FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Members: L. Atkinson, G. Boudreaux, B. Butler, K. Cole, L. Cornett, B. Hook, P. Downes, H. Holt,
B. Larson, D. Lisnerski, C. McKenzie, S. Mills, G. Nallan, P. Nickless, M. Ruiz, S. Walters,
J. Wood; M. Padilla.
Excused: S. Judson.
Visitors: M. Alm, L. Dohse, E. Katz, W. Kirby, J. Noor, K. Ray, D. Sanchez-Ossorio, B. Spellman,
L. Walsh, K. Whatley.
I. Call to Order
Pamela Nickless called the meeting to order at and welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Approval of minutes
III. Administrative Report
Dr. Nickless announced that Ms. McClellan’s report on Student Affairs has been postponed until the next Senate meeting.
Prior to the meeting, Senators
received the 2006-07 academic calendar (previously approved), as well as the
Draft 2007-08 and Proposed 2008-09 calendars.
· Renaming Exam Week
Some faculty continue to disregard the policy that requires all classes to meet during Exam Week. The time period scheduled for classes during Exam Week is included in the calculation of required time per credit hour for classes. Exams are not required; a wide variety of educational experiences could be appropriate. Changing the name of the week might reinforce to faculty the importance of meeting during these periods. She suggested the name Capstone Week.
Some Senators suggested renaming exam week might discourage the giving of finals while others thought it might help. Dr. Cole noted that “Capstone Week” may confuse education students because the semester prior to student teaching is commonly referred to as the “capstone course semester.” Suggestions included “Week 16,” “Final Week, and “Finals Project Week”.
· Duration of Winter Break 2008-09.
Because Thanksgiving falls on
· Due date for grades for Fall 2008.
Because of the late date for Thanksgiving, the last day of Capstone Week is December 16. It would be best to have grades due on December 18, to give Academic Affairs staff time to collect late grades and process student warning letters before the break. The ever-increasing number of late grades (over 700 for Fall 2005) makes the close of the Fall semester very difficult for staff.
Following discussion, Dr. Nickless
noted that some faculty do not care for snow days but
they may not know that they are integrated as reading days now. When make-up days were initiated, it was done
on an experimental basis. She encouraged
Senators to talk with faculty in the fall about make-up days. She thanked
New administrative guidelines on Students Who Fail to Maintain Active Full-time Enrollment
The administration has a pilot set of procedures that will be implemented this semester to identify and guide students who fall below 12 credit hours. Our current system will be enhanced to better identify these students and a daily report will be generated beginning at the end of the last day of drop/add to supplement and verify information provided by students.
As a preventive measure, any student
intending to drop below 12 credit hours must meet with the Dean of Students,
who will outline the risks and consequences for taking this action. The Dean of Students may pick up indicators
that the student is struggling – either academically and/or emotionally – and
can make a referral.
If the drop will put the student
between 9-11 credit hours, there is a possibility that s/he could remain in the
residence halls but s/he might have to meet certain conditions and the Dean of
Students could withdraw that extension at any time. Once a student drops below 9 credit hours it
is virtually impossible to remain in the residence halls.
The administration would like to broaden this to include commuter students. Commuter students who begin the semester with a minimum of 12 hours but fall below full-time status will receive a letter specifying non-residential implications (e.g. financial aid, parents’ insurance coverage) and requesting a meeting with the Dean. The purpose of the meeting is to clarify implications and ascertain the need for additional and/or off-campus support services. Early identification may assist in referring a student to the math lab, the writing center, the library, the counseling center, health services, or off campus to a support service.
Dr. Nickless suggested that the Dean of Students have a faculty advisory committee. Dr. Padilla agreed that we should look at this when looking at joint committees.
Continued discussion, from the Faculty Meeting, about needs for shared governance bodies
Dr. Padilla discussed the need for administrative staff and faculty to work together on the university’s most pressing issues by providing better links between the development and implementation of policies and procedures. Two areas of shared governance (that the Faculty Assembly calls joint committees) already exist. The Enrollment Services Task Force involves both administrators and faculty; it is a policy implementation committee that makes recommendations and hears appeals relative to admissions, suspensions, and scholarships. The Position Allocation Committee involves faculty and administrators who review all position requests, especially for tenure-track positions. He suggested three new areas for shared governance/joint committees:
1) Information Technology
Dr. Padilla would like to see a robust committee that is
advising the university on where to put our technology resources. For example, what kind of palm pilot should
we support? Is wireless a good
investment, and where? We have 100 smart
spaces and 20 of the machines need to be replaced. Is spending ~$160,000 to replace the machines
a good use of money? Or should the money
go into areas that we together decide are important, such as wireless. He recommended reforming the two existing
committees – the Computer and Telecommunications Committee and the
Administrative Computing Committee. He
would recommend that
2) Curriculum Development
Dr. Padilla proposed an earlier point in the curriculum
development that will allow
Dr. Nallan noted that when Dr. Konz proposed new
3) Faculty Development
Dr. Padilla asked the Senate to look at the faculty development bodies – to think of efficiencies of the University Service Council, the University Research Council, and the University Teaching Council – whether these bodies might meet as a single body or are they really doing the work that the faculty wants them to do now. He was concerned that service is not distributed as well as it could be; he keeps seeing the same people and they look overworked. He did not talk about this at the faculty meeting but it is another area he is looking for input on. Would it be better to bring those committees together so they could look at Off Campus Scholarly Assignments? He is committed to making the OCSA a more robust program and that there be faculty review of the proposals.
Dr. Nickless asked
The order of business was modified.
V. Student Government Association Report
Mr. Ossorio distributed a list of
Student Government Fall 2005 accomplishments and the Spring 2006 agenda: Highlights include: 94% full student Senate,
Student Organization Council to coordinate meetings; external discount cards,
and work on the Homecoming Committee.
Goals include: website for
student organizations, master calendar for student organizations, and increase
IV. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Nickless reported for the Executive Committee.
Review of Robert’s
Rules of Order on abstentions
Dr. Nickless explained that in recent years the Senate has drifted from common practice and Robert’s Rules of Order, and has called for abstentions on voice votes. An abstention is not a vote. The Senate will return to Robert’s Rules and will call for yes and no votes on voice votes. The phrase “passed with no dissenting votes” will be used when there are no opposing votes.
When it is necessary to count the number of votes, we shall record abstentions. Under Robert’s Rules a majority of votes cast carries the motion. Committees have operated under the same rules. If the Senate or the Committees would like to change this to a majority of those present, it can be added to the Standing Rules and Rules of Order.
Dr. Nickless suggested that when Senators feel they have a conflict of interest and plan to abstain, they could instead recuse themselves before discussion of the motion. This makes it clear that the Senator feels a conflict and can not in good conscience vote. The Senator would move out to the audience but may still speak for or against the motion as a member of the University, but not as a Senator. Part of this procedure would be to discuss the conflict with the Chair of the Senate before the meeting. The Senate may want to add this to its Standing Rules.
Update on Strategic
The Executive Committee met with Chancellor Ponder last week and she presented a calendar outline of how she sees the strategic planning process unfolding in the next year. Copies of the process were distributed to Senators.
The group loosely called the People Advisory Committee has been renamed the University Community Council. The group will begin meeting with small groups on campus this semester, to focus on what kind of university we want to be. In Fall 2007 we will have a strategic plan, a process by which we keep this going, and procedures by which we keep constituencies involved.
UNC Faculty Assembly on Shared Governance
Senators received copies of the resolution on Standards of Shared Governance on the 16 UNC Campuses approved by the Faculty Assembly in April 2005. Dr. Jeff Passe, Chair of the Faculty Assembly, discussed this resolution with the Senate during a campus visit last year. Dr. Nickless encouraged Senators to read the November/December article: “Some Branches Were More Equal Than Others,” in the publication of the AAUP, Academe, on the evolution of this document at the Faculty Assembly.
Dr. Nickless suggested that the Executive Committee review the minimum standards of shared governance with Dr. Padilla and discuss our weaknesses. We pride ourselves on strong governance but tend to get a little sloppy. She has been reading about shared governance and how institutions make hard decisions on retrenchment of programs. Most of what she has found has been on research universities. The Executive Committee needs to discuss how the process would work if we are faced with a no growth environment.
Return to administrative report
Senate input on visit of consultants to review Student Affairs administration the next week
Dr. Padilla encouraged faculty to attend the meeting with consultants who will be on campus next Tuesday and Wednesday as part of the Chancellor’s review of the divisional union of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs. This is an opportunity to help guide the Chancellor who will make the decisions. This is not a drill – it is a real review with real implications for our students and our approach to pedagogy. Dr. Padilla noted that he wanted to do what was best for the university.
The order of business was modified.
VII. Academic Policies Committee
Gary Nallan reported for the Academic Policies Committee.
Reading: [Unanimously approved by
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
MUSC 358, 359, 360, 493, 494.
MATH 251 and MATH 155.
Add CLAS 314, 343, 344, 345, 354, 356, 383, 393.
VI. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Don Lisnerski reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
Update on Activities
Dr. Lisnerski reported that members of the Task Force on Disruptive Students should have received an email from Cathy Mitchell to look at the disruptive student policy and the honor code.
FWDC will meet with Mr. Kuhlman to discuss revising the composition and responsibilities of the two computer/telecommunication committees that Dr. Padilla reported on.
Faculty received notification of the upcoming election schedule and on the procedure to nominate faculty to committees. The nominees will be contacted and their names will be italicized on the ballot if they do not refuse nomination. Greg Boudreaux is coordinating elections this year.
VIII. Institutional Development Committee Report
Bruce Larson reported for the Institutional Development Committee.
Update on Activities
IDC met Tuesday and outlined prospective activities for this semester:
· Continue discussion of master’s programs at UNCA; transform email responses into questions. It is nice to see a strategic planning process laid out. Dr. Larson sees it as supporting the current, deliberate, approach taken with regard to master’s programs at UNCA.
receiving an Intent to Establish a Religious Studies
· Plans to submit a policy on Centers to the Senate for consideration. A proposal went through various stages of development last year.
receiving a Request to Establish the
· Strategic planning.
· Shared governance.
Dr. Nickless asked if centers now have to be approved by the Board of Trustees (BOT). Dr. Padilla explained that there are various ways that a center may be established. In his opinion, the BOT needs to recognize a center because it is representing the university. It would be very awkward for a Board member to learn that we have a new center when there was never a discussion of it. He asked for input on how we move to the BOT stage.
NEMAC has gone through faculty governance and it will be at
the next Board meeting. But there may be
instances when there is a requirement for the university to create a center
where the usual faculty governance/administrative procedures are not entirely
relevant. The Office of the President
(OP) can simply notify a campus that it has a center – this happened to
The Chancellor is interested in taking the idea of a center to the Board pretty quickly. It will be faster than our normal processes allow. There will be rare instances when the university will create a center. The university might see the BOT create a center that faculty governance has not fully evaluated. Moreover, we have to get the centers that faculty governance has approved before the BOT.
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