FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes,
Senate
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
Dr.
II. Approval
of minutes
The minutes of the special meeting
on
III. Administrative Report
Dr.
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.
Spring Enrollment
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.
Academic Calendar
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.
Second
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).
First
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
Research and
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
Dr.
ILSOC
Report to
When the Senate established the ILS
Oversight Committee (ILSOC), the Chair of ILSOC is supposed to report to
Second
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
friendly amendment.
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.
XI. Adjourn
Dr.
Nickless adjourned the meeting at
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
Don
Lisnerski