University of North Carolina at Asheville
FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, January 22, 2004
Members: M. Alm, K. Bramlett, T. Brown, D. James, J. Konz, ML Manns, S. Mills, P. Nickless, S. Patch, D. Pierce, K. Reynolds, I. Rossell, M. Ruiz, J. Wood; K. Whatley.
Absent: R. Booker.
Visitors: C. Crowley, F. Davenport, T. Glenn, A. Gravely, R. Sensabaugh, A. Shope, E. Snyder, B. Spellman.
I. Call to Order
Dr. Steve Patch called the meeting to order at 3:20 pm and welcomed senators and guests.
The Faculty Senate will meet January 29, 2004, at 3:15pm in the Owen Conference Center to consider the Integrative Liberal Studies proposal that APC will distribute for first reading today.
Dr. Patch asked senators to reserve March 18, 2004, for a special Senate meeting to consider APC documents for second reading.
II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of December 11, 2003, were approved following two corrections.
III. Administrative Report
Dr. Kathy Whatley gave the Administrative Report in Dr. Padilla's absence. Dr. Padilla is attending a meeting of the American Association of Colleges and Universities in Washington, D.C.
Campus-Based Tuition Increase
The Board of Governors is still considering the campus-based tuition increase. Many campuses in the system are applying for a CBTI.
Search for Director of University Computing
The search for the new Director of University Computing is going well, with over 100 applications. Anyone with input on the position should contact Jim Kuhlman. There will be a campus-wide opportunity to meet the candidates when they come for an interview.
Fundable FTE is up 3.9% and headcount is up 1.2% over this time last year. This is a good increase without being overwhelming. In order to manage spring enrollment better, we are requiring that admissions materials come in earlier.
We have many out-of-state students entering this spring. We receive out-of-state tuition from these students but they do not count in the 18% out-of-state enrollment cap. The cap is only for freshman class, fall semester.
Applications for Fall 2004 are running slightly ahead of last year. We are behind in entering data so figures are not exact.
Dr. Dee James asked if the figures included a breakdown of the diversity figures. Dr. Whatley stated that minority students in general, and African American students in particular, tend to apply and confirm admission later than other applicants. Other figures were not available at this time.
Dr. Rossell asked Dr. Whatley for an update on the joint Engineering program with NC State. Dr. Whatley reported that negotiations with NC State are on-going but the document will be finalized before the Board of Governors' meeting in March. Last December, Drs. Padilla, Gravely and Whatley met with the folks at NC State. The meeting generated additional questions. The curriculum issues have been resolved and Dr. Gravely is working on the transcript/registration issues. Changes made in the curriculum are mostly changes that APC would like to have seen -- for example, separation of the Freshman Colloquium course and the two introductory engineering courses, and having extra credit hours as a result of changes to ILS.
IV. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Patch gave the Executive Committee Report.
Grievance Committee Mediation
Mr. Tom Lawton, University Counsel, passed along a suggestion from the Board of Governors that constituent institutions consider extending the length of service of Grievance Committee Chairs. In that case, Grievance Committee Chairs could possibly receive formal mediation training and then we could keep the same person in that position for a longer term. The Executive Committee discussed the matter and unanimously agreed that this would not work well here. Extending the term would not fit in well with our electoral process and our process of determining Chairs.
Dr. Reynolds questioned whether we would incur the expense of paying a trained person if we did not have someone with mediation training on the Grievance Committee. Dr. Patch explained that, according to the new policy, the formally trained mediator would make a first attempt at mediating the dispute. That person cannot be on the Grievance Committee. If the two parties did not agree to have a preliminary mediation and it went to the Grievance Committee, then it would be helpful to have someone that is trained in that role. However, the Executive Committee did not support extending the length of service, given our electoral process and how faculty are elected to major committees, such as the Hearings Committee, Committee of Tenured Faculty, and the Grievance Committee. In addition, when someone is serving on these committees, they are ineligible to serve on other committees.
Faculty Role in Lobbying Local Legislators/BOG
Dr. Patch reported that UNC Faculty Assembly Chair Jeff Passe emailed the Faculty Senate Chairs, suggesting that faculty take a role in lobbying local legislators or local Board of Governor members about issues such as faculty salaries and benefits. Dr. Passe is willing to help us set this up. The Chair of the Board of Governors has also suggested that faculty meet with legislators to discuss issues such as faculty salaries.
The Executive Committee agreed this was a good idea and they discussed possible formats in which we might host a get-together and invite local legislators, volunteers from the Faculty Senate, and possibly include administrators and Board of Trustees' members. Dr. Passe thought it would be more effective to meet legislators on an individual basis. Dr. Patch thought both ideas had merit but he was unsure how to proceed. He suggested waiting until the campus-based tuition increase was resolved. In the meantime, he asked senators to reflect on the role the Senate may wish to take in the meantime.
V. Student Government Association Report
Mr. Tarik Glenn and SGA President Casey Crowley reported for the Student Government Association.
Mr. Glenn reported that the SGA recently appointed three members:
- Erin McDonald, Resident Senator, and representing Asheville Students for a Health Environment (ASHE)
- Amber Adams, Executive to Internal Affairs
-Tarik Glenn, Executive to Organizational Affairs
The SGA has been discussing two new policies -- Freshmen satellite parking, and placing boots on cars whose owners have accumulated either $100 in parking violations or five parking tickets.
Mr. Casey apologized for being unable to attend Senate meetings last semester due to a class conflict. He noted that UNCA has one of the most effective Faculty Senates in the state and members of the SGA can learn a lot from this group. He would like to have a Faculty Senate member speak to the SGA.
Dr. Patch thanked Mr. Crowley and Sean McDonald for their work on the Campus-Based Tuition Increase Task Force.
VI. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr. Mary Lynn Manns gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee (FWDC) Report.
New UNC Faculty Assembly Representative
Dr. Manns reported that last spring Duane Davis was elected UNC Faculty Assembly Representative for the 2003-06 term. Dr. Davis resigned from the position last September and Alternate Gwen Ashburn became the representative. This left the Alternate position vacant and there was a tie between John Stevens and Rick Maas for this position. Dr. Stevens stepped down as a possible alternate. Dr. Maas will serve as Alternate for Dr. Ashburn for the 2003-06 term.
Off-Campus Scholarly Assignment
FWDC is continuing to work on the Off-Campus Scholarly Assignment document that was withdrawn for further review in December. Dr. Manns thanked senators for their comments on the proposal.
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 2: Annual Evaluation of Faculty (with focus on Department Chairs) (Revision of Faculty Handbook Section 3.3 and 3.4)
FWDC 6: Establishment of Position Allocation Committee
FWDC 7: Establishment of Committee on Faculty Service
FWDC 8: Revision of "How Members are Selected" for Committees Whose Members are Appointed (Standing Committees). (Revision of Faculty Handbook Section 10.4.1.2)
Dr. Manns withdrew FWDC 7 and FWDC 8, and explained that as a result of questions raised when they were brought for first reading, FWDC has asked the University Service Council (USC) to look at them and consider expanding its duties to include the tasks specified in these documents. Last year she reviewed USC's duties and concluded that it, like the Distinguished Teaching Award Committee and the Feldman Committee, is charged with giving an award and there might be a conflict of interest.
Dr. Manns highlighted three catalysts for revamping how faculty are appointed to standing committees:
1) Committee work takes up too much time -- FWDC should be working on policy setting.
2) No one body on campus looks at all faculty service. Consequently, faculty complain:
They have too many service assignments.
They are not assigned to any committees.
The point values on the committee preference form are irrelevant.
Some faculty fear their service is not recognized if they do not receive a "standing committee" assignment from FWDC. (Dr. Manns noted that FWDC assigns faculty only to standing committees, not to the many other committees and task forces on campus.).
3) When FWDC assigns faculty to committees:
They do not know what other committees or task forces each faculty member serves on.
They do not know what people are good at -- FWDC is no longer able to know every faculty member on campus.
Dr. Manns reported that some people have raised the concern that giving faculty the privilege of choosing their own committee assignments will allow faculty members to choose nothing. In response, FWDC raised the following points:
1) This suggests that faculty should be policed. We do not police faculty on teaching and on scholarship. Rather, the quality of a faculty member's teaching and scholarship comes to light when he/she does the faculty record. This should be the same for service.
2) The Committee will look over all assignments before the final list is published.
3) Under the current system, there are faculty members who do not serve on any committees.
There are not enough slots for all faculty members to receive a "standing committee" assignment. Therefore, some faculty members are not assigned to anything. Under this new system, all service opportunities would be posted so that each faculty member would be able to find something that suits him/her best.
Mr. Bramlett questioned how student representatives are selected to serve on committees in the proposal. He suggested that perhaps students could express an interest in serving on a committee rather than having the SGA or the dorms assign students to committees. There should be a way to ensure that different constituencies of students serve on committees. Dr. Dee James added that there needs to be a formal mechanism to ensure that students on committees are representative of the student population as a whole, such as commuter, resident, and various ethnicities and allegiances, so we are not using the same pool of students on committees.
Dr. Nickless noted that within the documents that set up these committees it is specified how the students shall be chosen. Committees have different procedures and they should be followed. Some are chosen in consultation with the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and others are appointed by SGA. Dr. James promised that the final document would abide by earlier documentation establishing how students are selected to committees.
Dr. Alm suggested that the Committee be asked to look at the committees in toto on an annual basis to ensure that the student representation is indeed representative. As a faculty we have taken a stand that we believe in involving students in governance. The committee can ensure that the students reflect the different constituencies on campus.
FWDC 2: Annual Evaluation of Faculty (with focus on Department Chairs) (Revision of Faculty Handbook Section 3.3 and 3.4)
Dr. Manns reminded senators that the Department Chairs and Program Directors discussed this issue with Dr. Padilla over a span of two meetings. During the second meeting they approved this model.
Dr. Nickless stated that while this document says it focuses on Department Chairs, it in fact eliminates the three-year evaluation of Program Directors. She spoke to three Program Directors today, none of whom were aware that this was happening and none of whom had seen this document. She read from Section A which deletes Faculty Handbook Section 3.3.5, Evaluation of Program Directors:
Program Directors typically are appointed for three year terms and are evaluated in much
the same way as Department Chairs. Faculty teaching in the program and other persons knowledgeable about the program (e.g., members of advisory committees) are asked to
complete evaluations and submit them to the VCAA. Subsequently steps c-I for Evaluation of Departmental Chairs are followed.
It is replaced with the following:
"Faculty serving as Program Directors should include relevant information about their program activities in the service section."
This document eliminates the three-year evaluation of Program Directors before they are reappointed and replaces it with evaluation by their Department Chairs. This means that the Director of Humanities will now be evaluated by the Department of Education. The Director of Women's Studies will be evaluated by the Department of History. The Director of Africana Studies will be evaluated by the Department of Sociology. This institutionalizes a problem we have had with Program Directors all along - that they are not evaluated for what they do.
Dr. Manns explained the history behind the proposal. Dr. Padilla wants to put the evaluation of Department Chairs and the evaluation of Program Directors in two different documents. He has to meet with the Program Directors to decide how they will be evaluated. Relevant information about their program activities going in the service section is a placeholder. Also, this is the evaluation of faculty as a faculty member -- not as a Department Chair or as a Program Director.
Dr. Nickless asked why there was a separate section for Department Chairs? Dr. Manns replied because Department Chairs have previously been evaluated as faculty, not as Department Chairs. AVC Whatley stated that Academic Affairs is scheduled to meet with Program Directors on Monday. The part of this document that includes Department Chairs evolved through a series of meetings. Academic Affairs will go through the same process with Program Directors. Dr. Nickless suggested that if we want to change how Program Directors are evaluated, then we do not change Section 3.3.5 until we have something to replace it with.
Dr. Whatley noted that the intent of the document was not to eliminate the three-year evaluation of Program Directors. Dr. Katz added that the intent of the meeting on Monday is to discuss their attitudes and ideas about the evaluation process, their concerns about the evaluation protocols, what they would like to see amended, and also where they are on the reporting scheme. He anticipates bringing a proposal to the Senate that is based on the best interest of the Program Directors.
Dr. Konz commented that now that we have clarified the difference between annual evaluation and evaluation as Program Director or as Chair -- which is behind the confusion here -- he welcomed the sentence in 1(a) where work that Program Directors do will show up as part of the annual evaluation by the Chair. That has not been clear in the past. He also favored deleting Section A.
Dr. Alm moved to amend the document by deleting Section A. Dr. Brown seconded the motion, which passed by a vote of 12 to 0 with one abstention. There was also a friendly amendment to reword the last sentence under B.1: "Faculty serving as Program Directors should include relevant information about their program activities in the appropriate section(s)."
Dr. Whatley stated that this document evaluates faculty as faculty and Program Directors are faculty. Academic Affairs will be working out the process of evaluating Program Directors as Program Directors in the next month or two. Dr. Nickless stated that she was extremely uncomfortable passing a document that includes reviewing Department Chairs as Department Chairs without also having a procedure to review Program Directors as Program Directors. Dr. Patch clarified that the document is reviewing Department Chairs as faculty.
Dr. James noted that one of the issues -- especially with the change of administration (although it has never been clear) -- is how Department Chairs are to be evaluated as faculty. FWDC 2 addresses that issue. Following further discussion, Dr. James made a motion to postpone consideration of FWDC 2. Dr. Ruiz seconded the motion.
Dr. Katz spoke in favor of not postponing the proposal. The intention is to direct Chairs in their evaluation of faculty in their department and also to make sure that Program Directors' work in directing their programs is acknowledged in the appropriate sections of their faculty record.
Dr. Whatley pointed out that the original proposal had Department Chairs evaluated by senior faculty in their departments so that all faculty would be evaluated by other faculty. The Department Chairs wanted a different system and this particular system was worked out. Department Chairs are in a different category because they do not have a Chair. Program Directors are still part of the faculty in a given department and therefore they have a Chair and they should be evaluated as faculty members by their Department Chairs and then as Program Directors by an administrative function.
Dr. James stated that it was appropriate to say what the intent is, but the fact is that there is not another document to consider today. She favored postponing the proposal until the Senate could see the other document.
Dr. Alm stated that she attended the meetings of the Chairs and Program Directors and she knew that the Chairs wanted this procedure of evaluations. That is the intent that both Drs. Whatley and Katz have repeated and it is also what she understood from those meetings. However, Dr. Nickless' question of unintended consequences has merit and she favored postponing the document until all of the language is before the Senate. Dr. Patch pointed out that the key issue for this vote is whether there is some compelling reason for FWDC 2 to be considered now and not later. The motion to postpone FWDC 2 passed unanimously.
FWDC 6: Establishment of Position Allocation Committee (PAC)
Dr. Konz suggested that Program Directors should have a seat on this committee. Although there is a difference in that Chairs have positions, Program Directors should have a say in how positions are allocated. Dr. Nickless added that the PAC is the reinterpretation of the Council of Chairs in many ways. Program Directors served on the Council of Chairs and their job was to make sure that interdisciplinary programs were represented.
Dr. Whatley stated that the difference between the Council of Chairs and this committee is that the Council of Chairs were elected by the Department Chairs and Program Directors. On this committee, the Department Chairs serve on a rotating basis with one elected at-large. The idea is to ensure representation of all departments -- including the very small ones -- on a rotating basis. Program Directors would be represented by their AVC. The Senate discussed whether or not Program Directors were eligible to serve in the "at-large" position.
Dr. Wood spoke in favor of having a Program Director serve on the committee. Dr. Alm moved to amend the structure of the proposal as follows:
3 Department Chairs [one from each division (chosen alphabetically from a list of departments within divisions)], serving 2-year staggered terms
1 Program Director (chosen alphabetically from a list of interdisciplinary programs), serving a 2-year staggered term.
Dr. Konz seconded the motion. Following discussion, Dr. Whatley suggested that the Senate consider postponing the proposal until Dr. Padilla could speak to the Senate. Dr. Konz favored voting on the amendment before considering whether to postpone the document.
Following discussion, Dr. Pierce moved to postpone consideration of FWDC 6. Dr. Ruiz seconded the motion. The motion to postpone consideration of FWDC 6 passed by a vote of 10 to 2. Dr. Patch suggested that senators bring concerns or suggested amendments to FWDC.
VII. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report
Dr. Irene Rossell reported for the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council (IDC/UPC).
Resource Implications of Integrative Liberal Studies proposal
UPC met last week to discuss the resource implications of the proposed Integrative Liberal Studies Program (ILS). Dr. Rossell distributed a report summarizing the main points of that discussion. The report is not a first reading of a document that requires a vote. It is an informational report for the Senate to review as it considers APC's proposal. Keep in mind that UPC's report is not a comprehensive summary of resources needed for the ILS, because it is doubtful that anyone will know all of the resource implications of the ILS until it has been implemented.
VIII. Academic Policies Committee Report
Mr. Keith Bramlett gave the Academic Policies Committee Report.
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
APC 8: Integrative Liberal Studies (ILS) Implementation Proposal
Mr. Bramlett highlighted significant changes made to APC 8:
- Increasing Language 120 from 3 to 4 hours.
- Decrease in the number of social science hours from 6 to 3 hours.
- Dropping the number of Diversity Intensive courses from 2 to 1 and from 6 to 3 hours.
- Changing the number of topical clusters from 2 to 1 -- with at least 3 courses totaling 9 credit hours required within the one cluster, one course being a natural science course and another being a social science course.
This represents a major collaborative effort with a lot of input from across campus. It has been an extraordinary collaborative effort between Ed Katz and the ILS Team and APC. A lot of different constituencies on campus have been able to give input. This represents, in some ways, a great example of collaboration.
Mr. Bramlett issued the following disclaimers:
APC made a decision, in terms of editing and fine-tuning, that this is not typical Catalog copy. Part II The Catalog Descriptions has a lot of detail and statements that may seem to be more of a rationale. Ultimately, the decision to include additional information in the catalog descriptions came down to the fact that for a lot of faculty, this ILS proposal will not be the document that they ultimately rely upon - they will rely on the Catalog. For the first couple of years, we need that kind of verbosity in the Catalog. The other caveat is that the last section in terms of the actual Catalog changes is pretty tedious.
Mr. Bramlett thanked Ed Katz, the ILS team, the members of APC, and particularly Becky Sensabaugh and Alicia Shope, whose fine eye for detail and questions have been enormously helpful.
Dr. Katz and the ILS Team echoed their thanks to APC and to Alicia and Becky. It has been a long and complicated process and could not have been done without the collaboration and energy of all these folks.
Dr. Patch stated that the Executive Committee discussed the most efficient way to communicate to faculty that APC 8 had been distributed for first reading. Dr. Patch will send an email to faculty with a web location where they can view the document. Senators edited the draft of Dr. Patch's email. A Special Faculty Senate meeting will be held on January 29th in Owen Conference Room at 3:15pm to consider the proposal for second reading.
IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New Business
There was no New Business.
Dr. Patch adjourned the meeting at 5:15 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
Mary Lynn Manns