University of North Carolina at Asheville
Minutes, November 13, 2003

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, I. Rossell, M. Ruiz, J. Wood; M. Padilla.

Visitors: M. Burchard, D. Eggers, L. Friedenberg, T. Glenn, E. Hook, A. Huang, E. Katz, K. Krumpe, B. Larson, T. Lawton, P. McClellan, J. Petranka, C. Pons, R. Sensabaugh, A. Shope, B. Spellman, K. Whatley, B. Wilson.


I. Call to Order/Announcements
Dr. Steve Patch called the meeting to order at 3:20 pm and welcomed senators and guests.

There were no announcements.

II. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of October 16, 2003, were approved following editorial corrections.

III. Administrative Report
Vice Chancellor Padilla gave the Administrative Report.
Campus-Based Tuition Increase (CBTI)
Dr. Padilla reported that two groups are working towards a Campus-Based Tuition Increase (CBTI). A smaller body is developing data, while a larger body including Chairs and a broad campus constituency is meeting to study a CBTI. The Board of Governors (BOG) are meeting this afternoon but it is unknown whether or not they will discuss the CBTI initiatives. The BOG has announced that the enrollment cap issue has been shelved for a year.

At a recent Chief Academic Officers' meeting, nearly all indicated their campuses are preparing a CBTI proposal. We will be ready with the other schools to make an appeal, providing the committee will be able to make a recommendation to the Chancellor in the next couple of weeks as to how we should proceed. Bill Spellman is chairing the larger group.

Joint Engineering Program
Dr. Padilla scheduled a meeting with Gretchen Batille and Alan Mabe at the Office of the President (OP) to discuss the Joint Engineering Program proposal. Progress has been made on the curriculum and some progress has been made on the administrative side. However, there is no clarity as to how the budgets would work in the program. Several questions remain, such as: What are the rules? Who counts the student credit hours? How much? What is the split? Whose tuition is being charged? Whose fees are being paid? Dr. Padilla believes OP will agree to convene a meeting to discuss these issues and to set some ground rules. Other schools are also developing joint programs. WCU and UNC-Charlotte are developing a joint engineering program and NC State and Chapel Hill are developing a doctoral program in Bio-Technology.

Dr. Padilla explained that we are trying to be positioned to ask the BOG for start-up money that will go away at the end of June. The equipment has to be ordered and delivered by the end of June. To this end, Dr. Padilla recommended that the proposed curriculum for the engineering program go to APC (as it would be going through the same process at NC State). If there is agreement with both faculty governance processes, it would then go to OP which would determine how the money is going to work out. That should be enough to release the funding so we can begin planning how we are going to use it. When the rules are established and there is agreement, the complete Request to Establish proposal will go back through governance again. The Provost at NC State has agreed to this approach. If the Senate agrees to this scenario, about 95% of the work would be done. Dr. Padilla acknowledged APC's heavy workload and asked for Senate feedback.

In a lengthy discussion, the Senate discussed the deadline for reviewing the curriculum, the complication of tweaking the ILS proposal if changes are made, and the fact that UPC normally sees these proposals before they go to APC. Dr. Nickless stated that UPC has looked at a proposed curriculum. If there are changes to ILS then we would have to go back and look at the curriculum again, but she did not think such a review would take long. Dr. Padilla explained that the schools need to signal each other somehow as to whether the concept of the curriculum looks okay. Dr. Alm favored fast-tracking the curriculum as long as the whole document is going to come to the Senate for approval or disapproval.

Dr. Patch asked if any Senators had an objection to having APC look at the curriculum. Dr. Padilla noted that the curriculum review is about two pages. He thought APC would know rather quickly whether they were comfortable with the curriculum or not. If APC approves the curriculum, he would relay this to Gretchen Batille so we could move forward on the initiative. The rules for a joint program are established by OP. We would interpret those rules and apply them to the program in a formal document. That document would come through UPC and the Senate.

Dr. Brown supported this strategy with the provision that APC is limited to the curricular sections of the document and that planning and resource review are still pending. Dr. Padilla stated that if the model of the ILS program is different in January than it is now, then the engineering curriculum will have to go through APC again. Following more discussion, Dr. Patch asked for the Senators' preference: 1) that APC formally review and approve the curriculum now with the chance that it stays the same and comes before the Senate, or 2) that APC review the curriculum, and give an informal approval or not, then review it formally later. Mr. Bramlett stated that given APC's workload, he had a strong preference that APC review the curriculum once -- and if ILS does not change then APC does not need to review it again. Dr. Padilla noted that this is an exceptional circumstance and not a precedent. That is why he was bringing the problem formally to the Senate -- he does not want to change by implication any faculty governance structure.

The following Resolution proposed by Dr. Padilla was moved and seconded (Nickless/Alm):

    The Senate, by exception, agrees to ask APC to evaluate the Joint 
    Engineering Program curriculum prior to UPC consideration with the 
understanding that the Request to Establish is initiated in UPC. Any 
positive evaluation of the curriculum may be transferred by the VCAA 
to the Office of the President and NC State University.
The Resolution passed unanimously and became SD0303F.

Mediation of Grievances pursuant to Section 607 of the Code
Dr. Padilla announced that Tom Lawton, our University General Counsel, was a visitor today.

Dr. Padilla explained that OP created a UNC Task Force on Faculty Dispute Resolution and they wrote a document which is now on the OP website. The Board of Governors, on March 21 and June 18, 2003, amended a section of the policy of the University of North Carolina to implement recommendations from the Task Force. This policy requires that by January 1, 2004, mediation by formally trained mediators must be available for grievances filed pursuant to Section 607 of the Code.

Dr. Padilla noted that there are two Codes -- 607 and 604. Section 604 is related to non-reappointment decisions due to three grievance areas -- first amendment exercise, discrimination, and personal malice. Any charges under 604 would continue to be heard by the Hearings Committee. Nothing is happening to the Hearings Committee or Section 604.

Code 607 refers to grievances that are other assorted employment charges by a faculty member from the categories described above. UNCA has a Grievance Committee for alleged infractions of the 607 Code. The process is described in UNCA's Faculty Handbook, Section 3.6.3 under Mediation. That passage is no longer allowable after January 1, 2004. We have to provide mediation by formally trained mediators for these grievances.

Dr. Padilla distributed a document titled "Revision to Grievance Policy." The document contains language to completely substitute the language in Section 3.6.3 of the Faculty Handbook.

Dr. Patch and Dr. Manns outlined the various options the Senate might take to consider the document given the time constraints. Dr. Padilla stated that this language was the most minimal application of BOG policy that the administration could come up with. UNCA may decide to do more than this, but the BOG's Code would probably trump UNCA's Code. Following discussion, the Senate agreed that FWDC would review the policy and put this item on the December agenda with the intent to waive the Comer Rule.

IV. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Steve Patch gave the Executive Committee Report.
Senate Constitution Task Force (SCTF) Update
Dr. Nickless distributed a report of the Senate Constitution Task Force (SCTF) that outlined three main areas for consideration in their revision:

1) Clarification of the term "Faculty." To be eligible to serve on the Senate or vote in elections, one's primary responsibility must be teaching; this needs to be clarified.

2) Clarification of the responsibilities of Senate Committees.

3) We have no Standing Orders (or By-Laws) and function too often on remembered traditions for who votes and how we replace members on elected committees.

The Task Force asked Senators to also consider the following: Are there other issues that need to be addressed? Which solutions do you prefer? Do you have other ideas for the Constitutional revision?

Senators were asked to provide input to Dr. Nickless by December 15. SCTF hopes to use Senate input in January to write some rough drafts which it will make available for faculty input. They are aiming for a campus-wide meeting in March and a final draft by the end of April. SCTF hopes to be ready for a vote of the general faculty by May, but if that is premature, faculty will definitely be voting on a new constitution in August.

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

EC 2: Creation of a Task Force to Study Faculty Salary Distribution

Mr. Bramlett made a motion to amend EC 2 by changing the number of administrators from four to three. The motion was seconded by Dr. Alm. Dr. Padilla explained that the AVCs work on evaluation, development, program support and recruiting -- this Task Force would put the AVCs in a new area, and they do not presently work on salary issues. Contractual issues remain in the VCAA office. Dr. Padilla noted that he originally asked for a recommendation on how to incorporate the last three years of merit in the faculty records into any campus-based tuition increase salary adjustments. He reiterated that he wants the Task Force to make that recommendation soon. The amendment passed unanimously.

Dr. Dee James asked if the FWDC would be given any guidelines in selecting the Task Force. Dr. Patch reported that Bruce Larson has tentatively agreed to Chair the Task Force. The FWDC will work with Dr. Larson to identify members to serve on the Task Force and the Senate will vote on the slate. Dr. Konz recommended that there be one faculty member from each of the three traditional divisions on the Task Force. Dr. Padilla explained that a more appropriate division relative to salary concerns would be in applied versus non-applied programs. The Task Force will make recommendations on equity adjustments and allocating merit -- both of which are part of the CBTI discussion. EC 2 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 0403F.

V. Student Government Association Report
Mr. Tarik Glenn gave the Student Government Association Report.
The open SGA seats have been filled with representatives from each class and a commuter student.

SGA is trying to come up with a statement and stance on the issue of diversity -- where they want to stand on it, what they want to do, and how they want to define the term.

There may be satellite parking for Freshmen next year where they can use their cars on Friday through Sunday only. A bus would transport students to the parking lot and back to their dorms.

SGA is unsure what the status of the cap on out-of-state student enrollment is. Dr. Padilla explained that the cap has been shelved by the Board of Governors for one year.

Students who want to stop the tuition increases and budget cuts are writing on-line stories to the state legislators. Students at NC State and UNC are also participating in this campaign.

VI. Academic Policies Committee Report
Mr. Keith Bramlett gave the Academic Policies Committee Report.
Update on Integrative Liberal Studies Implementation Proposal
APC's discussion of the Integrative Liberal Studies proposal will continue next Tuesday and Thursday, November 18th and 20th. APC will hopefully complete the foundation courses for Foreign Language and will be moving to the Intensives (Writing, Diversity, Quantitative, and Information Literacy), followed by the Arts and the Clusters.

First Reading:
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
APC 4: Deletion of ATMS 106, 214, 340.

APC 5: Add two new courses, ATMS 241 and ATMS 251. Change prerequisites in ATMS 305, 315, 316, and 405.

APC 6: Change course description of ATMS 103, Change title and description of ATMS 261, and Reduce credit hours of ATMS 410 and 411.

APC 7: Change in required courses for Climatology and Weather Forecasting Concentrations.

Second Reading:
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
APC 1: Changes in the Course Withdrawal Policy.

Dr. Patch reminded Senators of an editorial change made at the last meeting.
Mr. Bramlett read a letter from Dr. Heidi Kelley, Director of Liberal Arts Learning and Disability Services, who advocated keeping the current policy. During discussion, the following points were made: 

-- there has been a sudden rise in course withdrawals since academic year 2000.

-- exceptions could be made to the new withdrawal policy.

-- the process to get an exception is not a particularly friendly process for students with disabilities.

-- the withdrawal date has been extended.

Dr. Dee James commented that she was on the Enrollment Services Committee when this policy began and now felt torn. She was aware of the abuses of the system, yet acknowledged that school was already difficult for disabled students, and she was loathe to do anything that would make it more onerous. Dr. Brown added that he too found both lines of argument very compelling. The requirement that a student drop all of their classes is not intrinsically necessary to stop abuse of the withdrawal policy. He suggested crafting a policy that makes it more difficult for students to drop -- without any clear medical or disability-related justification -- a single course that they are currently failing.

Dr. Manns suggested that the policy go back to APC and then back perhaps to the Enrollment Services Committee. Dr. Padilla added that OP is interested in this issue and they have been polling all the campuses and compiling data on what the campuses are doing. In a couple of months there should be system-wide data on what the policies and procedures are for withdrawals and drop/adds.

Ms. McClellan stated that she understood concerns expressed by Dr. Kelley and others. She believed that the committee intended that there might always be cases that warranted partial withdrawal. There are also times when it is appropriate for students to take an incomplete. She asked the Senators for feedback on extending the withdrawal date to the ninth week. Dr. Nickless did not support the extension. Drs. Brown, Alm, and Booker preferred the extended deadline.

Dr. Friedenberg noted that since we moved to a final exam week, a number of faculty have moved to mid-terms and finals. If we do not extend the deadline to nine weeks, there needs to be a system to encourage our colleagues to pay closer attention to the rule about giving students early feedback.

Dr. Manns made a motion to postpone APC 1 and refer it back to APC who may send it back to the Enrollment Services Committee for advice. Dr. James seconded the motion. Dr. Konz noted that APC will likely not consider the document until January or February. Following discussion, the motion passed by a vote 9 to 1 with four abstentions.

APC 2: Change degree awarded in Biology from B.A. to B.S.
An editorial correction was made to the document. APC 2 passed as amended by a vote of 13 to 0 with one abstention and became Senate Document 0503F.

APC 3: Changes in Advanced Placement Credit for French, German and Spanish.
APC 3 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 0603F.

VII. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr. Mary Lynn Manns gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee (FWDC) Report.
First Reading:
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:

FWDC 3: Off-Campus Scholarly Assignment (Revision of SD1488S, section 3 under Procedures for Application, Approval, and Accountability)

FWDC 4: Reappointment of Lecturers (Revision of SD0202F, section 3.5.3)

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

FWDC 1: Establishment of the Faculty ILS Oversight Committee (ILSOC).

Dr. Nickless questioned how future committees would be chosen. Dr. Manns explained how membership on various committees occurs. Dr. Manns made a motion to delete the sentence "(Future committees will be chosen according to a procedure to be established by the Senate's forthcoming revision of the faculty committee selection process.)" Also, the word "initial" was deleted in two sentences. Dr. Alm seconded the motion which passed.

Dr. Booker expressed concern that the Senate was considering establishing an ILS Oversight Committee when the ILS proposal had not been approved by the Senate. Dr. Manns stated that FWDC considered this. They were concerned that if the ILS passes, they will have to scramble to establish the committee to oversee ILS. If the ILS does not pass, this document becomes defunct.

Dr. Rossell asked what would happen if the ILS changed and there were no clusters. Dr. Patch stated that a new document could supersede this document. Dr. Konz explained that this document is contingent upon approval of the ILS Implementation Proposal. There have been many questions from faculty about how ILS will be administered and who will make the decisions. It is prudent to pass this document first in order to answer those questions and establish a governance structure so the faculty would understand exactly how the program would be administered.

Dr. Booker suggested delaying a vote on FWDC 1. If the ILS program passes, maybe with amendments, the Senate can waive the Comer Rule then. Dr. Katz favored having an articulated faculty oversight of the curriculum so there is no lag time and we can plan accordingly. This is a case where we have unusual and unprecedented proposals before APC and the Senate. Should the curriculum pass, it would be good to be able to move accordingly to adapt to the changes.

Dr. Nickless stated that when we have a new program, UPC and APC both review it. They are reviewing different parts of the proposal, but they both come to the Senate at the same time. She suggested using the same procedure with FWDC 1 and the ILS curriculum, noting that FWDC 1 could be available for faculty to review. Dr. Konz noted that the primary reason it is here now is because so many questions were asked about the oversight in the process of evaluating the APC document. Faculty want to have some answers about who would decide whether a course qualified as an intensive while they are evaluating the APC document.

Dr. Booker moved to postpone the discussion of FWDC 1 until we have a completed ILS proposal before the Faculty Senate. Dr. Nickless seconded the motion. Following discussion, the Senate determined that FWDC 1 would be considered for Second Reading when the ILS proposal is distributed for First Reading. Dr. Padilla spoke against the motion and asked Senators to recognize that we have to be ready to move towards a new curriculum. He did not see the danger of knowing what the general administrative committee will look like, even if the details are being worked out. Drs. Pierce, James, and Burchard favored considering FWDC 1 today. Dr. Nickless called the question. The motion failed by a vote of 4 to 10.

Dr. Brown asked if there was any mechanism for appeals in the event that a cluster proposal or intensive proposal was not approved. Dr. Nickless expressed support for having a court of appeals. It would be nice for faculty to know that if their clusters are not approved, or their courses are not labeled diverse, they can go to the APC and ask why. She did not believe the appeals process would be used, but its existence will reassure faculty as we go through the transition into a very different way of doing things. There may be instances -- particularly around the diversity courses -- when faculty may want to go to another body. Dr. Brown added that having resources such as this might encourage faculty to make proposals. He was nervous that if the process for approval is too cumbersome then faculty may be discouraged from developing course proposals.

Dr. Nickless asked for clarification of the following sentence under Duties: "Once clusters and courses are approved, the ILS Oversight Committee notifies the Registrar and the AVCUP." Does that mean that catalog copy no longer comes to APC? That catalog copy goes from the ILSOC to the Registrar? Dr. Konz explained that they do not envision this as being catalog copy. This will be web information and requirements for graduation and would not be in the printed catalog. Dr. Alm added that courses themselves may not have the designations of "diversity" or "writing" or "informational" -- instead, sections of courses will have these designations.

Dr. Nickless moved to amend the document by adding the following sentence under Duties: "Decisions may be appealed to the APC who may uphold the decision, reverse the decision, or send it back for further consideration." Dr. Brown seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously following a lengthy discussion.

Two sentences were reworded in friendly amendments to the effect that the committees will be nominated by the FWDC and voted upon by the Faculty Senate. In another friendly amendment the references to "AVCU" were changed to "AVCUP". The ILS Cluster Application form was deleted from the document as was the reference to it on page two. FWDC 1 passed as amended by a vote of 13 to 0 with one abstention and became Senate Document 0703F.

VIII. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report
Dr. Irene Rossell reported for the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council (IDC/UPC).

Proposed Centers at UNCA
IDC and UPC each met once since the last Senate meeting. At the last Senate meeting, Dr. Rossell reported that a Center for Human Rights had been proposed at UNCA. UPC and IDC have now heard from two additional proposed Centers. The Environmental Quality Institute, which has operated at UNCA since 1987, has received permission from Molly Broad to begin the process of establishing the EQI as a UNC Center. In addition, the Center for Diversity Education, which has operated in Asheville since 1995, is in the process of applying for Center status. This Center is currently housed in 222 Zageir, and works to increase the ways in which diversity is included in the public school curriculum. UPC and IDC have requested that all three of these proposed Centers submit their planning documents to UPC and the Faculty Senate before they submit them to the OP. Both UPC and IDC have had some discussions about the number of Centers that have been approved, or are seeking approval. The Centers certainly serve a role of connecting UNCA to the larger community, and provide opportunities for faculty and students. However, UPC and IDC would like to make sure that there is some oversight of the resources that these Centers might use (such as space).

Campus Master Plan
IDC met with Steve Baxley and George Piper, who works with the architectural firm that was hired to update the 1997 campus master plan. Mr. Piper's firm is also working with a subcontractor who will review academic space needs on campus. The consultants are being paid with administrative funds set aside from Phase I of the bond issue. Some of the issues that will be addressed by the master plan update include: establishing a prominent front door for the campus, better orientation for first-time arrivals to campus, and possibly relocating administrative offices and key services like admissions. There is a campus-wide Master Planning Task Force working with the consultants (Steve Patch is on that task force).

Request to Establish a Joint Engineering Program in Mechatronics
Kathy Whatley met with both IDC and UPC to discuss drafts of the Request to Establish a Joint Engineering Program in Mechatronics with NC State. The planning process for this program has taken longer than usual, due to the logistics of working with two institutions as discussed during Dr. Padilla's administrative report. The engineering program will require 128 hours to complete, which will include the same ILS curriculum that other UNCA students will take. It looks like the program will require at least two faculty offices and one laboratory. Dr. Padilla said that he would be able to find this space, without impacting any existing programs. At least one of the faculty appointments will probably have to come from UNCA's overall allotment of new faculty positions. Once a final copy of the Request to Establish is ready, UPC will vote on it, and it will come to Senate for a vote.

First Reading:
The following document was distributed for First Reading:

UPC 3: Notification of Intent to Plan a B.A. Degree in Women's Studies.

This document passed UPC unanimously. Dr. Rossell asked senators to note that the Women's Studies Program is proposing to offer the B.A. degree in Women's Studies, not in IST. A letter written by Dr. Rizzo to the UPC was distributed for information purposes.

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

UPC 2: Proposed UNCA Environmental Sustainability Resolution
UPC 2 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 0803F.

IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.

X. New Business
There was no New Business.

XI. Adjournment
Dr. Patch adjourned the meeting at 5:45 pm.

Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
                                             Mary Lynn Manns