FACULTY
SENATE MEETING
Minutes,
Senate
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
II. Approval
of minutes
The
minutes of
III. Administrative
Report
Dr. Nickless announced that Ms. McClellan’s report on
Student Affairs has been postponed until the next Senate meeting.
Academic Calendars
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
Devon Ossorio reported for the Student Government
Association.
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
in
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
Planning
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.
Second
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.
·
Anticipates
receiving an Intent to Establish a Religious Studies
Program from
·
Plans
to submit a policy on Centers to the Senate for consideration. A proposal went through various stages of
development last year.
·
Anticipates
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.
XI. Adjourn
Dr. Nickless adjourned the meeting
at
Respectfully submitted
by: Sandra Gravely
Don Lisnerski