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,
Absent: S. Walters.
Visitors: M. Alm, J. Burges, A. Lange, L. Nelms, A. Shope, M. Stout, K. Whatley.
I. Call to Order and Announcements
II. Approval of minutes
The minutes of the special meeting
III. Administrative Report
Campus-based Tuition Increase (CBTI) Planning
Dr. Padilla reported on a recent Chief Academic Officers (CAO) meeting regarding campus-based tuition increase planning. Last year we were given permission to propose a campus based tuition increase. The report that explains how we used the funding is due tomorrow to the Office of the President. A lot of people have been working on the report and Dr. Padilla believed we were in good shape.
During the CAO meeting with the Finance Committee, there was discussion of whether the BOG should entertain CITI proposals this year again. (CITI is the acronym for campus initiated tuition increase.) There was a robust discussion and there was a motion to not accept any proposals. The motion failed after more robust discussion. While there was not a consensus, they ended the discussion by realizing that they have an obligation to accept the proposals.
Last year, a university task force led by Bill Spellman that involved students, staff, and faculty put together a multi-year tuition increase proposal. This group is reassembling to determine if we want to continue with this approach. If this moves forward, each campus will ultimately defend its proposal as we did last year. The BOG has decided not to recommend its own tuition increase. The legislature can do so across the board in the spring if they chose to do so. But there will not be a BOG initiated tuition increase.
The Student Fee Committee has made a recommendation to the Chancellor that we again ask for an increase in fees. Dr. Padilla understood from the CAO meeting that most of the campuses will be asking for an increase. There have been a lot of editorials from the News and Observer and other newspapers about the cost of the UNC educational experience.
It was recommended that the SPA portion not be included in the CITI. While it is good morale building and solidarity to include a piece for SPA employees, we risk losing that amount. The message is clear that the BOG does not want to get involved in what is the legislature’s responsibility.
Dr. Padilla has asked the Admissions Office to cap the new enrollment of Freshmen at 100 in spring. He does not expect any increase in the spring; in fact, there should be a bigger decrease than usual. Given the increases of the last few years and the impact the Freshman Colloquium seminars will have on retention, this is good news for our filled classrooms.
Dr. Nickless explained to new senators that the Faculty Senate is supposed to review the
academic calendar. The Senate did not do this the last couple of years and it needs to be reviewed consistently. She asked Kathy Whatley to give a report to the Senate.
Dr. Whatley distributed a handout that included the current academic calendar, draft calendars
for 2006-07 and 2007-08, and a proposed final exam template. At the conclusion of her report, Dr.
Whatley took questions/comments from senators.
Senators expressed concern over the proposed final exam schedule, how the changes came about, and the apparent failure to notify the Senate of the changes. In particular, Senators questioned adding a reading day, going to a 7-day exam schedule, having 3-hour exams, and the time for evening exams.
Dr. Padilla talked about the level of process. In the Constitution, it states that the Faculty
Senate will approve the academic schedule. He wanted to discuss whether this was desirable or feasible. Setting the calendar involves a plurality of interests and he did not believe that the Senate could authorize the calendar because the Chancellor ultimately sets the schedule. If the Senate has the authority, then it also needs to take the responsibility. He and Dr. Whatley spent time preparing a schedule; the Senate prefers the 2.5 hour exam and it needs to be reworked.
Dr. Ruiz stated that the Senate wants to be reassured that there was a group that wanted these changes. For example, 14 Senators from across campus are present and no one supports having three-hour exams. You would think three or four Senators would have indicated that they wanted this change.
Dr. Padilla replied that it is good to have input but scheduling involves different groups and there can be cantankerous discussions at times. It is good for Academic Affairs to put the schedule together with input from the Senate. But in terms of approving the academic schedule – if it is in the Constitution – he thought the Senate needed to take responsibility for it as well.
Dr. Nickless noted that the revised Constitution is already up for a vote and cannot be changed now. If the revision passes, it can be clarified in the Standing Rules that the Senate provides input in the academic calendar. The Senate has used the term “approved” but what it has really done is provide input -- the Chancellor has the final authority.
Dr. Nickless thanked Dr. Whatley for her report.
IV. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Nickless gave the Executive Committee Report
FWDC to Review Post Tenure Review Policy (SD1000F)
The Executive Committee has asked FWDC to review the Post Tenure Review Policy in consultation with Academic Affairs. There is some confusion and ambiguity in the way the document is written, in particular that the senior members of the faculty are reviewed by their Chair and sometimes the Chairs are reviewed by the senior members of the faculty all in the same year.
Dr. Konz outlined some issues of concern:
- How department Chairs go through the process and who is responsible for managing the process;
- The issue of eligibility – which faculty members are eligible when, and who is a faculty member and who is not.
- The requirement that faculty be reviewed every five years. Faculty who are tenured and promoted to associate professor would, under the normal chain of events, go through PTR five years later, and then, the very next year, could be reviewed for promotion to full professor. This may be non-negotiable from the standpoint of legislative authority, but there seems to be a redundancy of reviews.
Dr. Nallan added that the PTR section in the Faculty Handbook needs some editorial work. In this section, when “Chair” is referred to, it is unclear in a couple of places whether it is the department Chair or the Chair of the PTR Committee.
Dr. Lisnerski asked if the PTR policy had to go to the Office of the President for approval. Dr. Nickless replied that she was fairly sure that it did, but we will have to confirm that.
Dr. Padilla noted that at nearly every CAO meeting they present the number of faculty who did not get through the PTR successfully. They have been told that the campuses that have a lot of zeros are vulnerable to speculation as to how rigorous the reviews are. The role of the Chief Academic Officer in the process has also been raised in this context -- what is the ability of the CAO to overturn a recommendation when the person is culturally known to be very weak but somehow the process has led to a pass. He did not believe this was an issue on our campus, but the Office of the President is more interested in PTR rather than less interested. As OP tries to generate more credibility for the sabbatical program and raises for faculty, it is important that PTR is viewed as a rigorous process. This is a timely moment for a review in the context of making a legitimate, fair, equitable review system that holds us accountable as faculty members.
Revision to the Constitution of the Faculty Senate
Dr. Nickless reported that the
revision to the Faculty Senate Constitution is up for a vote through
V. Student Government Association Report
Ms. Anna Lange reported for the Student Government Association.
Ms. Lange, who is a residential
senator, reported that
VI. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. Don Lisnerski gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report.
The following document was considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 1: Proposal to Modify the Composition of ILS Intensive Subcommittees (ILSOC)
(Revision of SD0703F and Faculty Handbook 10.3.8)
Dr. Lisnerski explained that SD0703F established the ILS Oversight Committee and the
associated ILS Intensive Subcommittees, which are chaired by the members of ILSOC. These subcommittees are now in operation and rely on the expertise of other professionals at UNCA.
ILSOC has recommended that the subcommittees be assisted by ex officio members from
appropriate areas. FWDC 1 adds an ex officio member to each intensive subcommittee.
At Dr. Konz’s suggestion, a friendly amendment was accepted to add the phrase: Each
Intensive Subcommittee shall have ex officio members as follows:” and to delete the last sentence
under Structure. It was clarified that the ex officio members are voting members. FWDC 1 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 0304F.
VII. Institutional Development Committee Report
Dr. Irene Rossell reported for the Institutional Development Committee (IDC).
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
IDC 2: UNCA Policy on Planning, Establishing,
Reviewing, and Discontinuing Centers at UNC
IDC 3: Proposal to Establish the Pisgah Astronomical
Dr. Rossell explained that IDC 2 is a UNCA Policy and Procedures document that would not normally come through the Faculty Senate. Because IDC has an integral role in the planning and reviewing of Centers, it is appropriate that the Senate consider this proposal. This puts IDC and the Faculty Senate in the loop in terms of establishing Centers, reviewing them, and discontinuing them.
IDC 3 is a Request to Establish
PARSEC (the Pisgah Astronomical Research and
Dr. Rossell encouraged senators to
look closely at the section on resource requests. PARSEC is requesting one administrative
office on campus. Dr. Padilla clarified
that the Center would be located at UNCA.
PARI (the Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute) – is the whole
facility and it is located in
Dr. Pierce added that there is supposed to be a statement in the document that space would not come at the expense of any academic department.
Update on Enrollment Growth and University Size Task Force
The task force held its first
university forum on
Requests to Consider
IDC will meet next week to discuss the Request to Establish a B.A. in Women’s Studies, the Request to Establish a Center for Human Rights, and a Request to Establish a Center on Editing Medieval Texts.
VIII. Academic Policies Committee Report
When the Senate established the ILS
Oversight Committee (ILSOC), the Chair of ILSOC is supposed to report to
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
Dr. Konz explained that
Documents considered as a Group
Documents considered separately
The rationale was amended in a
In a friendly amendment, the last
full sentence under PHYS 101 and PHYS 102 were deleted.
IX. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New Business
There was no New Business.
Dr. Nickless adjourned the meeting at .
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely