FACULTY SENATE MEETING
3:15 pm meeting
Members: M. Alm, R. Booker, K. Bramlett, T. Brown, D. James, J. Konz, ML Manns, S. Mills,
P. Nickless, S. Patch, D. Pierce, K. Reynolds,
Visitors: G. Ashburn, L. Atkinson, S. Baxley, B. Butler, L. Cornett, F. Davenport, P. Downes,
T. Glenn, E. Katz, B. Larson, D. Lisnerski, P. McClellan, J. Mullen, G. Nallan, D. Peifer,
I. Call to Order and Announcements
Dr. Steve Patch called the meeting to order at and welcomed senators and guests.
Dr. Manns reminded Senators of the off campus get-together after the meeting.
II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of
III. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Patch gave the Executive Committee Report.
Mr. Steve Baxley, Director of Facilities Management, distributed a Facilities Profile/10-Year Capital Plan and outlined the history of the capital plan. In 1999, all 16 campuses in the state system went through the Eva Kline and Associates (EKA) program and identified shortfalls with the aid of an outside consultant. This process resulted in a financial-needs statement for the legislature. Following negotiations, Phase I resulted in $2.6 billion for the universities, of which UNCA received $50 million. The entire program for all 16 campuses is on schedule.
No one in the state has mentioned a Phase II bond sell, but to assess our needs for Phase II, we have directed our master planners to hire Paulien Associates to conduct space standards / analyses of our programs. All 16 campuses have been asked to assess their needs for the next seven years using the Eva Kline study as a baseline and inflating the cost by 25%. We will answer this request, but will submit a revision after completing the Paulien study and our master planning effort. There will not be a final master plan until the end of fall semester, after we have considered the needs of all the departments on campus. Mr. Baxley will give our third-party-validated space requirements to Wayne McDevitt, Mark Padilla, and the Chancellor, which will put them in the strongest position for arguing for meeting our needs.
Dr. Ruiz asked if there was a master plan at one time. Mr. Baxley stated that there was a master plan in 1994, dating back to 1987. An upgrade finished in 1996 drove the concepts of a residential area on campus -- what to do with the Physical Plant site and the rest of the Governor=s Village site, and how many housing units we could have and retain the character of the space.
Dr. Reynolds referred to the handout
and asked for clarification on the A
Dr. Rossell asked Mr. Baxley to explain auxiliary funding. Mr. Baxley stated that auxiliary funding is non-state funding. About $10 million of auxiliary funds will be used for parking. We do not want to put a parking lot across from W.T. Weaver but we are considering it because one of the alternatives is to build a parking deck which will increase the cost of parking to state employees who have not seen a pay raise in three years.
Dr. Patch stated that he was unable
to attend the meetings on parking last week because he did not know they were
being held until the day they occurred.
He asked Mr. Baxley to summarize the meetings. Mr. Baxley explained that the meetings were
prompted when feasibility conversations with the Forestry Service were rapidly
misinterpreted to mean that bulldozers were going to start the next day. Bulldozers are not going to start -- we do
not have a contract and we have not awarded a contract. We have the preliminary planning needed to
discuss the issue. The meetings happened
rapidly to get to the basis of the incorrect rumors and because
Dr. Patch asked what the decision making process will be. Mr. Baxley stated that he will review the alternatives with his staff and will evaluate how they compare with our needs. He will meet with Wayne McDevitt, and potentially the Chancellor, on how to proceed and how to communicate with folks, especially those who participated in the process. The construction website will include information on what we are doing and how successfully we are responding to the ideas of concerned people. This fall there will be a larger conversation about parking on campus which will require more involvement of the Faculty Senate. We need to look at the parking issues and the master plan issues together because parking is a subset of the master plan. We will ultimately have a parking plan that is manageable and a financial plan for long-range parking needs.
Dr. Rossell asked if the timetable was by this fall or if something will be in place by August. Mr. Baxley noted that we have to answer the question in August for students.
Dr. Rossell asked if he planned to solicit input from the wider community prior to finalizing the decision. Mr. Baxley replied that he had not thought that far in advance. How we handle this is the same as how we need to handle the master plan. Paulien will help us with our academic needs, but we also need to open up the conversation -- not just off campus but on campus -- about other issues as well. How we handle the parking issue is hopefully going to be a good lesson on how to handle other issues.
Speaking on behalf of the faculty, Dr. Patch stated that faculty want to be involved in this process because they care about what happens to our students. Faculty know our students and think they can offer good advice. He suggested reactivating the Committee on the Update of the Master Plan for emergency-type decisions. That committee has been talking about these issues, has broad representation, and may be able to look at these issues this summer.
Dr. Rossell spoke on behalf of the Institutional Development Committee. IDC is a group of Senate members but they also sit on the University Planning Council. As a group, they were distressed that they were not involved at all in planning for a parking lot. She first heard of it when she received a flyer in the mail from a Forest Services employee. A flyer was also posted in Robinson Hall. Other members of IDC heard about it from students who had seen the flyer and asked them, AWhat is with this parking lot?@ IDC had not heard that there were any plans for additional parking on campus in the near future. Being that they all sit on the UPC -- charged with university resource allocations -- they were frustrated that they had not had an opportunity for input in the process. It left a poor taste in everyone=s mouth in terms of involving the campus community in these issues.
Mr. Baxley stated he does not have any desire to lock IDC or UPC out of that process. We have preliminary information with a designer to see how many cars we could put in the lot, what the cost would be, and if it is feasible. He noted that he could be faulted either way. When he raises issues with folks and they ask questions he cannot answer, he is faulted because he has not done his homework. If he does his homework by hiring a designer so he has the facts, he is faulted for not communicating with people as he goes through the process. He added that the Senate=s comments were well taken.
Recent Reorganization and the Role of Faculty Governance
Dr. Patch stated that the Senate asked to have a conversation with Chancellor Mullen on the recent reorganization and on the role of faculty governance in the university. He asked Dr. Mullen to talk about his views on shared governance -- which the Senate is especially interested in -- and to talk about some places where it has worked well, where it has worked poorly, and ways he thought it can work better.
Chancellor Mullen agreed that this is a good time to have a conversation. It has been five years since he came to UNCA. We have tried to do a number of things and what we have done most of all is to forge a relationship. Like all relationships, there are moments when it is perfect and there are moments when it has been less than perfect. But that does not mean the relationship is a problem. Since his arrival, he has asked for input from the community about issues of diversity, issues of retention, and around issues of connection with community. He believes deeply in the primacy of faculty governance on a college campus.
One of the challenges we have --and it is a discussion we need to continue -- is that he was also asked to move the institution forward with a model that respected shared governance. We have had some tremendous success. Ultimately, the merger of Student Affairs and Academic Affairs will be one of our greatest successes. Looking back, he wished there had been some vehicle where we could have had conversations about ideas, concepts, and office mergers. He took the initiative on titles -- it was his decision. But the product is a good one, and we will have a year and a half of ultimate shared governance to test the changes.
As the institution continues to move forward, we need to find ways for conversations. Dr. Mullen suggested that he work more directly with the Faculty Senate. He would be happy to meet with the Executive Committee on a regular basis to discuss issues and share information. We need to have conversations about issues like parking. Ultimately we have to make a decision for 600 freshmen. He applauded Steve Baxley for his extraordinary effort to try to be an agent. Dr. Mullen reiterated that he is open to any conversation; his commitment to faculty governance is real, it is sincere, and it is deeply held.
Dr. Brown stated that he has been thinking about planning councils and governance structures. The UPC, for a long time, has been struggling with the issue of how to integrate planning processes that are meaningful with all the different constituencies that are affected by planning decisions. He suggested having a Chancellor=s Cabinet where there is input around a relatively small table of faculty, administrators, possibly students, and the Vice Chancellors -- where all the constituencies are represented but it can still be a fairly efficient vehicle for making decisions. We are thinking about this in the Faculty Senate -- how do we integrate the University Planning Council and planning activities with IDC?
Chancellor Mullen noted that he formed a Cabinet, but it was not in any way strategic and died of its own sluggishness. We need to have a Cabinet structure again, but we need to keep it strategic. He knows we have had discussions in the past around UPC. He does not believe UPC/IDC is effective in dealing with every line of every budget -- that is an administrative responsibility. He knows some people disagree with him and he respectfully disagrees. Talk to him about what are going to be the eventual issues -- Are we going to have any growth at UNCA? Is there going to be a limited number of master’s= degree programs connected in some way to UNCA? These are conversations that must be decided by shared governance. We need to decide the big strategic picture -- where we are going -- so the thrust of the budget reflects our priorities.
In any relationship there are times when there are conversations and everything is perfect. But sometimes the timing falls out for those conversations and you have to step back and ask, “How do we make it better?” Steve Baxley did the best with a difficult situation around parking. But ultimately there has to be some conversation, and we cannot wait until fall to decide what we are going to do when the freshman are driving onto campus. Ultimately he will make a decision and accept the consequences. But the point is well taken -- let=s find a vehicle so that faculty know what is happening and will not be asking, AWhat was this about?@ If we have a combination of a Cabinet structure, an Administrative Council, regular meetings with the Executive Committee and the Chancellor, and during the semester if the Senate feels he should meet with the full Senate, then let=s think through the issues we want to take on together.
Dr. Nickless noted that UPC, at times, really did strategic planning, so it is possible to do that within some kind of framework whether it is the old UPC or a new framework. It is not just that we want to know what is going on -- but that is part of it. Nobody likes to be blind-sided by students telling us there is going to be a parking lot across the street and then discover that indeed there may be one. Faculty do not want to be embarrassed by being in the dark. Parking is almost trivial compared to some of our problems. But if faculty know that people have sat down and looked at it carefully -- and they have been part of that conversation -- then we are standing there with you. Our planning process has not worked very well the last five years -- it has fallen apart. It was not working well when you came and it has not worked well since you have gotten here, in terms of pulling people in. But we have to go forward somehow.
Dr. Mullen stated that he respected what Dr. Nickless was saying and her perspective. He has tried to do what he thought he heard faculty wanted: sustain academic excellence; focus on achieving resources; and find a mechanism to deal with general education. General education is a wonderful example of where shared governance worked. He thought we had a fair amount of process around merging Academic Affairs and Student Affairs because the problem goes back long before he was Chancellor. There were two SACS review processes that were faculty driven in many ways. The second SACS Study clearly indicated we needed to bridge Student Affairs and Academic Affairs. The Diversity Committee and the Retention Committee reiterated this need. If we had had the structure we have been talking about, we would have had far more give and take before the announcement, and he respects that. He does not claim we have done everything perfectly, but we have made significant strides. We have had clear planning directives. The master planning effort is significant and will result in a stronger master plan. Strategic planning conversations are taking place, and there are issues that faculty governance needs to address. The challenge has been to connect the dots, which goes back to Dr. Brown=s point.
Recommendations from the Task Force to Study Faculty Salary Distribution
Dr. Bruce Larson reported the recommendations made by the Task Force to Study Faculty Salary Distribution. The Task Force was created by the Faculty Senate through SD0403F and was charged with making recommendations that include guidelines for:
‘ equity adjustments,
‘ allocating merit,
‘ allocation of future salary increases into merit, cost of living and equity adjustments,
‘ starting salary offers,
‘ compensation for department chairs [and program directors] and
‘ compensation for faculty members coming from or partially in the UNCA administrative positions.
In light of this very broad charge and the need to provide actionable recommendations during this academic year, the Task Force decided to work in steps.
1: Address academic years 2001-02,
2002-03 and 2003-04 during which there were no meaningful across-the-board
salary increases and no merit increases.
These years are central to decisions on how to allocate funds from (a)
the Campus Based Tuition Increase (CBTI) and (b) the budgetary actions of the
Step 2: Address the broader charges of the Task Force, in particular equity adjustments. Work on the necessary equity study will begin this summer. Recommendations for Step 2 will be made in the next academic year.
Recommendations for Step 1:
Cost of Living
Recommendation I (adjustments).
Faculty salaries should be adjusted to reflect the recent inflationary
experience of the
Note that faculty may receive one of four evaluations in a given year: No Increase, Merit, High Merit or Exceptional Merit.
Recommendation 2 (adjustments). Faculty salaries should be adjusted to reflect the merit evaluations received by faculty during the last three years. In light of institutional practice in areas such as reappointment, promotion, post tenure review and chair assignments, the adjustments should be for a fixed dollar amount for any given merit category for any given year.
Recommendation 3 (amounts). For each of the last three years, merit amounts should be awarded in accordance with the following schedule: No Increase ($0); Merit ($450); High Merit ($675); and Exceptional Merit ($900).
Recommendation 4 (amount evaluation schedule).
Merit amounts should be examined and communicated annually to reflect
inflationary experience in addition to the budgetary actions of the State of
Recommendation 5 (merit evaluation process). Academic Affairs should work with the Faculty Senate
to determine whether the existing merit evaluation process yields consistent results within and among departments.
Recommendation 6. UNCA faculty and staff collaborate with one another to provide a superior liberal arts education for well-prepared students who are committed to learning and personal growth. Due to the recent Campus Based Tuition Increase, some progress has been made toward bringing UNCA faculty salaries in line with those of its peers. However, staff salaries still remain to be addressed. Because the provision of a superior liberal arts education requires the recruitment and retention of an outstanding staff, as well as an outstanding faculty, the university administration should take all appropriate measures to ensure that UNCA
staff compensation is brought in line with that of its peers.
Dr. Larson noted that the Board of Governors has specified four priorities for using CBTI funds:
1. Reduce the size of classes
2. Increase the number of sections offered
3. Hire fewer part-time and more permanent faculty
4. Take other actions as appropriate.
Funds expended on priorities 1, 2 and 3 will reduce the funds available for adjusting faculty compensation.
Dr. Rossell recalled that CBTI would make salaries more attractive so that we can better attract good people. Does this take care of people who are currently here? Dr. Padilla stated that hopefully this will address that issue. He has raised the bottom salaries as high as he can before reaching a compressed salary group. By increasing salaries, particularly those in the mid-40s, we can bring the starting salary up to ~$44K over the next couple of years.
Dr. Patch suggested spreading out the merit more evenly in Recommendation 3 so that the biggest gap was not between “no merit” and “merit” (as “no merit” is rarely assigned). Dr. Padilla agreed with Dr. Patch and also supported Recommendation 5; reviewing the merit evaluation process is an important issue that he would like to see folded into faculty governance.
Mr. Bramlett thanked Dr. Larson for an awesome job.
Dr. Nickless moved that the Senate accept the Task Force=s recommendations in principle and recommended that the Provost Office take them under consideration for upcoming salary adjustments. Dr. Booker seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
UNC Faculty Assembly Report
Dr. Gwen Ashburn reported on a recent Faculty Assembly meeting.
- Survey of Senior Faculty
Dr. Betsy Brown, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs at the Office of the President, reported on a survey of senior faculty that yielded a 15.6% response rate.
‘ Senior faculty work significant hours (average 57 hours/week).
‘ They emphasize teaching and outreach -- even beyond what their institutions expect.
‘ They are active scholars, producing an average of 1 refereed paper and more than 1 presentation each year.
‘ They perceive higher education as important to the civic good.
‘ Overall, they are satisfied with academic life, to the point that, if given the choice, over 90% of them would select this career again.
‘ 35% of them are somewhat or highly likely to retire in the next three years.
‘ They anticipate needing 76% of their current income in retirement.
‘ Health care benefits are their overwhelming concern in retirement.
Dr. Padilla added that the anticipated wave of retirements has not materialized. Faculty remain engaged and hard working, and they are finding ways to supplement their salaries with outside consulting. It is good for the culture in terms of faculty development and mentoring. In terms of salaries, more money is tied up in the higher salaries and less money is available at the bottom. Dr. Ashburn noted that the slow retirement rate is a concern for the Ph.D. granting institutions.
- Athletics Task Force recommendations
The Athletics Task Force made the following recommendations:
‘ That the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) have a formal job description at each institution.
‘ The position carries financial support (means to attend meetings and have secretarial help).
‘ That the FAR appointment be made with input from the faculty and should be a tenured member of the faculty. There should be a renewable term. Renewable terms should be no longer than 5 years.
‘ The FAR should report to the Faculty Senate at least annually.
‘ The University Athletics Committee (UAC) should have a stated charge. The University Athletics Committee should make its recommendations on policies and procedures to the Chancellor, Faculty Senate/Council, or other appropriate bodies.
‘ A majority of the membership of the UAC should be members of the faculty, selected by normal faculty governance processes. The FAR should be a member of the UAC.
Dr. Gary Nallan noted that UNCA has all of those recommendations in place.
- UNCA Budget
A number of schools have felt like the budget was a secret. President Broad has asked each Chancellor to have the budget available in the library. UNCA=s budget can be seen at: http://www.unca.edu/ir/report/budget/bd_701.pdf.
Executive Committee Business
Dr. Patch reported on two resolutions passed this spring. The health insurance resolution has been forwarded to Jeff Passe, Chair of the UNC Faculty Assembly. The staff salaries resolution was delivered to the large state newspapers, our legislators, and to the Board of Governors.
Thoughts on upcoming year
Dr. Patch commented on issues that will be coming up next year and suggested areas for improvement:
- Constitution Revision and other Senate Task Forces
Constitution revision is not glamorous, but if well done can lead to smooth functioning of the Senate for many years to come. It is crucial that Senate members give the Task Force feedback and think creatively about how to avoid problems in the future which is a much more difficult task than solving the problems of the past. The two other ongoing task forces, Student Evaluation of Instruction and Faculty Salary Equity, should be finishing their deliberations next year. As the three task forces move forward, it is important to give them feedback early in the process as opposed to waiting until their recommendations are formally considered at a Senate meeting.
- ILS Implementation
The Senate needs to work with ILSOC to make any adjustments necessary to the functioning of the program. As we monitor the ILS program, it is important that we use our resources such as faculty time efficiently so that we establish a high-quality ILS program without negatively impacting our other educational offerings. As an example, we now have the ILSOC intensives subcommittees judging every case where a transfer student wishes to receive credit for an intensive. This system may work great, but if we find that this system requires too much faculty time, we need to quickly develop an alternate approach to evaluating transfer students.
- Improve the Way We Elect Committees
Members of the faculty have been telling us for several years that electing committees without a nomination process is a poor selection process. Dr. Patch proposed that we implement a simple nomination system in which any faculty member may nominate any faculty member, typically with his/her consent, in the fall. The FWDC would make sure that nominees are eligible and put out a second call for nominees if necessary near the end of the fall semester. In the spring, the nominees would know that they might be selected for a particular committee and could make their position known to the faculty. A system for handling write-in votes may have to be developed. While there are other issues that need to be addressed with such a system, he cautioned against spending too much time either studying the issue such as with a task force or developing a system that is too elaborate. Continuing a theme that we have used often this year, he encouraged us to try to quickly implement something that is better than what we have now, even if imperfect, and refine it as necessary over time. In the long run, the voting process should be handled administratively under FWDC supervision but that is a less pressing matter than implementing a nomination process.
- Communicate with the Faculty
This year we have made some progress in communicating our important issues with the faculty and asking for input before considering them at the meeting. However, we only did it for issues that we thought were important, which might not agree with what they thought was important. The Executive Committee believes that we should try to implement a system in which we post links to the documents that are coming up for second reading along with the agenda that we give the faculty electronically. Perhaps we might start with FWDC and IDC documents only. It is important to invite participation even if we know that not many faculty members will take advantage it. Having an open and transparent process has its own rewards whether many faculty take advantage of it or not. In a similar vein, our current Constitution states that "the Senate must report actions within two weeks via faculty mail so that any faculty member may initiate discussion of Senate actions.@ One way that we could address this would be to note the results for each item under consideration at the Senate meeting on the agenda and post that to the faculty shortly after the meeting.
- Communicate with the Administration
At times this year we have questioned the communication the administration has provided the faculty concerning important decisions. While we should expect better communication from the administration, there are things that we can do to improve that communication. In addition to the monthly meetings that the Senate Chair has traditionally had with the Chancellor and the Provost, we need to provide an opportunity for them to converse informally with other members of the Senate. Some possibilities include inviting them both to an Executive Committee meeting each semester and scheduling informal conversations of Senators and administrators, perhaps through social gatherings. We also need to follow through with the policy we passed in the fall of having the VCs make a presentation to the Senate. (A Senator questioned whether it was appropriate to meet informally with the Chancellor, given the Open Meeting rule. Dr. Patch noted that such concern would be addressed.)
- Faculty and Staff Salaries/Faculty Workload
The Faculty Senate has little control over faculty and staff salaries and workload. One thing we can do is to help insure that our limited resources are distributed fairly and used efficiently. Other than that, the best we can do is continue to remind those who do have control over faculty and staff salaries that the quality of the faculty and staff in the university is by far the most important determinant of the quality of the educational experience for the students and that the long-term performance of the faculty and the staff is directly related to the compensation provided to them.
IV. Administrative Report
Dr. Padilla gave the Administrative Report.
Strategic Visioning Task Force
The Strategic Visioning Task Force has completed its first phase. Moderator Dan Ray presented an overview of the process and recommendations that he put together based upon the spectrum of conversation. They discussed the recommendations and Mr. Ray will put together another version of the process and present it to the Chancellor. Perhaps this will result in a desire to renew strategic planning and re-examine our goals and concepts in light of our experience. The Senate can look at the document next August or September when we have the full report.
Dr. Alm asked when the full faculty will have an opportunity to see the document. Dr. Padilla replied that that is up to the Chancellor -- it is his document.
Enrollment for Fall 2004
The current enrollment projection is for 648 new freshmen, including 145 out-of-state students. The projected 2004-05 headcount is 3,437 (93 more than Fall 2003) for a 2.7% increase. The projected student credit hour increase will be 0.4% (a 200 hour increase over last year).
- Applicants who identified themselves as Black:
In 2003 we received 94 applications and accepted 35. In 2004 we received 84 applications and accepted 42. The projection based on deposits of acceptances is 21-22.
- Other minorities:
In 2003 we received 165 applications and accepted 100. In 2004 we received 189 applications and accepted 116. Last year at this time we had 19 deposits out of 100 accepts. This year we have 26 deposits out of 116 accepts. We predict somewhere between 29-34 “Other Minority” students, bringing us to a “Total Minority” enrollment between 51-55 new freshmen. Figures were not available on “Transfer” students.
Dr. Padilla reported on two areas of concern -- the overall high enrollment and minority recruitment. We have exceeded our enrollment expectations for two years in a row. To come closer to our target enrollment, we will use a new deadline process next year. This allows us to shift our emphasis to recruiting the class that we want within these parameters. Fortunately the Supreme Court ruling is very much in our favor. It says that schools that do not have a critical mass can be more aggressive in attaining that critical mass than other schools that do. We will take the broadest possible interpretation of the law that restricts the unfair recruitment of non-white students.
He met with 10-15 minority students at the Chancellor=s residence Monday night and had a 3-4 hour discussion about their concerns and strategies for better recruitment and retention. Increasing the number of minority students will be a major focus next year and there will be less time to recruit overall students.
The Senate discussed the weight given to SAT scores or standardized test scores as opposed to rank in class. Dr. Padilla reported that we have relaxed our emphasis on SAT scores because high school rank and GPA are better predictors. But we will continue to require SAT scores. He is hearing from the campus that we need to diversify the student body and that is what he intends to convey to the Admissions Office.
We continue to recruit more from the
Mr. Bramlett stated that he wanted to go on the record that he finds it ironic in our discussion on diversity that we are recruiting more privileged students. He is not the only faculty member who feels this way. A lot of our first generation college students are wonderful fits with the liberal arts tradition. One of the problems we have had in the past is that we admitted first generation college students, but we have not worked with them and we have not helped them -- or their families -- understand the liberal arts tradition. It would be a monumental mistake to have an admission priority for students whose parents have high educational backgrounds to the exclusion of first generation college students.
Dr. Padilla replied that this is a great question and we have to ask ourselves --what do we want our students to be like? There are pros and cons every way, so we need to have that conversation.
Mr. Bramlett stated that when we talk about how we value diversity -- we ought to say up front that we are not interested in class diversity. Are we saying that we are not interested in having working class students here? That is what we are really talking about in many ways. We are saying that we want students from middle class backgrounds and above. Dr. Padilla stated we often ask where the students from the protected minority groups are. What do we want to look like as a university and what do we want to be? There is a trade off. There are more African American students in middle class families in the Piedmont area than there are here. We will try to do everything and we will do a little bit of everything, but the strategy is to use our residential status to recruit students away from the region who fit our diversity focus. That is the only way we can go forward to meet those goals. If we have different goals, he needs to know because this is a current strategy.
Mr. Bramlett stated that we have
first generation college students in the
Dr. Nickless agreed with Mr. Bramlett and added that Dr. Padilla is also right -- we need to have a discussion about this. We have students at Asheville High that we should be serving but are not. She has said this every 18 months since 1983. Dr. Padilla noted that few African American males are graduating from Asheville High. Dr. Nickless replied not just African American males -- but other working class students as well -- we are not serving that whole working class group, no matter what the race.
NC Institute on Health Promotion and Partnerships
There is an initiative in the legislature to set aside money
for health-related programs in the universities across the state -- a cancer
V. Student Government Association Report
There was no Student Government Association report.
VI. Academic Policies Committee Report
Mr. Keith Bramlett gave the Academic Policies Committee Report.
The following document was considered for First Reading.
APC 40: Revision of Sunset Policy (SD0489F)
APC met with Dr. Padilla and some AVCs at the beginning of the year and discussed this time-consuming issue for APC. APC was given leeway to develop an alternative policy and it sees this as a substantial improvement in terms of management. This is an administrative management issue rather than an APC issue. As long as the AVCs request it, Institutional Research will continue to generate the list and will send it to them as opposed to the Registrar.
Dr. Nickless moved to waive the Comer Rule to consider the document. The motion was seconded by Dr. Alm and passed unanimously. The document was then considered for Second Reading. APC 40 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 5604S.
On behalf of APC, Mr. Bramlett
expressed appreciation to
VII. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr. Mary Lynn Manns gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee (FWDC) Report.
Faculty Election Results
Committee of Tenured Faculty
Humanities: Deborah James
Natural Sciences: Mark McClure
Social Sciences: Joseph Sulock
Humanities: Megan Wolfe
Natural Sciences: Randy Booker
Humanities: Brian Butler
Natural Sciences: Leigh Atkinson
Social Sciences: Don Lisnerski
At-large: Bruce Larson, Gary Nallan
Alternates: Scott Walters, Richard Maas, Linda Cornett
Humanities: Merritt Moseley
Natural Sciences: David Peifer
Social Sciences: Marcia Ghidina
Assistant Professor: Sandra Byrd
Associate Professor: Melissa Heimlein
Professor: Gregg Kormanik
Academic Appeals Board
Alternate: Gordon Wilson
UNC Faculty Assembly Representative
Alternate: Lora Holland
Faculty Salary Report
Dr. Manns discussed the Faculty Salary Report and moved approval of the following Sense of the Senate Resolution:
‘ That the FWDC continue to give annual reports on faculty salary;
‘ That the appropriate administrator give an annual report to the Senate on the implementation of the plan developed during the 2002-03 year, including what still needs to be accomplished;
‘ That future local tuition increases include a portion for faculty salaries; and
‘ That the Senate continue to monitor the source of payment to faculty with administrative duties.
Dr. Alm seconded the motion. The Senate discussed the second bullet. Dr. Lisnerski stated that President Broad presented this initiative to Faculty Assembly; supposedly a memorandum went to each of the universities giving them a time frame to develop a plan to bring salaries up to the level that they indicated in the items that they submitted to the Office of the President. Dr. Alm moved to strike the second bullet. Dr. Konz seconded the motion.
Dr. Manns was concerned that by removing this item we would not have a resolution stating that an administrator will give an annual report of any kind on the salary issue. Dr. Padilla stated that Institutional Research compiles this information and it is under his office, so he is already providing the information. Dr. Nickless favored deleting the bullet but having FWDC review this next fall. The second bullet was removed as the motion to amend passed.
Dr. Konz asked Dr. Manns to explain the last bullet. Dr. Manns explained that some faculty have moved to administration and there is some question about how these people are being paid. This is affecting faculty salaries and workload. FWDC monitored the source of payment to these faculty.
Dr. Patch asked Dr. Padilla for an overview on the progress made to move administrators off of the faculty salary line. Dr. Padilla stated that there had been no change in the salary lines with the reorganization changes this spring. The picture remains the same as the beginning of fall term last year. The goal for the Associate Vice Chancellors of program areas is 75% from administrative salary and 25% from faculty salary lines because their teaching load is 1:1. His goal is to do this in three years. He used the last CBTI for its intended purpose to move folks who are doing administrative work over to the administrative salary line. His goal is to not use instructional dollars for administrative work to the degree possible. FWDC is welcome to sit with him and confidentially look through the salary information. The Sense of the Senate Resolution passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 5704S.
Nominees to Standing Committees
Dr. Manns distributed the slate of Nominees to Standing Committees to be considered by the 2004-05 Faculty Senate at its meeting later today.
Vote on nominees for Alternate Faculty Conciliator
Dr. Manns expressed deep thanks to the members of FWDC, all of whom really care about this university. Dr. James thanked Mary Lynn -- who has lead FWDC well this year.
VIII. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report
Dr. Irene Rossell reported for the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council (IDC/UPC).
Global Issues major in IST
IDC had a second meeting with Linda Cornett, to continue discussing her proposal for a new Global Issues major within Interdisciplinary Studies. Dr. Cornett provided letters of support for the proposed major from the chairs of eight departments. She will be submitting the proposed curriculum to APC in the fall, along with a detailed budget that will come to IDC. Concurrently, a task force will be reviewing the role of the IST program during the fall semester. That review had been planned for this semester, but was postponed until a new program director is appointed.
Proposed NC Institute on Health Promotion and Partnerships
received very late notice that a new center is being proposed at UNCA (NC
Institute on Health Promotions and Partnerships). She was notified too late for this proposal
to be discussed at IDC=s last meeting, and she was not
certain whether the new members of IDC will be able to meet to discuss this
proposal before the paperwork is sent to
UNCA priorities for next budget year
The University Planning Council is charged with the duty of annual budget review and allocation. Because of UPC=s uncertain role this year, the members of UPC delegated that responsibility to IDC last September. IDC met separately with the Provost and with the Vice Chancellors this spring, to discuss their plans and priorities for the next budget year. Dr. Rossell distributed a summary report of those conversations. Dr. Rossell reminded Senators that during the next academic year, increased student enrollment will generate $1,115,580 in new funding for UNCA. These funds will generate up to 8.3 new faculty positions, provide additional library support, and contribute to student aid. Of the total enrollment funds increase, $363,734 will be available for general institutional support. The priorities and initiatives proposed by each administrative unit were described to us as follows (these are not ranked in any way):
- Academic and Student Affairs (Mark Padilla, Pat McClellan)
The priorities for Academic Affairs include classroom technology, as well as faculty development, learning disabilities, and new initiatives. Some specific needs are:
‘ One staff person in the area of instructional design, who would be skilled in the use of technology in the classroom, and who would work with faculty on course design.
‘ One staff person in the area of learning disabilities (to be affiliated with the counseling center, and to work with the advising office).
‘ One staff person to act as coordinator of external affairs for the Education Department during its accreditation review.
‘ Resources for developing a Craft Campus at the old county landfill site.
‘ Faculty development funds for implementation of the ILS.
‘ Additional smart classrooms on campus.
‘ Computer upgrades for faculty and administrative support units.
- The priorities for Student Affairs will be making connections for students beyond the classroom, and integrating student and academic events. Some specific needs are:
‘ One staff person and possibly some faculty release time, to facilitate the coordination of student and academic events and programs. For example, these individuals might be responsible for organizing theme-based semesters that integrate course offerings along with events such as films, speakers, field trips, dinners, and special events.
‘ One staff person and possibly some faculty release time, to staff an Enhanced Learning office. These individuals would lead learning circle efforts, and assist students, faculty, and staff with creating learning opportunities beyond the classroom.
‘ Resources associated with the
opening of the
- Alumni and Development (Bill Massey)
A priority of Mr. Massey=s office will be working towards increasing the level of giving by UNCA alumni. Bill=s vision for the office includes increasing efforts in the areas of class reunions, career services for alumni, an alumni magazine, electronic publications for alumni, annual funds, and principle gifts to UNCA. Specific needs include the following staff positions:
‘ An assistant to work with Bill on special projects
‘ A grants writer
‘ An annual fund officer
‘ A webmaster for the Alumni Association
‘ A national media writer
- Administration and Financial Affairs (Wayne McDevitt)
The greatest priority for Mr. McDevitt=s office will be the recovery of
budget losses sustained by UNCA during the last few years (the university
operating budget has suffered the greatest cuts, in an effort to retain personnel).
At IDC=s last meeting, they discussed the proposed freshman parking lot that is scheduled for construction this summer. The committee was disturbed that although they also sit on the University Planning Council, they first heard about the parking lot from flyers that were distributed by an anonymous party, or from irate students who had seen these flyers. Regardless of whether the parking lot is in the best interest of UNCA, the fact that this issue was not brought to the attention of IDC or UPC, the Faculty Senate, or the university community indicates a troubling lack of communication and a disregard for campus input into the planning process at UNCA.
Dr. Rossell thanked members of IDC for their work this year.
IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New Business
Mr. Bramlett spoke on behalf of the Senate, and presented a gift to Steve Patch in recognition and appreciation of his work; for our respect of his leadership and guidance; for the exemplary fashion in which he represented the Senate and all UNCA faculty; for his steadfast efforts to improve faculty salaries, and last but not least, his erudite mastery of parliamentary procedure -- and his musical entertainment. A round of applause followed.
Senators Mary Alm, Keith Bramlett, Mary Lynn Manns, John Wood, and Steve Patch are retiring from the Senate this year. Dr. Patch applauded his fellow Senators for their considerable contributions to the Senate this year.
Replacing Senator Dee James
Dr. Patch stated that Dr. Dee James
requested to be removed from the Senate next year due to health reasons. The Executive Committee has honored Dr. James= request. The 2004-05 Senate will elect an Alternate to
Dr. Patch adjourned the meeting at .
Respectfully submitted by:
Mary Lynn Manns