FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Members: L. Atkinson, B. Butler, R. Booker, L. Cornett, J. Konz, B. Larson, D. Lisnerski,
S. Mills, G. Nallan, P. Nickless, D.
Pierce, B. Reynolds,
Visitors: M. Alm, J. Burges, D. Cline, B. Dennison, M. Gibney, B. Massey, P. McClellan,
S. Robinson, A. Shope, J. Stevens, K. Whatley, PARSEC team.
I. Call to Order and Announcements
There were no announcements.
II. Approval of minutes
III. Administrative Report
Alumni and Development Report
Mr. Bill Massey, Vice Chancellor for Alumni and Development, welcomed the opportunity to visit
with the Faculty Senate and to answer questions. His report is available at: Report of the Vice Chancellor for Alumni and Development .
Mr. Massey noted that Alumni and Development is more successful in bringing attention to the university when it works with faculty. Fundraising for this year is considerably ahead of last year. In the not too distant future, announcements will be made about some very significant private support of the university – including the largest private gift that has been made in the university’s history. The level of endowed scholarships has been raised from $10,000 to $25,000. The thrust of their effort is to ensure the future through endowed scholarships, professorships, and programs in individual departments.
Mr. Massey asked faculty to consider two changes that would generate better relationships between alumni and the university:
1) At the May commencement, allow students who have shown that they can graduate in the summer and have registered for those courses in the summer, to walk across the stage. That is a transforming moment for most students, and those who do not march in May may be less inclined to support the university.
2) Make the December ceremony a full commencement. Those students also graduate – do we really give them the full measure of what we perhaps should?
Dr. Lisnerski hoped that having ceremonies throughout the year would shorten May graduation. Many students are graduating in December.
Dr. Rossell asked how close we are to publishing a magazine. Mr. Massey replied that we are getting closer to that goal because the quality of our publications is catching the attention of significant people with resources who say we need to have a regular magazine. Magazines are very expensive but do a lot of good. He could not imagine going into a capital campaign, which is probably some years away, without a magazine.
Dr. Nallan asked how we currently define the threshold dollar value of a major gift. Mr. Massey explained that this figure fluctuates. A year ago, $1,000 was defined as a major gift – we now think of $10,000 as a major gift. We need to move to $100,000 as a major gift. Last year their goal was to raise $2,000,000. This year they will raise at least $5,000,000 and they need to be raising $10,000,000 a year. This increase in needed donations is a reflection of what faculty do in their classrooms and labs.
Further discussion on Commencement
Dr. Padilla added that he and the Chancellor support
Mr. Massey’s suggestion that students be allowed to walk at commencement if
they are short the number of credits that they can make up in summer school and
if it is reasonable to expect that they will make them up. It seems mean spirited not to include these
students. At the same time, members of
the faculty have resisted the idea because commencement represents a completion
and it cheapens the experience for others.
He proposed that they make it consensual starting with May
Discussion turned to the winter ceremony that recognizes students that have completed or are likely to complete their degree requirements once the grades are fully tallied. Dr. Padilla raised the questions: Do we turn the ceremony into a commencement – then make the students ineligible to walk in the spring? Do we have a commencement address? Do we have an honorarium dinner? The Senate briefly discussed calendar issues associated with a winter commencement.
Dr. Padilla has proposed to the Chancellor that we discontinue the August ceremony for students graduating in the summer.
New Class Schedule Grid
The Executive Committee asked Dr. Padilla to answer questions about the new class schedule grid because Senators were getting questions from faculty.
Pat McClellan reported that she initiated the discussion in response to the number of requests they were receiving to offer either 3-credit hour classes in a 2-day format, or 4-credit hours in a 3-day format. The grid was reworked to give departments more flexibility.
A revised grid was first taken to department chairs/program directors in April. Academic Affairs received some feedback, but it was shelved because a couple of department chairs indicated there would be problems. In August, people asked what had happened to the new grid; it was brought back to the September department chairs/program directors meeting for feedback, then again in November for a consensus. It was decided to try the new grid.
Ms. McClellan referred to an email that Dave Peifer sent to the Senate, and stated that his model is up for discussion. Dr. Peifer and Ms. McClellan discussed his proposal on the very day that she sent out the new information. She explained to him at the time that this was a pilot. It will be tweaked, and part of the discussion will be to perhaps look at his proposal.
Dr. Nickless asked how long the pilot grid would be used before it was reviewed. Ms. McClellan noted that if an obvious problem is discovered, it could be tweaked right away. Academic Affairs would request feedback from department chairs/program directors because they are constructing the schedules and she would also work with folks individually. She was open to making major tweaks, minor tweaks, scrapping it, or going like it is -- we need to be able to adapt it as needed.
Dr. Padilla cited the no class section as an example of possible change. When the grid was presented last April, one of the long term goals was to create times that were not scheduled so that departments, clubs, or students could meet. This change was incorporated over the summer and he did not know if that change will work. If people do meet, there will be more logjams because everyone will be scheduling their events during these slots. If one or both of those periods turn into a waste of good class time, this can be modified.
Dr. Ruiz asked if the math department could continue to offer 4 classes of 50 minutes. Ms. McClellan replied yes – the goal was not to constrain departments.
Dr. Cornett understood that the new grid would set aside time for no classes and there would also be no departmental or campus meetings so it could be a student-oriented time. The grid has departmental events/meetings during a no class slot. Ms. McClellan explained that they tried to bring some organization to this time. For example, Tuesdays could be used for department-focused events and Thursdays could be used for broader campus-focused events. However, departments could come up with their own rubric. Dr. Padilla added that they are not presuming to tell departments when to meet -- it is a resource that faculty can use to be with students.
During further discussion, Senators expressed concerns about the pilot grid:
- a number of class slots are being lost
- it is more difficult to put together schedules
- there are problems of space utilization, particularly for the 3-hr courses put in 2-hr time slots
- it makes for a longer day
- the down times between class blocks do not allow sufficient time to accomplish anything.
Dr. Padilla supported the grid as a reasonable compromise. Academic Affairs and department chairs/program directors will evaluate the grid and they expect a lot of feedback.
Academic Calendar for 2005-06, 2006-07
Dr. Nickless noted that last month the Senate discussed the final exam schedule at length and as a result neglected to approve the 2005-06 calendar. She distributed Section 7.4 of the Faculty Handbook on the Academic Calendar. She suggested that perhaps this should be modified as it is not current practice:
Annually, the Office of Academic Affairs prepares two academic calendars, one is
a final draft of the Academic Calendar for the following year and a preliminary draft
of the subsequent year. Both calendars are presented to the Chancellor's Administrative
Cabinet for initial approval. The final draft of the following year's calendar is then
presented to the Faculty Senate for their adoption. The calendar is available online at Academic Calendar for 2005-06 pages vii-viii.
Dr. Whatley distributed the final exam schedule in an easy to read format, as well as draft calendars for 2006-07 and 2007-08, and a 2003-04 through 2007-08 calendar with important dates. No snow days have been added in 2005-06 because we are hosting NCUR. In response to faculty recommendations, two snow days have been included as reading days in the 2006-07 and 2007-08 spring semesters; these days can be used as make-up days if needed.
Dr. Nickless explained that the Faculty Senate’s task was to approve the 2005-06 calendar and to give input on the 2006-07 calendar. Dr. Konz made a motion to approve the 2005-06 academic calendar. Dr. Larson seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Dr. Whatley explained that the schedule requires that we have 14 of each kind of day. Dr. Rossell and Dr. Ruiz spoke on behalf of the sciences -- it is extraordinarily difficult to schedule labs when classes start on Wednesday and there is no class the following Monday. Dr. Whatley will discuss this issue with the science chairs on Monday.
Dr. Padilla commented on possible new options for Bulldog Day and the advantages to holding it later in the semester.
Discussion turned to final exam make-up days, fall break, and the draft 2007-08 academic calendar. There are two days for make-up exams; if these days are used, grades will be due later. Two days will be taken for fall break. Again, this occurs because we need to have 14 of each kind of day in the calendar. Fall break can be longer if the semester begins earlier. It was agreed that the Senate would look at the 2007-08 calendar next year. Dr. Nickless suggested that Academic Affairs and the Executive Committee discuss the calendars earlier in the process.
Dr. Whatley encouraged senators to share the draft with colleagues so they can receive comments now and can incorporate them into the next draft. The calendar will be placed on the Faculty Senate webpage.
The Executive Committee asked Dr. Padilla to discuss the reorganization of the grant development office in response to several questions from faculty.
Dr. Padilla explained that the area of grant development/economic development/tech transfer and center support is getting too complex for one person to develop the grants, help administer the programs, and ensure compliance. He has asked John Stevens to play a new role -- to focus primarily as Chief Research Officer of the administration with certain obligations to the Office of the President (OP). There is pressure on the administration to represent ourselves in the community in economic development that requires traveling to board meetings, to biotech workshops at OP, and other off-campus functions. The Chief Research Officer will be the public face for economic development that OP is asking for, and will also look for larger grant opportunities and represent the Provost at many of these functions.
Dr. Gerard Voos will serve as Director of the Office of Sponsored Scholarship and Programs (OSSP) in a half-time position reporting directly to the Provost. Dr. Voos has been working with the National Environmental Modeling and Analysis Center (NEMAC) and has worked very successfully with faculty and administration. He is an expert in external grant processes and applications, particularly government sponsored programs. He has a Ph.D. in Biology and has been a researcher. His role will be to work in OSSP with whoever walks through the door, but to try to work with chairs and individual faculty on areas of support that they identify. Dr. Padilla is hoping this will provide more coverage for faculty.
Dr. Padilla foresees a new Office of Compliance emerging in the next several months to manage grant implementation and maintain best business practices as defined by the Office of Finance, OP, and granting agencies. The key focus will be to help ensure that UNCA adheres to required procedures, guidelines, and protocols. The Compliance Officer will report directly to the Provost.
Dr. Voos is currently serving as a development officer and operational officer for NEMAC. He has agreed to forego the operational functions and to accept the OSSP director position.
Dr. Rossell asked if Dr. Stevens will remain the contact for Centers on campus. Dr. Padilla stated that he is shying away from the idea that we need to administer Centers. Centers cannot and should not be controlled by a single entity or single person. The directors of the Centers will administer the Centers. He sees Dr. Stevens’ role as looking for funding opportunities for the Centers. Dr. Padilla is decoupling some of Dr. Stevens’ former roles from the Centers and asking him to have a more public face and to work with Dr. Padilla on a legislative strategy.
IV. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Nickless gave the Executive Committee Report
Faculty Senate Constitution
The Chancellor has approved the revised Faculty Senate Constitution (SD0204F). The Executive Committee will prepare a draft of Standing Rules and Rules of Order for next year. This Constitution allows for greater flexibility in how we conduct elections.
Chancellor Search Committee Report
reported that the first meeting of the Chancellor Search Committee was held on
The committee heard presentations from two search firms and decided to hire the search firm of A. J. Kearney. Shelly Storbeck is the contact person who will be working with the search committee.
Emails went out last week announcing
several forums to be held next week. The
faculty forum will be held Wednesday, January 26th, at in Laurel Forum. As a starting point for conversations, they
will utilize the comments that were made in December at the informal gathering
V. Student Government Association Report
There was no Student Government Association report.
VI. Academic Policies Committee Report
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
Wellness Promotion; Changes to Dance Minor, Sports Medicine Minor, and Health
and Wellness Promotion Minor
and Addition of New Prefixes
Changes in required Biology courses for Middle School Teacher Licensure; Change
in required courses for Comprehensive Science Licensure for Chemistry Majors
6-12 Licensure Students
(EDUC 321, 331, 341, 351, 355, 361)
Konz asked Senators to read
Final Exam Schedule
Konz reported that Dr. Whatley and Ms. McClellan circulated the new exam
schedule model to Dr. Nickless, himself, and others in mid-December for
feedback. It was also circulated to the
Executive Committee and
VII. Institutional Development Committee Report
Update on Enrollment Growth and University Size Task Force
force will be holding its second campus-wide forum on January 27, from in
BA in Women’s Studies
December, IDC met to discuss a Request to Establish a BA in Women’s
Studies. This program is already
granting a B.A. through IST, but the Women’s Studies faculty would like
students to receive a degree in Women’s Studies rather than in
Interdisciplinary Studies. They
anticipate about six graduates per year.
They have proposed one new course beyond what is already being taught,
so the resource implications of their proposal will likely be one adjunct to
pick up one course per year. IDC had no
objections to the proposal and it has gone to
Withdrawing proposal on Planning, Establishing, Reviewing, Discontinuing Centers
Dr. Rossell informed Senators via
email that IDC was withdrawing IDC 2 (Proposal on Planning, Establishing,
Dr. Padilla explained that he is
looking to link the Center creators with the
Dr. Rossell noted that one Center is before the Senate for second reading today, a proposal for another Center has been distributed for first reading today, and she anticipates receiving yet another proposal in the near future. This is all taking place without a policy document in place. IDC initially planned to approve the policy document prior to considering proposals to establish centers. Dr. Padilla added that essentially we started creating centers and did not have a policy in place. He suggested that the Senate consider the current proposals prior to completing the policy document, but to hold off on the creation of more centers until the policy is complete.
Dr. Nickless clarified that the Senate would not be considering any more requests to establish centers. Dr. Padilla added that it is not likely – he cannot stop anyone from making a request, but he is hoping that people will go with the new model.
Dr. Lisnerski asked if a policy is established and one of the centers that was approved violates the policy, will they be grandfathered in or will they be expected to conform to the new policy? Dr. Padilla stated that they would conform to the new center policy document because it will administer all of the centers.
In December, IDC met to discuss a
Request to Establish an
Dr. Stevens explained that they are doing some re-evaluation because we are restructuring ourselves at UNCA, and also because the UNC Office of the President system is a moving target in terms of us understanding the development of the centers both UNC-wide and institutional-wide. He asked IDC to postpone further discussion of this center until they address new problems that have surfaced. Dr. Padilla added that with the new model, he can bring a complete proposal where a lot of issues have been worked out.
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
IDC 4: Request to Establish a
In December, IDC met to discuss a Request to Establish a Human Rights Center at UNCA. Mark Gibney is the faculty member who has taken the lead on the creation of this Center. The proposal has no immediate personnel or space requests, although the Center would eventually like to have an office for a Director and a conference room for meetings.
The following document was considered for Second Reading:
IDC 3: Proposal to Establish the Pisgah Astronomical
IDC met in November to discuss the
creation of this Center. PARI is an
astronomical institute in
In summary, IDC agreed that the opportunities provided by the Center are certainly worthwhile. IDC’s concerns were largely with two issues: the administrative burden posed by centers such as PARSEC, and its request for space on the UNCA campus for an administrative office. Dr. Padilla stated that ultimately it was his responsibility to find the space on campus.
Dr. Stevens presented historical background on PARI and PARSEC. Members of the PARSEC team were in attendance in support of the proposal.
Dr. Booker introduced Dr. Brian Dennison, our new Glaxo Chair of Astronomy. Dr. Dennison has over twenty-five years of experience in radio astronomy at Virginia Tech. Dr. Stevens gave Dr. Dennison as an example of the excellent people that the Center can draw to UNCA. IDC 3 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 1005S.
VIII. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. Don Lisnerski gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report.
Dr. Lisnerski distributed the 2005-06 election schedule. FWDC is considering a nomination process for next year that would still allow everyone eligible to be on the ballot.
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 2: Proposal to Change Membership on Intellectual Property Committee
(Revision of SD3402S; Faculty Handbook 9.4)
FWDC 3: Proposal to Establish Asheville Institute Advisory Committee (AIAC)
IX. Old Business
Transportation for Class Use
Last November, the Senate discussed transportation for class use and the mini buses used to transport students to apartments. Dr. Whatley agreed to ask Dr. Padilla what the status of the mini buses would be next year.
Dr. Padilla hoped that the mini buses will be available for field trips. The new parking administrator is developing a plan to use them to create a drop/pick up for students in a three to five mile radius route to supplement the transit service. This would alleviate some of the parking problems.
Dr. Rossell noted that the university has one van for class use by all of the groups that need field trips. Renting off-campus vans has become a nightmare. It could cost nearly $200 to rent a van to go to Bent Creek for a Friday afternoon. Dr. Padilla agreed that departments should be able to use the mini buses in the future. He suggested using one mini bus for field trips and routes, and another van to be used exclusively for routes. It is an important issue and should be taken to the next department chairs/program directors meeting. If necessary, we may have to purchase a van out of department budgets.
X. New Business
Nickless reported that several faculty had called her
about the demise of the
Dr. Nickless adjourned the meeting at .