FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Members: L. Atkinson, B. Butler, R. Booker, T. Brown, L. Cornett, J. Konz, B. Larson, D. Lisnerski,
S. Mills, G. Nallan, P. Nickless, B. Reynolds,
Excused: D. Pierce.
Visitors: J. Cone, L. Friedenberg, D. Royer, A. Shope, T. Glenn.
I. Call to Order
Dr. Nickless announced that Theresa Sabo passed away on Sunday night. The memorial service will be held Friday at at Grace Episcopal Church. Many of us on campus know Bill Sabo and he and his family will be in our thoughts.
Dr. Padilla was unable to attend today because he is serving on jury duty.
III. Approval of minutes
The minutes of
IV. Administrative Report
Revision to Faculty Record Form
administration is revising the Faculty Record form to make it simpler, more
straightforward, and hopefully more useful.
FWDC will be asked to give advice and feedback on the revisions. Part of the impetus for the revision is that
we have a new administrative structure and a new process for faculty record
Comments made at Faculty Meeting
· UPC (and the IDC component within it) has been asked to review student body size and enrollment growth.
· IDC/UPC will look at the recommendations that came out of the Strategic Planning initiative last year.
· Academic Affairs is organizing a number of initiatives relative to Student Affairs / Student Activities to recast it as more of a co-curricular component (while not neglecting extra-curricular recreation and residential life programming which will always be important). Dr. Nickless added that the Academic Affairs and Student Affairs Union Task Force is underway. It is being chaired by William Bruce, and Brian Butler is the Faculty Senate representative. Dr. Butler stated that they are looking at models, gathering information, and making suggestions.
Dr. Friedenberg reported that Dr. Padilla told her that any faculty who had questions concerning the faculty raise formula should feel free to ask her, and that he is looking forward to information on the Equity Salary Study. Dr. Nickless noted that the administration followed the recommendations of the Task Force on Faculty Salary Distribution very closely. This task force is now working on the Equity Salary Study.
possible development of a Religious Studies Program and the Craft Studies
Program – which would involve IDC and
· The Summer Institutes Project is an opportunity to shape some of the summer programming here that is outside the regular academic program.
Dr. Nickless encouraged senators to email her if they wanted the administration to report on anything in particular.
V. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Nickless gave the Executive Committee Report
Senate Room Location
The Faculty Senate is experimenting with room locations to find a room with better acoustics that makes it easier for people to speak and is more welcoming for visitors.
Senate Alternates are supposed to attend meetings “with voice but without vote.” She was happy to see Scott Walters join us at the table.
Dr. Ellen Pearson has been appointed to represent the humanities on ILSOC. She replaces Dr. Ginger Spivey, who had to withdraw from the committee.
Janet Cone, Director of Athletics
Nickless introduced Janet Cone, UNCA’s new Athletics
Director. Ms. Cone’s background is in
the liberal arts, having graduated from
Our Student Athletic Handbook spells out what we expect of our 180 student athletes -- not only athletically, but also academically and socially. She noted that winning is more than what you do on the court or a field. It is who you are as a student and who you are as part of our community. They will be students first and athletes second.
Ms. Cone highlighted the academic achievements of our student athletes:
· Over 50% received the Presidential Honor Roll award from the Big South Conference.
· 10 out of 14 teams had a GPA of 3.0 or greater.
· Our men’s basketball team received the award for the most improved GPA last year.
· Our women’s soccer team has the highest GPA of nearly 3.6.
· 71% of our student athletes graduate.
Ms. Cone encouraged senators to call her with any concerns.
VI. Student Government Association Report
Fall Semester Goals
were encouraged to visit the new
Alternate Faculty Conciliator
VII. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report
Dr. Irene Rossell reported for the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council (IDC\UPC).
Dr. Rossell distributed two handouts and reported that IDC has been busy, having met three times, including twice over the summer. She thanked committee members for being willing to meet over the summer.
Approval of Proposal to Plan for Institute for Health Promotion and Partnership
IDC met on May 6 at the request of Dr. Padilla and John Stevens to discuss a proposed UNCA Institute for Health Promotion and Partnership.
Features of the Institute:
· Will provide a setting for UNCA’s Health Promotion major (approved in 2001).
· Will contribute to community-based health promotion initiatives.
· State legislature has provided funding for a building that will house the Institute, as well as the Department of Heath and Fitness.
· IDC voted to endorse a letter to Molly Broad seeking approval to plan for the establishment of this Institute, with the understanding that the planning documents will come before IDC before being submitted to OP.
Issues IDC anticipates working on this year:
· Work with John Stevens to establish a formal procedure for creating and dissolving Centers and Institutes at UNCA. Administratively, there is no distinction between the terms Center and Institute.
· Continue reviewing proposals for new University majors and programs (for example, the proposed Global Issues major).
· Continue annual meetings with the Provost, the Vice Chancellor for Administration and Financial Affairs, and the Vice Chancellor for Alumni and Development to discuss their budget plans and priorities for the 2005-06 academic year. The results will be reported to the Senate in May.
· Work with the administration. As noted earlier, Brian Butler has agreed to serve on the Task Force on Student Affairs Reorganization; he will represent IDC and the Faculty Senate.
· Look at the Strategic Vision Task Force recommendations.
Biennial Enrollment Projection
IDC met with members of the administration on August 10th at Dr. Padilla’s request. Jeff Konz attended and represented the Executive Committee. Every year UNCA has to submit biennial enrollment projections to OP. Five days after the start of the semester, Archer Gravely does a census, and based upon those numbers of students who are taking classes, we then have to project how many students we will have next year and the following year. Dr. Padilla asked IDC to call a meeting to discuss the numbers that need to be submitted.
Dr. Rossell outlined the situation:
· Biennial enrollment projections for 2005-06 and 2006-07 academic year need to be submitted to OP in early September.
· UNCA Guiding Concepts (approved by the UNCA Board of Trustees and the Faculty Senate in 1991) specify that UNCA will not exceed a headcount of 3500 students.
· Our current estimated fall headcount for 2004 is 3461.
· If we continue to accept new students at the rate that we have for the last couple of years, and if student retention increases, we will exceed the 3500 headcount cap next year.
· If we remain within the enrollment cap, we will forfeit a large budget increase. Our budget increases $200K for every 20 additional students.
· The term “students” in the Guiding Concepts is not defined (fall headcount? annual headcount? FTE?)
The group considered two suggestions:
· Suggestion #1: Temporarily define “student” as annual FTE (in 2004, there will be an estimated 3092 annual FTE).
· Suggestion #2: Temporarily exclude graduate students and non-degree seeking students from the headcount cap (those students do not make the same demands on university resources that degree-seeking undergraduates do). For Fall 2004, excluding 250 non-degree and graduate students from the enrollment headcount decreases the fall headcount from 3461 to 3211.
· IDC voted to approve Suggestion #2, with three provisions: (1) That the enrollment projections submitted do not establish University policy as to UNCA's size and rate of growth; (2) that they can be subject to revision if necessary; and (3) that the Faculty Senate will address the issue of student enrollment, university size, and growth rate during the Fall of 2004.
Dr. Reynolds asked how “student” was defined in terms of getting more money for the university. Dr. Friedenberg stated that there has been a disconnect for a long time in terms of internal and external policies. Externally, we are funded based on FTE; that is what allows IDC to make the recommendation and be legitimate in the eyes of the Office of the President. Internally, most of the time we are uncertain whether FTE or headcount should be our focus.
Dr. Rossell explained that for now, we are using fall headcount. Using FTE would give the Chancellor a lot of leeway and we would not anticipate getting to 3500 FTE for years. Dr. Friedenberg added that IDC has chosen a middle strategy. If we used FTE, the potential for growth in terms of bodies could be huge, depending upon the criteria.
Enrollment Growth and University Size
Dr. Rossell stated that we need a campus-wide discussion that includes faculty, staff, and students. The last couple of years, there have been a lot of discussions about the fate of IDC and the fate of UPC. At the fall faculty meeting, the Chancellor announced that he would like UPC and IDC to address enrollment growth; he wants us to consider it very carefully and try to make a wise decision for the university. She asked the Senate to help IDC think this through and outlined the current membership of UPC:
· 4 IDC members
· 4 additional faculty are appointed by the Provost. (Two of these seats are vacant and another member would like to be replaced).
· 3 seats (VCAA, VCSA, and University Planning Officer) are filled by Dr. Padilla.
· VC for Alumni & Development (Bill Massey).
· VC for Administration and Financial Affairs (Wayne McDevitt).
· 1 CSAC representative appointed by the Chancellor.
· 1 Student representative appointed by Dr. Padilla.
The current membership of UPC is outdated and in recent years it has not functioned well as a committee. It has been very heavy in vice chancellors, who are busy people who often could not attend meetings. They would send a designee who may or may not be able to contribute to the conversation.
Last year IDC wrote a portion of the draft Senate Constitution and suggested that there not be a UPC. If the revised Senate Constitution passes, there will not be a UPC like this next year. IDC has other ideas on how planning might be addressed on campus, but it probably will not be through UPC. Dr. Rossell will not be filling the vacant seats on UPC and neither will she be bringing a rewrite of the membership. IDC feels that it can handle issues that arise this year. IDC suggested creating task forces on specific issues. Dr. Rossell reviewed IDC 1: Proposal to create a Senate Task Force on Enrollment Growth and University Size.
Rationale: The UNCA Guiding Concepts specify that UNCA will provide a superior liberal arts education, and is “small by choice, seeking no more than 3500 students.” This cap was established in 1991. The estimated Fall 2004 headcount will be 3461. Because the university budget is determined by enrollment, it is imperative that a decision be made this year whether to remain within this enrollment cap. In addition, there is a need to clarify the language in the Guiding Concepts, which does not specify whether “students” should be enumerated using headcount or FTE.
Goals: By the April 2005 Senate meeting, the Task Force would: 1) make a recommendation to the Senate and to the Chancellor whether university enrollment should continue to grow; 2) if further growth is recommended, make additional recommendations on how that growth should be managed; 3) clarify how UNCA “students” will be defined (fall headcount, annual headcount, FTE, etc.).
Terms of task force: Academic year 2004-05. The chair of the Task Force shall make periodic progress reports to the Faculty Senate at times to be determined by the Chair of the Faculty Senate and the Chair of the Task Force.
Composition of task force (16 members): (Chair to be determined by IDC)
· 4 members of IDC
· 4 faculty members (at least one untenured) to be appointed by IDC, with at least one faculty member representing each of the three divisions, and a reasonable distribution of faculty rank.
· Institutional Research Director
· Admissions Director
· Diversity / Multicultural Affairs representative
· Student Affairs representative (chosen by Provost)
· CSAC representative (chosen by CSAC)
· Chancellor’s appointee
Dr. Lisnerski highlighted two issues: (1) whether or not the Faculty Senate has to approve IDC acting as UPC for the coming year, and (2) whether or not to approve IDC 1. Dr. Nickless stated that this will not be UPC – this is a task force. IDC acting as UPC is a separate issue from this task force and we can do that later.
Dr. Rossell commented on an issue Dr. Lisnerski raised. The Chancellor said he would like UPC to work on this issue. Given the status of the membership of UPC, it has not been an effective group and has not functioned well for the last couple of years. Half of the members did not come to meetings because they were not on campus. She believed that the Chancellor wants faculty governance to be involved in the enrollment growth issue. Dr. Padilla has seen the document and he suggested having a Student Affairs representative. Dr. Rossell stated that she had not discussed this with Chancellor Mullen, but certainly Dr. Padilla approved the concept.
Dr. Friedenberg stated that she believed the Chancellor’s concern was that this issue be addressed by a diverse group of people representing a variety of constituencies. She did not believe the Chancellor was wedded to UPC as the vehicle.
Dr. Konz moved to waive the Comer Rule to consider the document. Dr. Booker seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
IDC 1: Proposal to create a Senate Task Force on Enrollment Growth and University Size.
Dr. Konz addressed two issues: 1) the need to move quickly on this issue, and 2) the apparent timeline discrepancy. One of the conditions is that it has to be addressed by Fall 2004 -- another goal is by the April 2005 Senate meeting. This is important and we need to take the time to do this the right way. The problem, particularly in terms of admissions this year, may become a moot point if we wait until April 2005 to make a decision. If the task force decides that we are quite happy with the size that we are and we do not want to go beyond 3500 – that the Guiding Concept is still what we believe -- it puts the Admissions Office in a bind.
Dr. Rossell stated that IDC did not anticipate that the Senate would address it completely by the end of Fall 2004. Rather, IDC would start work on it in Fall 2004. Dr. Friedenberg added that the Admissions Office has set up a new deadline. The early decision in November is binding; the regular admission deadline is in March. She noted that Dr. Konz’s point should be considered and discussed if, in fact, this committee and then the Senate would want to recommend that we hold back on admits for Fall 2005. That information would need to be conveyed to the Admissions Office before March because the second deadline is March.
Dr. Brown explained that the Fall 2004 date was used not only because of Admissions, but also because there is a window during which Archer Gravely can tweak vital projections that close in December. He was thinking of a two-stage process: 1) the committee will take up immediately those questions that have to be decided by December and then by March; and 2) in a time span concluding in April consider the large strategic issues – the baby boomers and what we are going to do about that. He suggested moving forward with that understanding. Dr. Konz commented that Scot Schaeffer is on the task force and he should be able to read the writing on the wall, whatever that may be.
Dr. Larson stated that at the present time the cap is 3500 students. There are two questions: 1) is the number right, and 2) what is a student? Those ought to be the questions addressed by the task force. Dr. Rossell said that in the first draft, the goal of the task force would be to determine the ideal university size. Dr. Larson stated that he felt a lot more comfortable with that, because “growth” is so wide open and the task force is more likely to make a determination about a number rather than whether growth is good or not. Dr. Rossell stated that the task force certainly should answer the question of whether the university should grow or not. And if it did grow, we were not sure we wanted to limit it by having to choose a number, but maybe we should.
Dr. Brown commented that the context for this is very strongly influenced by the fact that over the next 12-15 years there is a huge bump in the number of students who are expected to come through and there will be a lot of pressure for the 16 campuses to expand. Some schools might expand and some schools – maybe like us – do not necessarily want to expand. But instead of setting the next number, which we will undoubtedly hit within a year or two or three or four, depending on the number, he wanted to treat this as an opportunity for strategic planning because there are ways in which you can respond to the challenge of growth that profit us. We need to think strategically about those things in the future – not just set a number for the next two or three years. That is why he pushed for that language.
Dr. Larson expressed concern that if we wanted to resist growth – if we just have the word “growth” – it does not give us any power at all. It does not give us any moral authority. Whereas if we had 3800 or 3200 – then we have some authority. The only reason we are having this conversation now is that the number 3500 was arrived at in 1991. Otherwise we would be talking in a casual way about growth. We gain a lot of authority and will by including a number. It also opens up an interesting challenge as it might well be that the right number is not 3500 -- it might be 3200.
Dr. Rossell argued that by not having the task force pick a number, we could be open to perhaps other things. Maybe it is not the number that is so important, but maybe the most important thing is having an average class size of 18. Perhaps we could grow a little bigger, but as long as our class size is small, would it really matter if it was 3500 versus 3600 versus 3400? We could leave the task force a little bit more room to think about university size as opposed to the number of bodies on the campus. For historical purposes, she read from the 1986 Guiding Concepts, #6 Quality Growth: “UNCA intends to grow to an ultimate size of 5000 headcount, consisting of 3800 undergraduate and 1200 graduate students by 1995.” In 1991, they realized they were never going to get 1200 graduate students, so they downsized those numbers to 3500 undergraduates. That is the number we have always heard. What we have not heard is that they also were planning on 800 graduate students. They were keeping in mind not just the MLA students, but all graduate students who come to this campus through the Asheville Graduate Institute. They were counting all of them. The total number of students on the campus would be 4300. The 1996 Guiding Concepts stopped referring to graduate students and just said “a maximum headcount of 3500 – at least 1200 of whom will be residential.” In 2001 they were rewritten: “3500 students with a constantly increasing portion of residential students.” The Guiding Concepts have been rewritten four times since 1986. The numbers have changed a lot so she questioned the value of picking another number, although Dr. Larson’s point was well taken.
Dr. Cornett agreed with Dr. Larson. The numbers may change and we may constantly have discussions over what the right number should be – but without a number we might just be driven by enrollment. A number is like a trigger that indicates we need to discuss again what it is that we want to do and where we want to go. Otherwise the figures may drive us, rather than us driving the figures.
Dr. Konz stated that he understood Dr. Rossell’s point that the numbers have changed over time. But in a sense, those numbers were always fictitious. This is the first time where we really had to face what that Guiding Concept means. There is real value in talking about what our ideal size ought to be in numerical terms.
Dr. Brown noted that IDC wanted to include numbers, but they wanted there to be a strategic plan too. Perhaps rather than one number, consider a table that shows numbers by year.
Dr. Friedenberg reminded Senators that the clarity of the statement in the Guiding Concepts has changed over time and that may be deliberate. If the Senate sets a number, differentiate whether it is a headcount number or an FTE number. A headcount number has a very different implication because it has imbedded within it issues on part-time versus full-time students, and post-baccalaureate students.
Following discussion, Dr. Reynolds moved to amend the second recommendation to read: “2) if further growth is recommended, make additional recommendations on the extent, rate, and nature of growth.” Dr. Booker seconded the motion, which was accepted as a friendly amendment.
Dr. Reynolds asked if someone in facilities management should be on the task force. Dr. Rossell replied that IDC felt it would be more efficient to invite people from facilities management, public safety, and alumni to attend meetings as appropriate rather than making the task force too large.
Following discussion, the last sentence was amended to read: “IDC will compile a roster of suggested task force members, which will be brought to the Executive Committee for approval.” IDC 1 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 0104F.
Dr. Rossell reiterated that she will not call any UPC meetings this year. Dr. Lisnerski stated that if there are any decisions made that should have been made by UPC and they were not consulted, someone may question that. A Senate vote that IDC will serve as UPC this year would solve that problem. Dr. Nickless suggested that the Executive Committee take this up. It is a good suggestion and we need to look over our documents and discuss it. Dr. Friedenberg stated that the Senate needs to appoint at its first meeting every other year an editor for the Faculty Handbook.
VIII. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. Don Lisnerski gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report.
FWDC will work on committee assignments for the next couple of weeks, and looks forward to reviewing a draft of the new Faculty Record.
IX. Academic Policies Committee Report
Dr. Jeff Konz reported for the Academic Policies Committee.
Last year the Senate revised the
sunset policy to take the administrative parts of the process out of faculty
governance and put them in the administration.
That process has begun – Institutional Research has generated a list and
it is part of their regular reporting calendar now. The list has been sent to the office of the
X. Old Business
Dr. Nickless will update the Senate on the Constitution revisions soon; the revisions will be completed this year.
XI. New Business
There was no New Business. Dr. Nickless asked the Executive Committee and Dr. Friedenberg to remain after the meeting to discuss naming a Faculty Handbook editor.
Dr. Nickless adjourned the meeting at .
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely