FACULTY
SENATE MEETING
Minutes,
October 20, 2005 –
Senate
Members: L. Atkinson, G. Boudreaux, B. Butler,
K. Cole, L. Cornett, B. Hook, P. Downes,
H. Holt, S. Judson, B. Larson, D. Lisnerski,
C. McKenzie, S. Mills, G. Nallan,
P. Nickless, M. Ruiz, J. Wood; M.
Padilla.
Excused: S.
Walters.
Visitors: H.
Dezendorf, D. Forbes, A. Gravely, M. Honeycutt, J. Kuhlman, E. Little, L.
Preston,
D. Sanchez-Ossorio, C. Schaller, D. Race, A. Shope.
I. Call to
Order
Pamela Nickless called the meeting
to order at 3:18pm and welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Approval
of minutes
The
minutes of September 15, 2005, were approved with editorial corrections.
III. Administrative
Report
Provost Mark Padilla gave the
Administrative Report.
Budget
Faculty salary letters will go out
this month rather than in November as reported earlier.
The administration is working on operating budgets with the
goal to shift more funding for travel into the department budgets and out of
the AVC budgets. The goal is to have a
travel allowance of $600 per faculty member so that the Chairs/Program
Directors can best allocate these faculty development dollars.
At the last Chair’s meeting Dr. Padilla approached the
Chairs/Program Directors about a new model for conducting merit reviews. He is concerned about the imbalance between
the number of merits and high merits and wants to create a better distribution
to properly recognize the achievement of high merit. Academic Affairs is not interested in taking
over the merit review process but he did propose a model where that would be a
possibility. He is looking for other
models -- whether from the Chairs or from the Senate -- where we could achieve
the goals of the review system without having Academic Affairs do more of the
evaluation. Dr. Nickless suggested that
FWDC look at the issue – the Executive Committee will discuss it at its next
meeting.
Dr. Holt referred to the funds that AVCs typically used as supplemental funding and asked
whether there would be any supplemental funding. Dr. Padilla replied that the amount of money
that goes into the department budgets for travel and the amount of discretionary
funds that the AVCs have to supplement are still
under question. The goal is to have $600
per faculty member in each department budget plus have discretionary funds –
that would be the ideal. The Chancellor
and senior staff have been discussing where the $470,000 in budget cuts will be
allocated. He will have more information
at the next meeting.
IV. Executive
Committee Report
Pamela Nickless gave the Executive
Committee Report.
Chancellor’s Advisory Committee
Dr. Nickless and CSAC Chair Connie
Schaller met with Chancellor Ponder, Christine Riley, and Buffy Bagwell two or
three times recently to discuss the situation on campus – particularly faculty
and staff morale. This resulted in the
formation of a Chancellor’s Advisory Committee [not officially named] composed
of faculty and staff, both SPA and EPA non-faculty. Members are:
Gwen Ashburn, Buffy Bagwell, Judy Bohan, Merianne Epstein, Vic Foster, Linda Hall, Bruce Larson, Tom
Lawton, Steve Lewis, Pat McClellan, Mike Ruiz, Pamela Nickless, Adrienne
Oliver, David Perkins, Melanie Rhodarmer, Christine
Riley, Connie Schaller, and Bryan Sinclair.
Chancellor Ponder is chairing and directing the committee
and it will meet weekly this semester and next semester. They discussed the climate on campus in a
positive, proactive way: the type of
campus we want this to be and how we can move forward and make it a better
place for everybody to work.
Dr. Downes asked if reports will be
made on what comes out of the meetings.
Dr. Nickless stated yes: they are
discussing communication on campus -- how the advisory committee will be
communicating on campus, how the campus communicates with itself, and how to
improve communication.
Ms. Schaller stated that she was
thrilled that the committee included a housekeeper, a second shift supervisor,
and someone from campus police – the committee reaches out campus-wide.
Dr. Padilla asked if the committee
had a charge. Dr. Nickless replied not
yet – that was also why they did not have a formal name.
V. Student
Government Association Report
SGA Vice President Davon Sanchez-Ossorio reported that this will likely be his last report
to the Faculty Senate. A residential
senator will give subsequent reports.
The SGA is scheduling appointments with each department
Chair to discuss the textbook bill he reported on last month.
SGA is working with Housing to create campus information
centers in each dorm and will then consider having them in each academic
building.
VI. Faculty
Welfare and Development Committee Report
Don Lisnerski reported for the
Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
FWDC 3: Sense of the Senate Resolution
Sense of the Senate
Resolution (as amended)
Given that the Senate’s Constitution
charges us to both “Maintain and promote the welfare of all members of the
University community”, and to “Advise and counsel the administration upon any
matters that the administration or the Senate may wish to present…” and that
the University of North Carolina Asheville has a long history of emphasizing to
the University Community the need for each of us to have respect for each
other’s opinions, beliefs and individual characteristics, AND
Given that in the December 1999
Subcommittee on Faculty and Staff Diversification’s report to the Chancellor’s
Task Force on Diversity it is stated in the Executive Summary that “In the
preparation of this document, we routinely heard reports of a climate of fear
surrounding the relationship of both faculty and staff with their immediate
superiors. We have aimed our recommendations toward converting the university
to a more humane place to work, a place that is earnest about the career
success of the people who work here”, AND
Given the fact that many
recommendations made by the Subcommittee were never implemented and that the
situation existing then still appears to exist today,
THEREFORE, the Faculty Welfare and
Development Committee of the Faculty Senate proposes a formal sense of the
Senate on the following:
RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate
endorses the Chancellor’s establishment of an “advisory committee on people and
planning”, and
RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate
endorses the FWDC exploring with the Chancellor’s Office and CSAC the
following:
1. The establishment of a staff
ombudsperson/conciliator
2. The establishment of a faculty
ombudsperson/conciliator
3. The continuation of a student
ombudsperson/conciliator
4. These ombudspeople/conciliators,
and their alternates, be provided appropriate time and training so that they
may adequately carry out their duties.
Rationale:
There is a growing concern on our campus that there exists a continued hostile work
environment in which constant fear of retribution persists. To support a
positive learning environment for UNCA students, the university needs to
promote an open, respectful, and collegial environment for all faculty and
staff as well. Indeed, a Liberal Arts
university should strive to serve as a model of a truly Liberal society. Therefore, the establishment of such a
Committee and implementation of its suggestions and recommendations and the
Chancellor’s actions should serve to defuse the present situation and create a
more positive working environment for all of UNCA.
In addition, it is hoped that in the near future that an ombudsperson/conciliator
office be established on campus. All three individuals would be provided office
space and materials as well as reassignment time in order to be able to devote
a meaningful amount of time to produce meaningful results.
The Senate discussed: endorsing the concept of the Resolution;
exploring how this works on other campuses in the UNC system; having workshops
on inappropriate management styles; and needing to speak in general terms as
personnel actions are private by law.
Dr. Nickless read an email from Scott Walters in support of the
resolution. He indicated that he had
heard from many staff members with concerns.
Dr. Walters’ email read, in part:
“…. I think it would be a very positive thing for the representatives of
the faculty to go on record supporting efforts to create a more positive, safe,
and open work atmosphere for everyone on this campus. …..this is one valuable way we can use the
safety our tenure status provides.”
Friendly amendments were accepted.
FWDC 3 passed
unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 0205F.
Dr. Nickless will present the document to Chancellor Ponder.
1999
Task Force on Diversity Report
Dr. Wood stated that he was
heartened to see that the Task Force on Diversity report was unearthed in
preparing the resolution that just passed.
The 1999 report addressed the lack of an open, collegial climate on
campus and it continues to languish. We
applaud ourselves for wanting to create this liberal environment with lots of
diversity on campus and yet there does seem to be, again and again, an
inattention to those issues. The
Diversity Task Force report had specific recommendations. It would be nice to take this opportunity to
say maybe there are other uses we can get from it and other kinds of attention
to this issue. Dr. Nickless noted that
Dr. Don Locke, Interim Director of the University Multicultural Affairs, has
the reports from all the subcommittees, so we may see some of those
recommendations used.
First
Reading:
The following document was
distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 2: Proposal to Revise Membership on the
International Programs Advisory Committee
(revision of
SD6803S; Handbook 10.4.12)
VII. Academic
Policies Committee
Gary Nallan reported that the
Academic Policies Committee has received six proposals and will begin
consideration of proposals next Thursday.
VIII. Institutional
Development Committee Report
Bruce Larson reported for the
Institutional Development Committee.
Update on SACS
(Southern Association of Colleges and Schools)
Jim Kuhlman, Chair of the SACS Committee, reported that Mark Padilla asked him to chair the committee last summer in preparation for our next accreditation review. SACS’ new accreditation model is similar in many respects to what we went through in 2002. There are two components – Compliance and Quality Enhancement Plan.
The Compliance component is very different from previous iterations in that it has shrunk from 489 “must” statements down to about 70 criteria. One important characteristic is the emphasis that SACS is putting on institutional assessment. They shrank the must statements and will be looking more critically at our self-assessment efforts.
The Quality Enhancement Plan component is somewhat analogous to our enhancement self-study where we had several committees look at student curricula and non-curricula integration. That is now a required part of the study, but it is very different in that it focuses exclusively on learning outcomes. The other difference is that if our quality enhancement plan is accepted, SACS will return in five years to assess whether we were successful in implementing the plan.
Our next SACS campus visit will be 2012. We did a lot
of work to prepare for our last SACS visit in terms of creating and putting
into place an institutional effectiveness program. After SACS left in
2002, most academic departments continued to produce biennial reports, but
there has been virtually no activity elsewhere on campus. Also, in 2002,
there were individual departmental assessment reports and unit assessment
reports but we never completed the structure so that it became a part of the
overall strategic planning/budget allocation process. Consequently, we
have a partial assessment program and need to do some very serious work.
Discussion of Masters Programs on campus
IDC has met three times since the
last Senate meeting. They have been
gathering information and talking about the role that masters programs might
play at UNCA. In relation to that, they
have spent some time talking with Mark Padilla, Bill Spellman, Rick Chess, and
Gwen Ashburn. Earlier this week IDC met
with Christine Riley who will have both Human Resources and Institutional
Research reporting to her. She will be
pulling together issues related to personnel, people, and planning.
IDC has had one discussion with Rick Chess who, along with
others, authored a potential MFA program in Creative Writing; this was a
pre-proposal discussion. IDC and Dr.
Chess discussed the pre-proposal, in part to educate IDC about what might be
involved in a masters program at UNCA, and in part to help Dr. Chess see some
areas that might benefit from further thought.
Basically, IDC has been learning more about the MFA and masters programs
at UNCA and gathering information.
Sandra Byrd, Interim Director of the Asheville Graduate Center, will
meet with IDC on November 8th as they continue these discussions.
Mike Ruiz asked if the planning for masters programs was
coming from the growth idea where we would receive more funding or if there
were other reasons – such as public service, community service, or serving our
area. Dr. Larson replied that IDC has
only had a discussion about one program – the MFA in Creative Writing. It certainly has been the case that in
discussions in relation to that program, the financial dimension has been
something that has been very important.
However, in discussions on the MFA in Creative Writing with Drs. Chess, Ashburn,
and Spellman, there was a great deal of attention given to the creative dimensions of the program and what
it might do for the local community, as well as what it might do for the
academic program in literature and language.
The MFA pre-proposal was sensitive to UNCA’s
mission but it also suggested that there may be financial benefits associated
with masters programs at UNCA.
Dr. Ruiz added that in the halls of the natural science
departments, the comments are that the only way we will get more money is if
one of us has a masters program. He
wants to see the data – more analysis.
UNCA has had a masters program for many years. Is that for the community, or for the enrichment,
or are we getting some benefits financially – is that the reason why we do
it? When he taught graduate courses, he
thought – does this cost us something in some way? Dr. Larson noted that there are lots of
questions to be asked such as those raised by Dr. Ruiz.
Dr. Lisnerski asked how many graduate programs or graduate
students are required in the UNC system to move to the level where funding for
salaries change for the university – and are we even thinking of pursuing
this? Dr. Larson stated that the answer
to that is no, but ultimately that is a decision on the part of the BOG. Dr. Padilla agreed – we are charged with our
mission and work within our classification.
Also, a new Carnegie classification system will be released in November;
there will no longer be a distinction among baccalaureate, liberal arts, and
general baccalaureates.
Dr. Lisnerski asked if we are going
to limit graduate programs. Dr. Larson
noted that there is absolutely no decision whatsoever on the part of IDC, or
anyone else, to do anything in relation to graduate programs. We are here to help think about this. We are still in the questioning and
fact-finding phase. He views discussion
of limiting graduate programs as being highly premature.
Dr. Cornett asked if IDC would advise people who are
interested in continuing to pursue these questions to come to IDC or will IDC
open a broader discussion later. Dr.
Larson replied that IDC will proceed deliberately and systematically and not in
haste. There is no rush. The most important thing for the university
as a whole is – to be alert to and participate in the activities that the
Chancellor will be helping us create during this academic year. Some of the questions posed today, and some
of the possibilities that might be explored, might be better explored next
year, after we have had university-wide discussions.
IX. Old
Business
There was no Old Business.
X. New Business
President-elect
Erskine Bowles plans to visit each of the 16 UNC
campuses before officially taking office on January 1, 2006. He will be visiting UNCA next Monday, October
24th. The Faculty Senate is
hosting the faculty meeting with Mr. Bowles from 3:40-4:40pm in the Owen
Conference Center.
XI. Adjourn
Dr. Nickless adjourned the meeting
at 4:25pm.
Respectfully submitted
by: Sandra Gravely
Don Lisnerski