FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes,
3:15 pm meeting
Senate
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,
A. Shope.
I. Call to
Order and Announcements
Dr. Steve Patch called the meeting
to order at
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.
Bond Referendum
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
Parking
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.
Step
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
State of
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
Merit
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.
Staff Compensation
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
center in
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.
First
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.
Thank you
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
Post-Tenure Review
Humanities: Megan
Wolfe
Natural Sciences:
Randy Booker
Faculty Senate
Humanities: Brian
Butler
Natural Sciences:
Leigh Atkinson
Social Sciences: Don Lisnerski
At-large: Bruce
Larson, Gary Nallan
Alternates: Scott
Walters, Richard Maas, Linda Cornett
Hearings
Humanities: Merritt
Moseley
Natural Sciences:
David Peifer
Social Sciences:
Marcia Ghidina
Grievance
Assistant Professor:
Sandra Byrd
Associate Professor:
Melissa Heimlein
Professor: Gregg Kormanik
Academic Appeals Board
Judy Beck
Eric Gant
Alternate: Gordon
Wilson
UNC Faculty Assembly Representative
Cathy Mitchell
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
The
Thank you
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
Dr. Rossell
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).
Freshman Parking
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.
Thank you
Dr. Rossell
thanked members of IDC for their work this year.
IX. Old
Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New
Business
Thank you
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.
Retiring Senators
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
fill
XI. Adjournment
Dr. Patch adjourned the meeting at
Respectfully submitted by:
Mary Lynn Manns
Don Lisnerski