University of North Carolina at Asheville


Minutes, December 10, 2002

Members: K. Bramlett, M. Burchard, C. James, J. Konz, J. Kuhlman, H. Lee, ML Manns, S. Patch, J. Rackham, B. Reynolds, I. Rossell, J. Wood; M. Padilla.

Excused: M. Alm, R. Booker, D. James.

Visitors: M. Honeycutt, P. Nickless, 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.

The order of business was modified to accommodate senators giving final exams.

II. Announcements

Mr. George Groome, Chair of the Board of Trustees, was unable to attend the meeting today, but plans to attend the January meeting.

VI. Academic Policies Committee Report

Dr. Melissa Burchard gave the Academic Policies Committee Report.

First Reading:

The following documents were distributed for First Reading:

Approved by APC Unanimously

APC 3: Deletion of Prerequisites for SOC 357, 410, 446

APC 4: Computer Competency Statement for Sociology

APC 5: Addition of Computer Competency in Physics; Elimination of Physics GRE requirement

APC 6: Changes in Prerequisites for PHYS 105 and PHYS 131

APC 7: Catalog Changes in Economics

APC 8: Computer Competency for Environmental Studies

APC 9: Changes in Prerequisites for Environmental Studies

APC 10: Changes in Frequency of Course Offerings in Environmental Studies

APC 11: Change Concentration in Natural Resource Management to Concentration in Environmental Management and Policy; Change requirements for the concentration.

APC 12: Changing EDUC 310 (4 hours) to EDUC 310 (3 hours) and EDUC 311 (1 hour) with editorial changes reflecting this.

APC 13: Changing EDUC 315 from a 4-hour to a 3-hour class; Addition of new course, EDUC 325.

APC 14: Deleting EDUC 332 and 382; renaming/renumbering to EDUC 322 and 388.

APC 15: Editorial corrections needed as a result of changes in Education.

APC 16: Addition of computer (business technology) competency to the requirements for Accounting major; change in course description for ACCT 340.

APC 17: Change in degree competency in Management. Addition of computer (business technology) competency to the requirements for Management major; change in MGMT 491 course description.

APC 18: Addition of computer (business technology) competency to the requirements for Industrial and Engineering Management major; change in course description for MGMT 492.

APC 19: Change in competency exam requirement for Accounting majors.

APC 20: Delete ECON 210 as an elective for the financial accounting concentration.

APC 21: Change to name and description for ACCT 319; change in prerequisites for ACCT 330 and 418.

APC 22: Change in scheduling for MGMT 316, 381 and 460; change in prerequisites for MGMT 480.

APC 23: Addition of a Minor Field of Concentration in Accounting.

APC 24: Revision of pre- and corequisites for MUSC 128, 129, 201, 202, 301, 302, 331, 332, 231, 232, 131, 293, 294, 351, 353, 357, 384, 385.

APC 25: Change to descriptions for MUSC 101, 102, 131; addition of new course, MUSC 488.

APC 26: Computer competency in Music; changes to requirements for admission to major in music.

Second Reading:

The following document was considered for Second Reading:

APC 2: Computer Competency in Psychology.

Dr. Burchard reported that APC is looking at issues of consistency in catalog presentation. Accordingly, computer competency statements need to specify where and how competency will be gained by the students. APC is asking departments to be specific in identifying particular courses or projects that meet competency requirements. In the future, APC may revise these documents again to create a more consistent approach to statements of competency across the catalog. APC 2 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 0502F.

Art Department Resource Issues

Dr. Burchard reported that APC unanimously voted against a proposal from the Art Department to drop the exhibition requirement for the minor because they can not provide exhibition space for students. APC felt that to change the requirement of a minor because of a resource issue is not a good basis for making academic policy. APC will support the Art Department by sending a letter to the Chair of the department clarifying its position and offering its support in any way it can to help the Art Department maintain its standards rather than compromise them in the face of this problem. Academic Affairs and other officials on campus will receive a copy of the correspondence.

VII. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report

Mr. Jim Kuhlman reported for the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council (UPC/IDC).

Strategic Planning Process

On November 21, UPC/IDC met with Chancellor Mullen to discuss the continuation of its strategic planning process. This process incorporates the Chancellor's Task Forces initiated when he first came, as well as the SACS reaccreditation review (particularly the Enhancement Self Study), and the results of last spring's planning retreat. The Chancellor has requested proposals from outside consultants to facilitate the continuation of the strategic planning process. Non-state funds, and funds that would not otherwise support faculty, will be used to bring in a professional to coordinate, facilitate, and bring together a document to serve: as a strategic plan for the campus; as groundwork for a new capital campaign; and as a statement to legislators and to others of what UNCA is about. That organization or individual will work closely with UPC and will solicit input from a variety of sources on campus.

Ensuring UPC's involvement in resource allocations

UPC/IDC discussed a draft working document, prepared by UPC, to have a more effective process for ensuring UPC's charge of being involved in an annual resource allocation and goal selection. The document lays out a system which they will begin testing in the spring. UPC/IDC's test topic, which becomes a think-tank approach to provide input to the university administration and the campus, will be the issue of diversity -- how do we go about creating a structure that infuses enhancement of diversity throughout the campus. Mr. Kuhlman distributed copies of the working document for informational purposes only, and encouraged senators to share comments or suggestions with IDC/UPC.

VIII. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee

Dr. Mary Lynn Manns gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee (FWDC) Report.


FWDC met with Dwight Mullen to discuss how FWDC can help with diversity issues on campus. It is considering two ideas to implement next spring -- one for faculty of color and one for new faculty in general, including faculty of color. FWDC is considering having a luncheon for faculty of color to get better acquainted and discuss issues Dwight Mullen raised. For all new faculty, FWDC is considering putting together a program on Asheville.

Committee Documentation Needed

FWDC continues to work on the university committee structure and has asked that committees operating without enabling documentation send the required paperwork to FWDC as soon as possible.

Voting Eligibility

FWDC has a proposal on voting eligibility that Dr. Manns will take to the Executive Committee.

V. Student Government Association Report

There was no Student Government Report.

IV. Executive Committee Report

Dr. Jeff Rackham gave the Executive Committee Report.

Second Reading:

EC 4: UNCA Athletic Department Mission Statement (Revision of SD3801S)

EC 4 is in response to a recommendation from the Peer Review Team of the NCAA. Senators had questions regarding the wording and tabled the document in November. Dr. Patch stated that he discussed the Senate's concerns with Gary Nallan, who offered the following friendly amendment: "... Accordingly, the athletics program encourages an atmosphere of respect for self and others through the development of ethical conduct, sportsmanship, leadership and citizenship, and provides equitable opportunities for all students and staff including women and minorities."

Dr. Reynolds asked what opportunities were available for staff. Dr. Patch stated that staff would have the opportunity to develop as coaches or administrators within the athletic department in an equitable manner.

Dr. Wood stated that he knows students who do not feel comfortable in the gym or in the athletic program because of their sexual orientation and gender. We are working on diversity in terms of sexuality and gender in a space that is very hostile to people who have alternative genders or sexuality. Dr. Patch replied that two departments are housed in the same building -- the Recreation Program and the Intercollegiate Athletics Program. EC 4 would not be guiding the Recreation Program. For example, workouts at the gym are not part of Intercollegiate Athletics. However, as far as intercollegiate athletic issues and the athletes -- that is certainly relevant. Issues have occurred in the past that our athletic director took very seriously and responded to, although Dr. Patch was not involved in the details. Dr. Wood stressed that he was not leveling an accusation at anyone; he was reporting what he has heard from students. However, if we are serious about encouraging athletes who have enlightened sensibilities about diversity, then it should be high on the agenda. Dr. Patch stated that the mission statement has improved in that regard, although one question to consider is not what the mission statement says, but whether we live up to it.

Dr. Burchard added that it would be helpful if the Athletic Program had a statement of what ethical conduct means and what principles are motivating those claims. Dr. Patch replied that as part of the NCAA certification, they have a self-study instrument as well as a document of operating principles. He noted that courts argue what "equitable opportunity" means virtually every day, including in regards to athletics. Title IX is a very complicated document, and nobody agrees on what it means precisely.

Dr. Rackham suggested that he bring the Senate's concerns to Dr. Nallan and ask him to consult with his committee and the leadership of the athletic program and return to the Senate after the NCAA certification. Dr. Patch, speaking for Dr. Nallan and Dr. Comstock, indicated that they would welcome such a request. EC 4 passed as amended by a vote of 8 to 0 with two abstentions and became Senate Document 0602F.

EC 5: Proposal to modify the University's Academic Administrative Structure (Revised 11/14/02).

Dr. Patch considered this proposal to be a sensible approach to the problem but was concerned about the cost in terms of faculty salary lines and workload. He asked if it will be possible to implement the proposal and also pay the AVCs' administrative responsibilities from the administration's budget. Dr. Padilla replied that the campus based tuition increase was used largely for its intended purposes, including enabling faculty serving in administrative positions to have those salary portions shifted to the administrative lines. Those funds were captured for that purpose and there has already been relief this year. There will probably not be enough campus based tuition to further relieve the faculty line budget for these positions, but Dr. Padilla is committed to finding ways to shift faculty administrative FTE from the instructional budget to the administrative lines over the next three years.

Dr. Charles James asked if faculty will see this as a more efficient system or as a hierarchial scheme. He also questioned whether the AVCs will be seen as advocates representing the faculty or as a shield faculty must go through to reach the people who control the budget. Dr. Padilla replied that neither he nor the chancellor wish to be shielded. This structure will allow more engagement with faculty, not less.

Dr. Charles James asked if faculty were supposed to see the AVCs as advocates for their division. Dr. Padilla replied that the AVCs are both -- they will have credentials as faculty members and as administrators, and they will see the university from both perspectives. He would hope that faculty will treat the AVCs with respect and understanding, but also as advocates. Department Chairs currently function as advocates for their department to the administration but they also interpret and transmit information from the administration to the faculty. Mr. Kuhlman added that some separation is inevitable for this to be productive. The AVCs have to be more than advocates -- this is an extension of the VCAA's office -- and he hoped that the AVCs would have real decision-making power in terms of budgets and other issues. Decisions have been made ad hoc without balancing it with priorities and programs. AVCs will have more time and ability to discuss issues and represent the different divisions.

Dr. Burchard's main concerns were the lack of job descriptions and that there was no clear picture of who the AVCs will represent. Some faculty are disturbed because it is unclear where their positions will fall and how they will be structured under the reorganization. She was particularly concerned about interdisciplinary studies (IST) because it is unclear where they will end up, what kind of reporting structure they will have, and what their autonomy will be. She did not have enough information to cast a vote. Dr. Padilla noted that he provided job descriptions in an earlier email to the entire campus. Dr. Burchard reiterated her concerns about the placement of IST. Dr. Padilla stated that he had considered how someone such as Dr. Burchard could participate fully both departmentally and in their interdisciplinary role. Perhaps IST could move from division to division as fluid entities. For example, a director of Women's Studies, could be located under either Social Sciences or Natural Sciences, and there could be participation in the humanities program area as well. Its advisory board could decide where the program would report. This structure might resolve some of the inherent conflicts when a faculty member is in the same division in two different roles.

Dr. Nickless asked why Women's Studies was not on the organizational chart, while EQI and the Africana Studies program were listed. Dr. Padilla acknowledged that various flowcharts had been confusing. Some charts represent the number of faculty positions allocated to an AVC and others represent the number of programs under an AVC. This structure has no program implications -- no programs are going away and none are being added.

Dr. Nickless expressed concern that the structure did not seem to have a place for IST. Dr. Padilla referred to his earlier suggestion that would make some choice available to those programs. It would depend on who the director is. He heard the same anxiety from the Chairs earlier -- the sense of lacking a direct connection to the VCAA.

Dr. Nickless stated that she did not mean to say that. Her concern was over where IST will go, what role IST will serve in helping to pick the AVCs, and whether these decisions will be made after or before the AVCs are selected. Dr. Padilla stated that he will bring a proposal to the Senate in January. He is grateful for all the input he has received. IST is not excluded from the structure; they are to be included in the best way.

Dr. Rackham added that the Senate Taskforce has approved this document to authorize the VCAA to proceed with a general reorganization. The VCAA will bring specific details to the Senate. Dr. Konz advocated that IST have a home rather than be moved between divisions. He asked why the rank of the fourth AVC position differed from the three divisional AVCs. Dr. Padilla replied that earlier language written in the Faculty Handbook included lecturers as a faculty rank. It would be very difficult for an untenured faculty member to serve in an AVC position in the program areas. However he did not see the same barrier in the enhancement area. This creates a more open, sensitive administrative structure that allows more individuals to serve. He sees the enhancement area as having a different functionality and sees more people able to contribute to that position.

Dr. Patch asked for clarification on the use of "assistant" and "associate". These are titles where Associate is used to represent someone that might be at a different credentialed level. Dr. Padilla agreed; the terms do not refer to faculty rank. Typically in administration, the term Assistant is reserved for higher level administrative positions where the individual does not have a terminal degree in the field.

Dr. Charles James stated that ultimately he agrees with the proposal. This is giving the VCAA permission to plan and we can acknowledge the problem needs to be addressed. He has been approached by faculty that want more structure and others who do not, and ultimately this will come down to details between those wanting tough policies and those not wanting to lose their control. Dr. Padilla replied that the purpose is to solve the problem.

Mr. Bramlett referred to Dr. Padilla's earlier comment about giving IST a choice to decide what division or AVC they preferred to be under. This raised several red flags to him because this could have a powerfully potential downside, given the history on campus of the squeaky wheel getting greased. For example, one AVC may be more supportive of a certain kind of program than another AVC. That creates problems for him and it is the first time he has heard Dr. Padilla express this possibility. Dr. Padilla agreed; he was thinking out loud. This is opening a dynamic process and it may take a year or two to get it right. It is okay to have an administrative structure that needs modification and attention.

Dr. Manns commented that nearly all senator begin their comments by agreeing that our administrative structure needs changing. This is a general proposal that makes some of us nervous but she supports this because it is the beginning of fixing a problem. She trusts our procedures well enough to know that the specifics will be brought to us. She encouraged senators to move along and trust that the specifics will be addressed in the coming months. Dr. Padilla stated that this was his intention completely. Dr. Burchard stated that Dr. Manns may be right. The experience of some in the IST has been exactly the opposite -- decisions have been made too frequently behind closed doors. Dr. Padilla stated that there is no reason IST cannot bring forward a proposal. He is looking for ideas and for strategies that work. For the record, it is his assumption that we will end up with a structure with four AVCs; however we do not know exactly what they will do. We have the guideline of the flowchart and the memo he sent out with a job proposal. We will decide together what the job descriptions are. He will bring a plan that will require deliberation but it will set the process in motion. He will also consult with the Taskforce.

Dr. Lee stated that he would like to support the general proposal. However, in terms of the spirit of the modification of the structure, he suggested that the Taskforce and the VCAA office give serious consideration to reducing the overall administrative structure at UNCA. It needs to be simplified either by merging or combining or prioritizing offices. Also, overall administrative costs should be reduced. We need to stop or reduce the use of faculty salaries for administrators. Dr. Padilla stated that he is presenting the proposal as neutral in terms of program impact. If this group decides to think of administrative economies, it can certainly be proposed. He is on record as saying this is a program neutral initiative. EC 5 passed by a vote of 9 to 1 with one abstention.

III. Administrative Report

Dr. Mark Padilla gave the Administrative Report.

Changes in UNC Scholarship programs

Dr. Padilla reported that the legal environment controlling diversity-based admissions and financial aid processes have grown increasingly complex. For example, last week the Supreme Court decided to take up the two University of Michigan cases involving contested admissions policies, one for the law school and one for the main undergraduate program. Oral arguments are expected to be heard in March and a decision is expected in June 2003.

In North Carolina, it can be reasonably assumed that in the next year or two, at least one of the 16 campuses will face a law suit based on perceived admissions practices. Of particular vulnerability is the new program of UNC Campus Scholarships that will be distributed at the campus level to increase diversity in the undergraduate population. The General Counsel's Office at the Office of the President has been working with the UNC campuses to prepare the system for a challenge, and more importantly to help ensure that we are acting in compliance with the law.

As of July 1, 2003, all seven existing UNC scholarship programs will be folded into a single fund, including the two Minority Presence Grants programs, which apparently emerged from the 1979 Consent Decree from the University of North Carolina and the US Department of Health Education and Welfare. The new law states:

The Board of Trustees of each constituent institution shall define its particular campus goals and guidelines for the use of the UNC Campus Scholarships for undergraduates. The chancellor of each constituent institution shall submit its proposed guidelines to the President of the University of North Carolina for approval for implementing them. Only residents of North Carolina shall be eligible to receive grants from the UNC Campus Scholarships. Unless a campus has determined that it has sufficient diversity in its undergraduate population to provide the educational benefits of diversity, the campus shall use at least the portion of these funds that previously provided Minority Presence Grants for undergraduates to promote diversity within the undergraduate student body of the campus to the extent permitted by the constitution and laws of the State of North Carolina and of the United States.

This means that UNCA, if it wants to use the UNC Campus Scholarships to enhance its diversity population, must establish that its current diversity is 1) insufficient and 2) that the use of the scholarships to promote diversity accords with the approved implementation plan submitted by the Chancellor this spring term.

Dr. Padilla noted that UNCA's administration remains fully and completely committed to a diverse student population. At the same time, campuses which are no longer under a consent decree to remediate past discrimination -- such as the UNC system -- are now obliged to argue why, under the first amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech, student diversity offers an appropriate means towards an enhanced educational outcome. At UNCA, a diverse student population befits our mission as a public liberal arts institution: the necessary robust intellectual engagement we expect of our academic culture requires a critical mass of differing perspectives as informed by many factors, including ethnicity, race, geographic identity, age, and other factors and elements of human identity. However, while we are able to argue that diversity offers a means to enhance our mission, we must be aware that arguments that involve social engineering are not adequate bases for UNCA's commitment to diversity. Similarly, language which focuses on ratios, or enhancing the diversity of the region, or balancing the student body with the ethnic proportionalities in the state of NC, is increasingly viewed as legally inappropriate, as are criteria for admissions that are solely race based. By contrast, language which emphasizes critical mass, cultural inclusivity, geographic diversity, and intellectual engagement are concepts that are currently tied to first amendment rights.

The Senate will be hearing from UPC on its charge to develop such a plan for the University, but Dr. Padilla wanted to alert the Senate that Academic Affairs remains currently committed to allowable diversity goals in three primary areas: 1) admissions and financial aid procedures; 2) recruiting, hiring, and retention; and 3) curricular development, such as through the General Education review. Diversity offers educational benefits in all three spheres, as we build towards the kind of cultural inclusivity that a contemporary education demands for the 21st century in a public liberal arts context. Dr. Padilla chose to present this material in the Senate as a means to help alert the campus that a different type of language involving diversity is increasingly necessary, as we willingly comply with federal laws and also take this opportunity to examine what roles diversity should play at UNCA. We have addressed some of these issues in recent Senate meetings, but, as a courtesy, he wanted to share with the Senate in formal terms this UNC system-wide initiative. Also, some of the recent press about UNCA's diversity numbers and programs have not been sufficiently mapped onto the new legal landscape, and the administration can find itself caught between the need to comply with the law and the view of educational diversity that remains rooted in consent-decree mentality which is geared towards the remediation of current and past discrimination. He thanked the Senate for being sensitive to these distinctions and for helping Academic Affairs and the UPC to chart out this year how and why we consider diversity to be an educational means towards fulfilling our public liberal arts mission.

IX. Old Business

There was no Old Business.

X. New Business

There was no New Business.

XI. Adjourn

Dr. Rackham adjourned the meeting at 5:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted by:    Sandra Gravely
                                           Mary Lynn Manns