FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Members: L. Atkinson, B. Butler, L. Cornett, J. Konz, B. Larson, D. Lisnerski, G. Nallan, S. Mills,
P. Nickless, D. Pierce, B. Reynolds,
Absent: R. Booker.
Visitors: M. Alm,
T. Glenn, A. Gravely, E. Katz, Y. Koslen, ML Manns, C. McKenzie, A. Shope,
K. Whatley, M. Wolfe.
I. Call to Order and Announcements
Dr. Nickless called the meeting to order at and welcomed Senators and guests. The agenda was modified.
IV. Student Government Association Report
The results of recent Student Government elections follow:
Senior Senators: Ariest Widyaguna, Michelle Dubois, Chris Day
Junior Senators: Camille Gibert, Mark Greene, Julia Champion
Sophomore Senators: Ben Duffey, Natasha Veronica, Scott McConnell
Residential Senators: Tristan Card, Erica Little, Valeria Helen
Commuter Senators: John Noor, Jacob Morton, one vacancy
II. Administrative Report
Dr. Padilla stated that he did not have an administrative report but would likely have comments during the meeting. He enjoyed working with the Senate this year and looked forward to doing so next year.
Update on Master Plan
Mr. Steve Baxley, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Campus Operations, gave an update on the master plan. UNCA hired Paulien and Associates to work on the master plan. They have a national reputation for conducting space studies and were the consultants for UNC-CH during the original bond program. They know how the bond package was put together, and they know the space standards for the state of NC. They are uniquely situated to help us with the space needs for all the academic departments in preparation for phase two of the bond referendum.
Mr. Baxley introduced Yuri Koslen, the UNCA transportation planner. Mr. Koslen hopes to minimize the money it takes to build parking so that it can be used for academic needs rather than parking. The master plan calls for two parking decks at a cost of $14-18K per spot which Mr. Baxley hopes UNCA does not build. There will be a lot of discussion on parking and transportation issues in the fall.
Construction costs continue to soar. Construction for the dining hall space escalated from $13-14M to $21-22M. The project for replacing the rest of Governors Hall has started and stopped as construction went from $14M to $21M to $27M. Both of these are debt projects that require a good bond rating to borrow money. Money for the new science building has been eroded by the cost of construction over the last couple of years. We are still in a position where we have a legitimate but austere science and multimedia building. The Office of the President is involved in developing a strategy for accomplishing this project.
III. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Konz reported that the Chancellor Search Committee is still on track to have an announcement when the Board of Governors meets on May 13.
Final Report from Task Force to Study Faculty Salary Distribution
Dr. Larson reported that the Task Force re-examined one of its assumptions and as a result the statistical work changed a bit. However the recommendations are identical to the ones that Senators received on April 7th.
Dr. Konz moved that the Faculty Senate adopt the report and recommendations in principle and that the administration take the recommendations under advisement. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. The report will be forwarded to the Provost.
Dr. Nickless thanked everyone who worked on the Task Force. Dr. Larson added that it was nice to be able to work with folks consistently for fifteen months on this important issue. The report is available at: Task Force to Study Faculty Salary Distribution Final Recommendations
Recommendations from Task Force on Enrollment Growth and University Size
Dr. Rossell reported that enrollment growth and university size are important issues that the Task Force has been working on since September 2004.
The Senate discussed Recommendations 2 and 3 that call for UNCA to continue to employ policies and practices to gradually reduce (but not eliminate) the difference between the number of full-time equivalent students and student headcount, and to gradually reduce the difference between the fall and spring full-time equivalent enrollments for the same academic year. The reductions should be gradual so they do not result in a loss of economic diversity among students.
Dr. Nickless asked if the Task Force had discussed how this might lead to a loss of part-time and non-traditional students. Dr. Rossell replied that the Task Force discussed it quite a bit. They would like to increase retention, but there are students who are full-time in the fall and for financial reasons have to go part-time in the spring. While they would like to equalize fall and spring FTE, the process should be gradual so that we do not discriminate against part-time students. Mr. Bramlett added that the Task Force discussed part-time and returning students in terms of economic/class issues. Another group of part-time students who we never want to eliminate entirely is the disproportionate number of disabled students. In most instances, they will be part-time students until they become comfortable with school and the system. So while we understand the need to reduce the number of part-time students, let’s not decrease the diversity we have in trying to achieve the goal. And we appreciate that part-time students do in fact represent some of the most real diversity on campus.
Dr. Rossell added that Vice Chancellor Massey was on the Task Force, and he suggested that perhaps some students who attend part-time do so out of economic necessity. If we were able to increase scholarship offerings maybe that would allow them to go full-time. We are not necessarily reducing economic diversity if we give scholarships; we could still have class diversity but the students could be full-time.
Dr. Cornett asked what other policies and practices might be employed to gradually reduce the difference between the number of full-time and part-time students. Dr. Pierce suggested tightening up the dates when transfer applications are due. Dr. Gravely stated that having stricter deadlines is highly related to part-time student retention. New freshman are 99% full-time. A lot of our part-time students are non-degree students. This fall we had a headcount of 3,453, and 544 of those were part-time students. 172 of the 544 part-time students were non-degree seeking students.
Dr. Rossell suggested that advising might be used to address Dr. Cornett’s concern. If she can get her students in during the regular advising period, they are likely to sign up for a full load. She noted that the Task Force will make recommendations and another body will determine how we will achieve the goals.
Dr. Reynolds moved that the Faculty Senate adopt the report and recommendations in principle and that it be forwarded to the Chancellor who will take it to the Board of Trustees. Dr. Lisnerski seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
Dr. Rossell stated that she and Bruce Larson were very grateful to the members of the Task Force. She thanked them for their hard work. Dr. Nickless thanked all the members of the Task Force for their hard work on behalf of the Faculty Senate.
V. Institutional Development Committee Report
Dr. Irene Rossell reported for the Institutional Development Committee (IDC).
UNCA priorities for the 2005-06 budget year
IDC met with the Provost and with each of the Vice Chancellors to discuss their priorities and initiatives for the 2005-06 budget year. The committee also discussed whether the initiatives proposed last year were achieved. The purpose of these meetings was to fulfill IDC’s responsibility to review annual budget allocations.
During the next academic year, increased student enrollment will generate $2,499,275 in new funding for UNCA. These funds will generate up to 17.3 new faculty positions, provide additional library support, and contribute to student financial aid. Of the total enrollment funds increase, $816,056 will be available for general institutional support. The priorities and initiatives proposed by each administrative unit were described to IDC as follows (these are not ranked in any way).
and Student Affairs (
Progress on initiatives proposed for 2004-2005:
New initiatives proposed for 2005-2006:
Alumni and Development (Bill Massey)
Notable successes this year:
Progress on initiatives proposed for 2004-2005:
Priorities and initiatives proposed for 2005-2006:
Administration and Financial Affairs (Bill Styres)
(no specific initiatives were identified for 2004-2005, so there was no progress report)
Funding priorities proposed for 2005-2006:
The first areas for this will be Campus Police and Information Technology
(To protect personnel whose positions are currently funded by auxiliaries but who provide services vital to the campus.)
(This will allow student fee monies to be used for student programming.)
UNCA Policy on Establishing Centers
Last January, a UNCA policy document was on the table to establish, review, and discontinue Centers. IDC worked on the policy with John Stevens, then tabled it for further revision. Yesterday an administrative policy to establish, review, and discontinue Centers was released with a 21-day comment period. Louis Toms was working on the document. The policy included the Faculty Senate, but the details of the Senate’s role were not clear and were not worded in a manner consistent with Senate operations. After some members of the Executive Committee communicated with Mr. Toms, he decided to withdraw the policy. Dr. Rossell suggested that the next chair of IDC work directly with Mr. Toms to edit the policy.
Dr. Padilla stated that he was not aware of the current controversy. His understanding of the process was that only he could withdraw the policy. The 21-day process is there to work out issues, including semantics.
Dr. Rossell noted that some issues are more problematic than semantics. The policy document states that some documents involving Centers would be reviewed by the Faculty Senate following an automatic consent agenda. Automatic consent means that it cannot be challenged. If the intent of the policy is to have an automatic consent agenda, then the Faculty Senate disagrees.
did not believe anyone was dedicated to that policy concept. The main issue he put in the new model was to
have the Centers pass through the Faculty Senate and through the
Dr. Rossell noted that the document also lacked a formal review process where Centers will be looked at every three or five years. The review process was in an earlier draft. Dr. Padilla stated that this might require two phases, first to find a way to have the Senate and the administration evaluate the creation of Centers, then work on the review process that is just as important. Dr. Nickless suggested that the Executive Committee, the Provost, and at least Dr. Rossell get together next week so we can move forward.
Dr. Rossell added that because the Senate is given responsibilities in the document, it should have gone through IDC or the Senate prior to being released. Dr. Padilla replied that the Administrative Policy Committee does not work through faculty governance – it works through the university – but he concurred; it could have gone through IDC or the Senate first.
Dr. Rossell gave a big thanks to Dan Pierce, Bruce Larson, and Brian Butler for working with her this year on IDC. Dr. Nickless thanked Dr. Rossell for all her work on IDC. A round of applause followed.
VI. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. Don Lisnerski gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report.
Dr. Reynolds reported on the election results:
Humanities: Alice Weldon
Natural Sciences: Bill Miller
Social Sciences: Pam Laughon
Humanities: Gordon Wilson
Social Sciences: Robert Yearout
2003-06: Sophie Mills, Pamela Nickless, Mike Ruiz, Linda Cornett, Scott Walters, alternate TBA.
2004-07: Leigh Atkinson, Brian Butler, Bruce Larson, Don Lisnerski, Gary Nallan, Brian Hook.
2005-08: Greg Boudreaux, Peg Downes, Herman Holt, Sarah Judson, Claudel McKenzie, John Wood.
2005-06 Alternates: Rick Chess,
Humanities: Sophie Mills
Social Sciences: William Bruce
Associate Professor: Leah Mathews
Professor: Bill Haas
2005-06 Alternate: Karen Cole
Nominees to Standing Committees
received the list of Nominees to Standing Committees to be considered later
today by the incoming 20
Vote on nominees for Alternate Faculty Conciliator
The Senate approved the following
slate of nominees for 2005-06 Alternate Faculty Conciliator: Bill Haas, Linda Nelms, Bill Sabo, Robert Tynes. The
Update on Committee Assignments
Dr. Manns reported on the new committee assignment process instituted last April with the approval of SD5204S and SD5304S. She noted that FWDC needed to focus on setting policy rather than performing tasks such as service assignments and that faculty members needed to take responsibility for their committee assignments. The University Service Council (USC) was the logical body to promote and enhance service opportunities for faculty. The USC has been working this academic year in preparation for overseeing the assignment of faculty members to standing committees in spring of 2005. Dr. Manns encouraged faculty to peruse SD5304S for details.
By the end of April all of the standing committees should be on the web. Faculty will receive an announcement indicating what committee positions are open. In the fall semester (specific dates are in the document) faculty will get in touch with the committee contact person to express an interest in serving on the committee. Although the individual committees select their members, there is oversight by the USC, FWDC, and the office of the Provost.
FWDC Faculty Salary Report
Dr. Reynolds explained that FWDC was mandated to review these surveys annually and to pass them along to the Senate. Every year we are rated high in terms of student satisfaction and we are rated lower in terms of salaries compared to our peer institutions and to other institutions in the UNC system. There is no significant change in our salaries compared to our peer group whereas we have had significant increases in our ratings by our students.
Lisnerski summarized – compared to other schools in the UNC system, salaries
for UNCA assistant and associate professors are at the bottom and full
professor salaries are near the bottom.
The census data show that the cost of living in
Dr. Padilla noted that this is our internal way of judging what our salaries should be. He did not believe there was any relationship between the surveys and what is done at the BOG or legislative levels. The bigger question is do we want to become like the schools that command those salaries? The system gives money to faculty not simply based upon self-reporting satisfaction – they give it for the type of school it is or their willingness to grow, to reach out in many different ways to help with economic development. When we talk about what kind of salaries we want, we also have to realize the way in which the people who have the money approach this.
Dr. Lisnerski argued that we should use our unique mission to persuade legislators that we deserve a new funding model. It is ironic that over the last several years the legislature has been giving extra money to some schools and state that faculty need to teach more, yet they tend to keep rewarding schools who do less teaching.
Dr. Padilla agreed that we need a new funding model. He suggested generating reports that might have more value for the way in which decisions regarding salaries are actually made. Decision makers may not just focus on perceived quality of instruction by sophomores and seniors. We should find a way to congratulate ourselves on our success in a way that does not depress us by necessarily connecting it with salaries. This report is the best news we could possibly have as educators, and yet we look at it only in terms of our salary position.
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 4: 2005 Revision to the Post-Tenure Review Process (Revision to SD1000F)
(Faculty Handbook Section 3.7)
Changes in FWDC 4 involved both editing and clarification of current PTR policy. Clarifications pertained to who gets reviewed and what the review should contain. FWDC received comments on other parts of the document, but those comments will be handled separately.
Dr. Ruiz referred to
page 2, number 7: “For evaluation of
Chairs the most senior tenured member of the department/program will normally
assume the duties of the Chair, as described below.” He explained that he had been involved in
this situation twice – once from each side – as a Chair and as a senior member
of the department. It was very awkward
that within a three month period he was evaluating professor
X and professor X was evaluating him. He
felt strongly that a better way would be to have the
Dr. Nickless clarified that this was in the current version of the PTR process. Dr. Friedenberg explained that the language for the PTR document came from the language for the Tenure document. She knew that Dr. Ruiz was not alone in feeling uncomfortable about this.
The Senate agreed that
early next fall, FWDC will review the section on Chairs and whether they should
be reviewed by their respective
FWDC 5: 2005 Revision to the Guidelines for Awarding of Reappointment, Tenure and Promotion
(Revision of SD1092S) (Faculty Handbook 188.8.131.52)
FWDC 5 came from the administration. It is intended to both clarify the situation when the Chair is untenured and a faculty member is going up for tenure, and eliminate a potential conflict of interest.
Following a lengthy
discussion a friendly amendment was made to replace the word “may” with
“will.” The corrected sentence reads:
“If the Chair of the faculty member is untenured, the Provost (or designated
Dr. Friedenberg clarified that if an untenured Chair comes up for tenure, the Provost does not serve in the role of the Chair. She believed that there was a discretionary choice – by that person – of a senior faculty member either in the department or an allied field that requires the approval of the Provost.
Dr. Nickless expressed concern about the timing of when a tenured faculty member would be assigned to an untenured faculty member as Chair of the untenured faculty member’s review. A faculty member may have been here five years, working with an untenured Chair that is supposed to nurture him and help him through the tenure process. Then, as the tenure process approaches, we put another person in that role who has not been involved with the faculty member. This third person should be selected as soon as possible. Dr. Whatley added that the faculty member and the untenured Chair would have input in choosing the tenured Chair.
Dr. Friedenberg noted that there is nothing that prevents the discretionary choice from consulting with the untenured Chair. There is nothing to prevent the candidate from giving that discretionary choice access to his or her prior faculty records and evaluations. There is nothing to prevent the exchange of information. That is the real key, and it is tremendously important. A similar situation occurs when someone becomes the Chair of a department in the year when two or three people in the department are coming up for tenure. The Chair has not been nurturing and supporting any of those persons all the way through, yet they are expected to present each person’s case for tenure. At some point, we have to acknowledge that we can share information. We are talking about people who are going to guide faculty through the process.
Dr. Padilla stated that he was trying to protect the faculty member who is untenured. This is a protection device for the Chair who is untenured and who may want to speak against a positive tenure decision.
Dr. Nickless suggested that we abolish untenured Chairs. We have started departments on campus without this becoming a problem. They were started as programs under the auspices of another department. She was thinking specifically of Mass Communication that came out of the Literature department and Environmental Studies that came out of Biology.
Dr. Nickless questioned why the tenured faculty member should be from the same division in the university since we may be dealing with a department that is interdisciplinary. We are unnecessarily creating a new paragraph for a special case when the Chair is untenured. Dr. Padilla stated that he is being proactive to make sure our documents fit the realities of our personnel decisions.
In a friendly amendment, the second sentence was amended to read: “The designated Chair should be a tenured faculty member appointed in the same division of the University or from a related department/program.” FWDC 5 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 6205S.
FWDC 6: Revision to the Faculty Handbook Election Procedures (Section 10.2.1)
The rationale for FWDC 6 is that while it is important for all faculty members to be considered for election to faculty committees, it would be helpful to those voting to know which of their colleagues are particularly interested in serving. FWDC 6 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 6305S.
FWDC received a round of applause for their service this year.
VII. Academic Policies Committee Report
Dr. Jeff Konz reported for the Academic Policies Committee.
Booker and Sophie Mills worked throughout the year to draft a style sheet and
template for Catalog copy to support editorial decisions. It will be used both internally by
Dr. Konz is working on the process
of changing procedures for
Dr. Konz recognized
VIII. Old Business
Dr. Nickless reminded out-going members of the Executive Committee that this summer they will be working on the Standing Rules and Orders of Procedure for next year.
Dr. Rossell stated that she was speaking on behalf of a student. The final exam schedule this year is different than it has been in the previous years. Final exams end on a Wednesday and graduation is on Saturday. Students are supposed to vacate residence halls within 24 hours of taking their last final exam. There are sophomores and juniors who want to see their friends and seniors graduate but they have no place to stay. This is an unfortunate byproduct of our changing the calendar. Following discussion, Dr. Padilla stated that he will take the matter under advisement.
IX. New Business
Dr. Konz presented a gift to Dr. Nickless in recognition of her service as Chair of the Faculty Senate.
Nickless adjourned the meeting at .
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely