University of North Carolina at Asheville
Minutes, October 16, 2003

Members: M. Alm, R. Booker, K. Bramlett, T. Brown, D. James, J. Konz, ML Manns, S. Mills, S. Patch, D. Pierce, K. Reynolds, I. Rossell; M. Padilla.

Excused: P. Nickless, M. Ruiz, J. Wood.

Visitors: E. Katz, B. Larson, DB Mullen, A. Shope, T. Glenn.


I. Call to Order/Announcements
Dr. Steve Patch called the meeting to order at 3:18 pm and welcomed senators and guests.

- Dr. Patch announced that Mike Ruiz, John Wood, and Pamela Nickless were out of town at conferences/meetings in their respective areas.

- Mr. Brad Wilson, president of the Board of Governors, has arranged to meet with faculty members tomorrow from 10:15 - 11:00am in Laurel Forum.

- The campus-wide APC Forum on the Integrative Liberal Studies Proposal will be held tomorrow from 4:30-6:30pm in Laurel Forum. Senators were encouraged to attend to hear faculty input.

II. Approval of Minutes
Dr. Alm asked for clarification on the composition of the 2003-04 Strategic Thinking Task Force. Four faculty members of UPC will serve (at least two from Faculty Senate), yet reference is made to eight or nine UPC members serving on the Task force. Dr. Padilla explained that four faculty, four Vice Chancellors, and one student -- all of whom sit on UPC -- will serve on the Task Force.

The minutes of September 18, 2003, were approved following an editorial correction.

III. Administrative Report
Vice Chancellor Padilla gave the Administrative Report.
Update on Task Force on University Strategies
Dr. Padilla reported on the external membership of the Task Force on University Strategies. Several letters have been sent to external constituents (trustees, alums, community members, corporate executives that tend to be alums, and legislators) inviting them to sit on the Task Force. He did not know how many will accept the invitation to participate, but hopefully the group will expand to include this group. Moreover, a few other internal people (such as Dwight Mullen) have been invited to participate. There will eventually be a website with membership and minutes of the proceedings.

The Institute of Biltmore consultants are finishing the audit of materials Dr. Padilla sent and are entering the interview phase. They will be calling individuals soon, from both on and outside campus, to talk about the university's strengths and weaknesses. The results will be shared with the Task Force. 

Dr. Rossell asked who the consultants would be interviewing. Dr. Padilla replied that the largest group to be interviewed will be faculty. He gave the consultants a large list consisting of members of the Task Force and representatives from all four divisions. There are about 25-30 names from off campus.

Dr. Rossell noted that the Strategic Thinking Task Force has been renamed the Task Force on University Strategies and had also been called the Task Force on Strategic Thinking/Positioning. She wanted to make sure faculty were not confused by the various names and asked if the name change indicated a change in direction. Dr. Padilla assured the Senate that the name change in no way reflected a change in direction. This is an attempt to find a means to tactically implement our goals, objectives, and mission, in ways that we have not been able to do so -- particularly with outside constituents. The tactics are those of communication more than any kind of emphasis towards a strategic plan.

IV. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Steve Patch gave the Executive Committee Report.
First Reading:
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
EC 2: Creation of a Task Force to Study Faculty Salary Distribution

Second Reading:
The following document was considered for Second Reading:

EC 1: Presentations of Vice Chancellors at Faculty Senate Meetings (Revision of SD3290S).
EC 1 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 0203F.

Report from Director of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs
Dr. Patch stated that the Executive Committee asked Dwight Mullen, Director of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs, to report on the status of diversity at UNCA.

Dr. Mullen distributed a handout on the Fall census data that may be viewed at: fall.PDF He noted that the data in the racial/international column (classification, sex, dorm status) is used to compare us with other campuses in the UNC system.

A survey to assess campus climate regarding racial/ethnic and gender diversity will be administered by Institutional Research soon. The primary purpose of the confidential survey is to determine faculty and student views about the role of diversity in the classroom and on campus. This assessment is following a nationally administered model co-sponsored by the American Council on Education (ACE) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). The tabulated responses are expected by March 2004. The campus' self assessment is an expected step in seriously competing for federal and private foundation grants. Dr. Mullen is particularly interested in the National Science Foundation's ADVANCE - Institutional Transformation Award. The website is:

Dr. Mullen highlighted the impact of the University of Michigan Supreme Court decision. We may continue to consider race, but we may not consider it exclusively or to the advantage of any one particular group. UNCA is adhering to these standards in recruitment, admission, retention, scholarships, and programs. These areas have to be reassessed in terms of the new standard.

Dr. Mullen has been working with programs designed to bring in a diversified student body. He expressed concern about meeting our commitment to students in the AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) program. When these students were in middle school, we made a commitment that when they graduated from Asheville High School they could come to UNCA. These students are now seniors. We have been working with these students through AVID and a number of summer programs where our students have been their tutors. Three years ago the state legislature stopped payment to the Legislative Opportunity Fund and there is currently a little over $70,000 in the fund.

A new dimension of student diversification (particularly in Henderson county) involves a new set of expectations and responses on our part that he would like the Task Force on University Strategies to consider. Some of the students are undocumented and they are charged out-of-state tuition rates. We have one or two students with high GPAs whom we are unable to adequately support because of our resources.

He has been working with Dr. Elaine Fox and it appears as though we have a core of faculty who can act as the base for recruitment from the Cherokee Reservation.

Dr. Mullen explained that he thinks of each of these student groups separately and uses different strategies for Latin American students, for Native American students, and for African American students rather than strategies applied to minorities as a whole which does not work. The primary issue becomes resources -- can we put money where our rhetoric is? The Supreme Court is no longer an issue. The location of these students is no longer an issue. We have programs and willingness, but can we support them with resources?

He stated that he was asked to speak to what the Faculty Senate can do. He is working with FWDC on strategies regarding faculty diversification. Yesterday the Minority Affairs Commission agreed to help him by interviewing candidates for faculty positions on campus. He found there were too many candidates for him to do an adequate job by himself. He hopes that diversity continues to be a strategic consideration in UPC -- it is important from the standpoint of the recruitment and retention of student populations and faculty.

Dr. Dee James asked how the Supreme Court decision impacted minority presence grants. Dr. Mullen stated that campus based scholarships targeted exclusively for African Americans and women are no longer permissible. This includes minority presence grants and the Francine Delaney scholarship. Each campus has been given a pool of money to use toward diversification. Race based scholarships no longer exist.

Dr. Padilla clarified the scholarship program and stated that we have the same amount of money to diversify the student body. The money comes from the state into a general scholarship fund. Schools can use the same amount of that general fund that was used for minority presence grant programs I and II. We can encumber that same amount, or target scholarships if the campus diversity plan in admissions has been approved. (Our campus diversity plan has been approved).

Dr. Alm asked if a plan was in place to honor our commitment to the Asheville High students. Dr. Mullen applauded the work that Kim Kessaris has done with these students. The Chancellor's office is increasing recruitment efforts. These students have taken honors and AP courses and have been involved in co-curricular activities and this has brought them to the attention of other campuses. The current graduating class has 22-25 AVID students and we have a serious chance of recruiting at least six students from this group. The caveat is that they need to live on campus -- that is about $2,000 per year for four years for each student.

Dr. James reiterated Dr. Alm's question -- do we have a plan for the money to fulfill our commitment? Dr. Mullen stated there is no plan. Bill Massey, the new Vice Chancellor for University Relations, has asked the same question. We have an abundance of riches in terms of human resources but the capital to support our diversity efforts is lacking. Dr. Alm stated that this seems like a ready-made situation for calling folks and asking for money -- promises were made, the kids are ready, and our campus need to diversify is huge. Dr. Mullen stated that he believes the resources are there for the next four years for this group of high school seniors. His concern is that the following year another 25 seniors will be graduating, then another 20-25, and so on. The resources are not there. We have challenges between AVID and the Teaching Fellows. Dr. Patch clarified that for the first time, race is one of the priorities for deciding Teaching Fellows' awards.

Dr. Padilla noted that we cannot consider the African American applicants separately from the whole body -- it is illegal. We made a commitment, but at the same time we have to include those candidates with all the other applicants. Also, applications are skyrocketing 40% higher than last year, and that was 40% higher than the previous year. Dr. Mullen added that some schools are using expanded admission committees while simultaneously asking faculty to participate because they are overwhelmed with the number of applications.

Referring to the climate assessment survey, Dr. Alm stated that she understood there is a possibility of NSF money based on race and gender. However, she did not understand why we could not assess more aspects of diversity (that have been identified by the Senate) at the same time. Although we do not need the information for these grants, we could use it for other purposes. Dr. Mullen replied that the same question arose during the meeting with the Chairs and Program Directors. He has talked to Institutional Research since then and we have located another survey. The challenge is to make a survey that is not overwhelming in terms of size. The race and gender questions are teetering on too much. If we cannot scale it down, perhaps we should do a second phase of the survey. He has also asked student workers to contact our peer institutions and the COPLAC schools to ask if they have participated in this kind of study. Most of the schools have not -- two of the COPLAC schools have done so. Dr. Alm asked if we were asking in a wider sense than just gender. Dr. Mullen replied that they were.

Dr. Patch stated that Chapel Hill recently announced that they are going to be able to support any student that is accepted into that school. They are doing a lot with their work-study monies. Are there any thoughts about us trying to move in that direction in the distant future? Dr. Padilla replied that we actually do provide scholarships that are probably not that different. Chapel Hill is getting a lot of credit for something that is not as radical as it is being presented. The fine print states that the offer is for families of need level that Chapel Hill defines. It is not carte blanche for everybody. However, it is a great concept and they will probably enrich it by moving the need levels in the direction where they can make it more available. It is a goal. Scholarship money is probably our greatest institutional need in the area of development, particularly endowed scholarships. We need to do a lot more in that direction. Our tuition is lower than Chapel Hill's too, and that is another way in which we are providing scholarship money by keeping our tuition lower. We offer an equivalent education but a cheaper tuition, so the difference is essentially scholarship money.

Dr. Mullen suggested that the faculty pay study partner with the climate assessment study.

Dr. Mullen commented that several years ago the consent degree required reporting of our admission's numbers as a standard part of the Administrative report to the Faculty Senate. This is now available online on a weekly basis. He encouraged faculty to watch the website this fall. The patterns are different for diversity students. Due to competitive financial packages, these students wait to see what they are offered. It might be useful to know what those numbers are late in the spring.

Dr. Alm asked if the Senate should recommend that the Task Force on University Strategies work with the Office of Diversity and Multicultural Affairs. Dr. Padilla replied that Dwight Mullen is a member of Task Force. Dr. Alm asked the Executive Committee to consider whether or not a Senate resolution was appropriate or needed at their next meeting. Dr. Padilla noted that the direction of the Task Force is external, rather than internal. This is a quick process for developing something that the outside world will understand. Dr. Patch said that the Executive Committee would discuss the matter.

V. Student Government Association Report
Mr. Tarik Glenn gave the Student Government Association Report.
SGA is targeting communication between SGA and the students, especially the Freshmen. They are expanding office hours to make themselves more available. They are also putting posters up to let students know there is a student government association on campus.

SGA is anticipating more parking problems next year when the Highsmith Center opens.

Dr. Alm asked if SGA was considering any diversity initiatives. Mr. Glenn replied that the main thing with that was curriculum and admissions. He was not sure to what extent SGA was allowed to help. Dr. Dwight Mullen told him that race was an issue with Admissions. Mr. Glenn stated that SGA can recruit for student government, but he did not know what else they could do. Dr. James suggested that SGA have another conversation with Dr. Dwight Mullen to help SGA think about what it might do. There is so much work to be done in that arena and certainly having students participate at some level would be a good thing. And SGA's commitment to this would be a great leadership example for the rest of the campus.

Dr. James suggested that SGA contact the teachers of the Freshman Colloquia about coming into the colloquia classes to say a word or two about SGA and to make the invitation personal. The Writing Center discovered that it is helpful for students to have a specific face that they could relate to and ask questions of. Mr. Glenn stated that next year they plan to have Freshman senators who are running for office visit the colloquia classes. Dr. James noted that there are only three Freshman senators and that would be a huge effort for three students to undertake. Perhaps SGA could involve itself in this as well to increase participation. Dr. Patch stated that SGA could have a system in place next year to meet Freshman early in the year when virtually all freshmen might be in colloquia.

VI. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report
Dr. Irene Rossell reported for the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council (IDC/UPC).
First Reading:
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
UPC 2: Proposed UNCA Environmental Sustainability Resolution

Dr. Rossell reported that representatives of the UNCA Green Lunch group (faculty and students who have been working on campus greening issues) brought the proposed Environmental Sustainability Resolution to UPC. The resolution encourages the Chancellor and Administration to protect and enhance the quality of the environment through appropriate campus operations and decision-making. UPC passed the resolution unanimously. Interestingly, in UPC's discussions about this resolution and other environmental issues on campus, one of the things that was talked about was whether there is any financial incentive for UNCA to conserve resources, such as taking conservation measures to lower utility bills. The answer is that short-term savings stay on campus, but that lower utility bills could eventually result in a reduced budget line for utilities. The Senate discussed efforts to remedy this disincentive to conserve resources.

UPC's role in the Creation of University-based Centers
At UPC's last meeting, UPC discussed its role in the creation of university-based centers. Mark Gibney and several other faculty members presented their ideas for planning a Center for Human Rights at UNCA, and presented a draft letter to Molly Broad seeking approval to plan the Center. A Center for Human Rights at UNCA would be involved in teaching human rights, a film series, a speakers series, internships, and possibly a human rights conference or summer institute. UPC voted unanimously to endorse the letter to Molly Broad, with the understanding that if permission is granted, that the planning documents will come before UPC and be sent to the Faculty Senate for approval, before being submitted to the Office of the President.

At UPC's next meeting, John Stevens will discuss plans for another Center that is being proposed at UNCA (a Center for Diversity Education). In the past, UPC has been involved in the creation of some Centers. They think it is appropriate for new Centers to present their proposals to UPC for review, particularly as some of them could involve the use of university resources such as space, teaching release time, and secretarial support. One issue that came up was what role UPC should have in reviewing Centers once they have been established on campus.

UPC's role in planning and budget allocations
UPC has been trying to identify what its mission is right now, especially since the Chancellor's new Task Force on University Strategies will be dealing with issues that used to be in the realm of UPC. Because the Chancellor's Task Force will be taking over strategic thinking/planning issues for this year, some UPC members have seen less of a need for a large all-university planning committee, and interest in serving on UPC is at an all-time low. At their last meeting, UPC made a decision that will hopefully streamline how planning issues are dealt with on campus, at least for the rest of the year. For this year, UPC decided to delegate some planning issues, particularly those focusing on academics, to IDC (whose members are the four Faculty Senate members of UPC). IDC will continue to meet regularly (approximately twice a month) to discuss these, as well as other issues that Dr. Padilla has asked IDC to look into (such as the role of distance education at UNCA, the role of graduate programs at UNCA, and the role of Interdisciplinary Studies). At Dr. Rossell's discretion, all IDC meetings will be open to UPC members, and they will receive all meeting agendas and minutes. As chair, Dr. Rossell will call UPC meetings on an as-needed basis, to address issues requiring a vote by the all-university UPC. Issues requiring Senate documents will most likely pass through UPC.

Since one of UPC's charges has been to play a role in budget allocations, and since the UPC members who were most interested in discussing the budget are the Faculty Senate members, UPC also voted unanimously to delegate its charge of budgetary function to IDC. IDC plans to carry out this charge by having each Vice Chancellor meet with IDC this year to present their main issues, and their funding requirements for next year's new enrollment money. IDC will then report back to UPC and to the Faculty Senate, with its own recommendations, if any are appropriate.

Dr. Alm stated that she read through UPC's minutes and she applauded their efforts in working through major issues in their last few meetings. She thanked IDC for working on the Senate's behalf.

Dr. Alm asked if the diversity concerns that UPC worked on last year would be an on-going initiative. Dr. Rossell stated that hopefully they will keep them going but they have not addressed that specifically yet. Another issue to consider is the future of the Institutional Effectiveness Committee, which is also in a state of flux. These are issues that were left over from last year that hopefully will be dealt with this year. It has taken this long for UPC to figure out a strategy for keeping themselves afloat. Now they hope to have an effective, productive committee.

VII. Academic Policies Committee Report
Mr. Keith Bramlett gave the Academic Policies Committee Report.
On-going APC work
Mr. Bramlett stated that he hoped senators had read through the revised Integrative Liberal Studies proposal and that they have found it to be clearer and more detailed, whether they agreed with the proposal or not. He asked senators to let APC know their thoughts on the proposal and that they ask colleagues who are unable to attend the campus-wide meeting to email their comments and suggestions to him.

A subcommittee is working on a revision of the sunset policy.

First Reading:
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
APC 1: Changes in the Course Withdrawal Policy.
APC 2: Change degree awarded in Biology from B.A. to B.S.
APC 3: Changes in Advanced Placement Credit for French, German and Spanish.

Mr. Bramlett suggested senators read APC 1 closely as it is a substantive change in our current policy. Dr. Patch questioned whether or not W hours would count as attempted hours in calculating the GPA. Currently withdrawals are not in the attempted hours when calculating a GPA and he wanted to be sure this was not changing in the proposed policy. Assistant Registrar Alicia Shope explained that attempted hours are not calculated in the GPA. Attempted hours are considered for retention purposes for suspension and dismissal. Students have to have a certain GPA with a certain corresponding number of attempted hours. An editorial correction was made to the document.

VIII. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr. Mary Lynn Manns gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee (FWDC) Report.
First Reading:
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 1: Establishment of the Faculty ILS Oversight Committee (ILSOC).

On-going FWDC work
FWDC is continuing to work on three documents: how lecturers are reviewed and reappointed, how faculty Chairs are reviewed, and how off-campus scholarly assignments are processed. These will likely be ready for first reading next month.

FWDC is working on a new process for selecting members on committees. This is more complicated than Dr. Manns envisioned, but she believes the new process will be an improvement over the existing one.

FWDC is working with committees that still need revision work.

IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.

X. New Business
There was no New Business.

XI. Adjournment
Dr. Patch adjourned the meeting at 4:35 pm.

Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
                                             Mary Lynn Manns