' amendment: "Whereas an academic community of students, faculty, staff, and administration that is diverse in every respect including, but not limited to, such qualities as ...". Dr. Alm seconded the motion, which passed.
The Senate considered several amendments to the last paragraph and ultimately replaced the word "missions" with "responsibilities". The paragraph reads: "Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of the University of North Carolina at Asheville affirms diversity as one of its primary responsibilities and commits itself to diversity education and to enhancing diversity among students, faculty, staff, and administration."
Dr. Patch stated that he was unable to locate the Task Force Report on Diversity on the university website. Dr. Mullen replied that it is not on the website because it is an internal document; two copies are on reserve in Ramsey Library. Dr. Mullen added that the General Education Review Task Force (GERTF) has adopted a statement on diversity which addresses areas that have been historically oppressed. Dr. Konz (a GERTF member), noted that it addresses Dr. Lee's concerns about establishing priorities and strategically planning where to focus our efforts.
Dr. Rackham stated that the amended document is intended to commit the Faculty Senate and is not intended to address Dr. Lee's suggestion of prioritizing. In any given year, each committee of the Senate will determine its own priorities or receive instructions from the Senate as a whole as to what priorities it feels the committee should focus on. At this point a general commitment is best and as we proceed we will look at details.
Dr. Dee James stated that she was happy that the Senate would offer a resolution of this type but was concerned about the issue Dr. Lee raised. She asked how her vote would mean anything more than once again supporting good intentions. Dr. Rackham stressed that the intent is not to replicate the same process, but to eventually establish it in the Senate Constitution as one of the Senate's required goals. At every Senate meeting, each of the three standing committees would have an obligation to report on how they are doing on this particular issue so we are constantly made aware of and reaffirming our desires and goals. Each year each committee would identify goals for that particular year and would report on their success or failure, or suggest changes that the university would have to make for those goals to succeed. Dr. Padilla added that this could protect the diversity requirement in the general education review as it comes through the Senate and can be used toward targeting financial aid to certain groups. Dr. Wood noted that the university needs to be arming itself and embedding within its policies and mission statements a connection between our educational mission and diversity. Dr. Rackham agreed, but noted that the two most important reasons for doing this from a faculty viewpoint are the educational mission and moral mission being brought together. EC 3 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 0302F.
Dr. Alm stated that she too could not find the Task Force Reports and asked that the Office of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs place the document on electronic reserve. Mr. Kuhlman offered to handle the request.
IV. Administrative Report
Dr. Mark Padilla gave the Administrative Report.
Dr. Padilla thanked senators for their work on the tenure review guidelines. The Office of the President submitted the request for UNCA to obtain management flexibility to the Board of Governors, and it is his understanding that the management flexibility was provided. However, the Faculty Handbook documents have not yet been officially sanctioned. He submitted two parts of the Faculty Handbook -- the revised faculty tenure guideline sections and the hiring section (which he learned very late in the process had to be submitted because it related to personnel matters). The Office of the President did not have time to review the hiring document and consequently forwarded our proposal without the attending Handbook documents. It may be necessary to work on our hiring guidelines.
Board of Trustees
The Board of Trustees held its fall meeting this week. Dr. Padilla discussed the faculty salary structure at UNCA and presented a comparison of the average UNCA faculty salary by rank with our peer group approved by the Office of the President. On average, our faculty salaries are 14.7 percent lower than our peer group. For 2002-03, UNCA's salary average is the second lowest in the UNC system, second to the NC School of the Arts. We are one of only two schools that did not use its campus based tuition for salary increases. The Board was very receptive to this information.
Proposal to modify Academic Administrative Structure
Dr. Padilla distributed a letter and proposal to replace part of the existing structure in Academic Affairs. The essential difference is that currently the VCAA is aided by a Dean of Curriculum and a Dean of Faculty. In the new model, the VCAA will be aided by four Associate Vice Chancellors of Academic Affairs. Each of these AVCAAs will oversee a "program area." While the specifics are to be defined in the Spring '03 term, it can be assumed that the program areas will fall into four categories: Humanities; Natural Sciences; Social Sciences; and "Curricular Enhancement" programs. The submitted structure maintains current emphases in the University and also redirects administrative resources where they are critically needed. The new structure allows direct application of administrative support where it is most urgent while at the same time allowing for greater coordination of policies and planning.
The submitted structure is the product of discussion, study and reflection, institutional comparisons, and debate at such venues as the Committee of Chairs and Program Directors. A Senate Taskforce gathered further faculty response and served as a sounding board.
The job descriptions of the AVCAAs will include oversight of budget allocation; scheduling; program coordination; mentoring; and performance reviews. Chairs and program directors will report directly to the AVCAAs and no longer to the VCAA. One-time renewable, three-year terms will be filled through a process involving faculty screening committees. The University will operationally shift to the new structure beginning August 1, 2003, the date at which the three academic program AVCAAs begin their 10 month terms. (The fiscal year beginning point will be July 1, 2003.) Each AVCAA will teach the equivalent of one course per term. The "curricular enhancement" AVCAA will serve a twelve-month term, as dictated by this Office's program responsibilities.
The VCAA will return to the Senate in the early Spring 2003 term with a plan regarding implementation of the new structure for discussion and consideration. Early planning is needed so as to allow for scheduling adjustments due to the recruitment process.
The new structure will be assessed after the completion of a full set of AVCAA terms, with the help of the Office of Institutional Research. The proposal is submitted in the spirit of administrative evolution. The University's continuing ability to adapt its administration to the shifting emphases of our curricular and co-curricular programs will be enhanced by this decisive change.
Dr. Padilla described the proposed organization and asked the Senate to consider the top portion of the flowchart only, as every area was not represented. Some senators expressed concern that each of the four AVC areas receive equal importance. Dr. Padilla explained that the curricular enhancement AVC area will involve more coordination and less supervision than the three academic areas. This position came out of a strong recommendation from the Chairs and Program Directors who preferred a four-branch model where the programs that were integrated throughout the curriculum had an equal standing with the regular programs. For example, they wanted to make sure that undergraduate research was fundamental to the academic program. Dr. Padilla created the fourth branch of programs to enhance programs that are offered in the other three areas but were augmented by developments in the last few years. Although there is a structural reason that is desirable -- the Chairs' perspective -- there are some differences administratively between what the fourth program area will do and the other three academic programs. Dr. Padilla suggested capitalizing on the functionality of the CTL Director who enhances faculty development in ways that often intersect with these areas, and take that role which is already defined and budgeted and combine it with an administrative and coordinating role with the other areas. These offices have a lot in common but are working in isolation. By bringing their work together we may allow them to do more in the context of grant writing as well as sharing budgetary resources, information, and perspectives. They would be brought together to form a stronger unit.
Dr. Burchard noted that the interdisciplinary programs will need to find a fit in the academic program areas. She expressed concern that the interdisciplinary studies dean was not listed and the Senate was being asked to vote on some understanding of what will go under the various AVC positions. Dr. Padilla stated that the interdisciplinary program would be better served in the academic program areas. He is committed to creating an administrative structure that keeps the focus of the university as defined, but redirects the administrative resources so the paperwork can get done. If we chose to enhance interdisciplinary programs, we need to do it in a different way.
Dr. Burchard argued that programs in the fourth area are being protected. Dr. Padilla responded that there is no evidence that the interdisciplinary program needs protection and this structure maintains the current focus of the university.
Dr. Patch noted that the equality of the four positions is not a key issue. Clearly the university would not want each of the four areas having exactly the same resources. The Senate needs to think about what is fair and what the structure may imply. In that respect, the proposal was acceptable to him. Dr. Rackham agreed that resources are always wildly different and should be. He did not want the design to imply something about resources. His only concern about the model is that the fourth AVC position is also the CTL Director. The administration would have more flexibility by not including the CTL Director in the title and it would derail some concerns. Dr. Padilla agreed to remove the CTL Director from the title. He felt that the CTL Director has a broad investment in faculty development and is not confined to a specific area, whereas the others AVCs are committed to a specific area. He considered the CTL position to be a neutral position, committed to the development of faculty in general and to the development of the curriculum.
Dr. Rossell expressed concern that the fourth program area may not have a large pool of nominees. Dr. Padilla noted that there will be a nomination process and the person can come from anywhere on campus. He is looking for the best person and it could be anyone from a full professor to a lecturer, e.g. the latter having the title of Assistant AVC. Dr. Padilla noted that his proposal does not make any structural changes and does not presuppose the general education review process. It makes the positions as open as possible to all faculty ranks while being affordable and timely.
Dr. Lee asked about the cost of the proposed model. Dr. Padilla explained that we already have funds for two deans, a secretary, and space, so the cost is minimal. Money is in reserve for the third AVC position. The CTL position is twelve months and would move into the fourth program area. Dr. Burchard argued that the budget assumes the fourth AVC will be the CTL Director and it would not be easy to split those two positions. Dr. Padilla replied that this is an advocacy coordinator role, an interdefined position. It is a possibility that it would not work, but it gives us a way to start. There is a lot of agreement between the Chairs, the Council of Chairs, and the Senate Taskforce that this model is worth trying.
Dr. Rossell commented that the three academic program areas are ten month contracts. Dr. Padilla added that the fourth AVC will help during the summer. We can not afford twelve month contracts for the other three positions at this time.
Dr. Wood suggested that in the spirit of interdisciplinary work on campus, perhaps the general education coordinator could be the fourth AVC. Dr. Padilla noted that interdisciplinary studies is in every program and general education is one context for that conversation, but only one. Dr. Wood speculated that this model might eliminate the opportunity for folks to work together. Dr. Padilla stressed that interdisciplinary studies is not a fragile flower; it is undeniably strong and essential, and does not need to be protected by a special person.
Dr. Konz supported Dr. Rackham's suggestion that this is what we need now for cost neutrality reasons, and that the CTL title should be removed. We are talking about operation and administration rather than formal structure, such as the preservation of interdisciplinary studies. These can be dealt with in job descriptions and communication issues. Dr. Padilla stated that he will bring job descriptions to the Senate. He does not think the interdisciplinary program will be compromised by this structure.
Dr. Rackham commented that Dr. Padilla was submitting a motion to accept the concept of the four AVCs, without any specific organization underneath it. Dr. Padilla concurred -- adopting the top portion gives him a reasonable assurance that the time invested in working out the details is worth investing. Mr. Kuhlman made a friendly amendment to delete "also the director" to the motion, which Dr. Padilla accepted. The amended motion follows:
The Faculty Senate Accepts the VCAA Proposal to modify the University's academic administrative structure. The Dean of the Faculty and Dean of the Curriculum positions will be replaced and augmented by three Associate Vice Chancellors of Academic Affairs, whose authority will be to administer academic program areas that are roughly equivalent to the standing academic divisions. A fourth AVCAA (either at the assistant or associate level) will coordinate and administer specified academic areas of "curricular enhancement." Every effort should be made to make the transition cost neutral and minimal. The VCAA is requested to return to the Senate in January with a plan for rending the reorganization operational by August 1, 2003.
The Faculty Senate will consider the document for 2nd Reading at the December meeting.
VI. Student Government Association Report
Mr. Brian Cain gave the SGA Report.
Mr. Cain thanked members of the General Education Review Task Force for requesting student involvement in the review.
The SGA will consider an internship review packet early next semester.
The plus/minus resolution discussed at the last meeting will be sent to Dr. Burchard.
Mr. Cain supported the organizational chart proposed by Dr. Padilla.
VII. Academic Policies Committee Report
Dr. Melissa Burchard gave the Academic Policies Committee Report.
APC's commitment to enhancing Diversity
The standing committees have been asked to embed the concerns about diversity into their own goals. To further diversity goals in education, APC may review the mission statements of all of the programs to see how the missions will improve diversity and how they will accomplish diversity. APC will look for ways to suggest a more consistent approach, and to assess the goals and ensure they are being accomplished.
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
APC 2: Computer Competency in Psychology
The following document was considered for Second 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.
APC 1 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 0402F.
VIII. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr. Mary Lynn Manns gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee (FWDC) Report.
One of FWDC's major objectives is to improve faculty morale in a time of declining resources. FWDC met with Dr. Dwight Mullen and learned that this was closely related to their diversity directive. FWDC met with Dr. Mullen more formally at its last meeting and has started working on how improving faculty morale can actually help maintain the diversity we have among the faculty on campus.
IX. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report
Mr. Jim Kuhlman reported for the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council (UPC/IDC).
A subcommittee of UPC, chaired by Steve Patch and consisting of Heon Lee, Lori Horvitz, and Archer Gravely, is currently reviewing the indicators used to assess our success on the seven University-wide goals. This subcommittee will recommend refinements, deletions, or additions to UPC who will then forward its recommendation to the Chancellor for his decision.
Chancellor Mullen is scheduled to meet with UPC on November 21 to discuss plans for how the campus will proceed with the strategic planning process started with the Chancellor's taskforces, the self-study for reaffirmation of accreditation, and last spring's planning retreat. In addition, UPC will be discussing a process to enhance its effectiveness in helping the campus set strategic priorities and allocate resources to achieve those goals. Should the proposal survive in some form, Mr. Kuhlman will share the result at a future Senate meeting.
UPC's commitment to enhancing Diversity
UPC's goals in response to the Senate's commitment to enhancing diversity:
Throughout its twenty years at the center of UNCA's planning process, the University Planning Council has and will continue to enhance the diversity of our community as we examine proposals, consider the institution's mission and goals, and make recommendations to the Faculty Senate and University Administration. UPC will evince its strong commitment to this effort in the following:
1. Annually, a subcommittee of UPC will review the quality and effectiveness of indicators used to measure campus-wide success in achieving the University's goals, including those incorporating diversity. UPC will consider recommended revisions, additions, and deletions and forward its recommendations to the Chancellor.
2. Annually, the Institutional Effectiveness Committee will review the University's performance in achieving its goals (including those incorporating diversity) and prepare an executive report on progress. This report will be reviewed by UPC, which will bring the report to the attention of the campus community and forward recommendations to the Faculty Senate and the Chancellor, as appropriate.
3. In all issues coming before it, the Council will consciously consider ramifications for and seek solutions consistently enhancing diversity. All documents emanating from UPC will address the anticipated impact on campus diversity.
X. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
XI. New Business
Dr. Rackham distributed EC 4: UNCA Athletic Department Mission Statement (revision of SD3801S). The Athletic Department has recently undergone an NCAA review and the Peer Review Team requested a revision in the Athletic Department mission statement. Dr. Rackham suggested a waiver of the Comer Rule in order to respond as quickly as possible. Mr. Kuhlman moved to waive the Comer Rule. Dr. Booker seconded the motion, which passed.
The Senate had questions about the wording in the document and Dr. Nallan had to leave before the Senate discussed EC 4. Dr. Patch moved to table the document. Dr. Alm seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 8 to 0 with one abstention.
Dr. Rackham adjourned the meeting at 5:50 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
Mary Lynn Manns