University of North Carolina at Asheville


Minutes, December 1, 20053:15pm



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, S. Walters, J. Wood; M. Padilla.


Visitors:            M. Alm, D. Forbes, L. Friedenberg, A. Gravely, E. Katz, J. Konz, E. Little, A. Ponder,

L. Preston, D. Race, C. Schaller, A. Shope, B. Spellman, K. Whatley.



I.          Call to Order

Pamela Nickless called the meeting to order at 3:28pm and welcomed Senators and guests.


II.         Approval of minutes

The minutes of November 10, 2005, were approved as written.


III.        Chancellor Ponder

            Chancellor Ponder thanked faculty for helping to calm and reassure the campus after the student death we experienced just before Thanksgiving.  All of us who spend our lives in education find the death of a young person especially difficult to take because our lives are spent investing in their futures.  She asked Senators to help her thank Ted Meigs, the student’s advisor who drove to Lumberton to pick up the family and bring them to campus.   

            - Strategic Planning

            Dr. Ponder has been working with the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to determine a good process and timetable for strategic planning.  Two elements have been clear: 1) the IDC will be involved in the process, and 2) she is frequently asked what size the university ought to be.  She will confer with the Task Force on Enrollment Growth – as it was widely consultative and the Faculty Senate is in accord with its recommendations – and with our BOT and the Office of the President.  She hopes to bring those elements of our planning to resolution by the middle of the spring semester, when she will then put together a planning process and confer with the Executive Committee.  The Faculty Senate will be informed about the planning process and its involvement in it.

            - Organization of Administration

Chancellor Ponder learned that there was supposed to have been a review last spring of the blending of Academic Affairs and Student Affairs.  This was tabled because of the resignation of the previous Chancellor and also because things were going pretty well.  She has decided to implement the review.  She noted that she was not suggesting that anyone – especially Mark Padilla – had not done a heroic job.  There have been many advantages in this union, especially among people who work with students both inside and outside the classroom, but the responsibilities may be more than anyone can sustain over time in terms of the leadership required in those areas.  Dr. Padilla has made the folks in Student Affairs aware of the review. 

            There is at least one vacancy on the senior staff and more than one person in interim positions inherited into the current administration.  The vacancy is in external affairs and community development.  Her sense is that there are enough positions but they may not be of the right order.  She will be working on that primarily with the leadership of our Board, and with OP and the BOG.  Positions at the Vice Chancellor level are subject to approval by OP and BOG.  Faculty will be involved if we create searches.

- Holiday Party

The holiday party will be held for faculty, staff, spouses, and significant others at the Grove Arcade on December 12th from 4:00-8:00pm.  Child care will be provided.  Senators were asked to set a good example with their presence and participation, and to encourage their colleagues to join in this university event.

- People Advisory Committee

The People Advisory Committee will hold a campus meeting for faculty and staff next semester with subsequent breakout meetings of faculty, EPA non-faculty, and SPA members.  Senators will be invited to join in 90-minute conversations to gather their advice in person.  In short, the group has concluded that we can decide together what sort of university community we want to be a part of.  The values inherent in that community and what we might do to achieve those values are what the group has been working on.  Senators were asked to dignify that process with their considered presence and involvement. 

- Information Technology

            Chancellor Ponder referred to Dr. Padilla’s recent campus email regarding changes in Information Technology and asked that everyone work with the Provost, Jim Kuhlman, and the consultant from OP; be especially patient as they let Mr. Kuhlman and others know what they need in IT to work and teach effectively; and welcome colleagues who will be added to the IT staff from enrollment growth funds.  This is the Provost’s initial move toward helping the university productively resolve problems in IT. 

            - Resignation of Board of Trustee Chair

            Mr. Charles Tolley, Chairman of the UNCA Board of Trustees, resigned his trusteeship effective today.  Dr. Ponder stated that she respects people who know when it is time to attend to their family.  Mr. Tolley wants all of us to know that he loves and supports the university.  For now, Vice Chair Janice Brumit becomes Acting Chair of the UNCA Board of Trustees.  She is an experienced Trustee who is well known in Asheville and is eager and able to take on this responsibility. 

            - Other Highlights of the last two months:

·         Broken ground on a new Science and Multimedia Arts building;

·         Announcement of the second multimillion dollar gift in the University’s history;

·         Creation of a People Advisory Committee to address the kind of university community we want to be a part of;

·         Tragic death of a young person and the news of an alum who died in Iraq;

·         Celebrated a series of events, including the Education Department’s Teaching Licensure event and the Head Start Holiday party;

·         Spoken in public and met over 1,300 people in Asheville and the surrounding area;

·         Experienced a change in the president of the university system and in the chairman of the BOT.

·         Replaced the Chancellor’s Crown Victoria with a Ford Escape hybrid.   


Dr. Nallan asked Chancellor Ponder what, if any, action she had taken on the Faculty Senate Resolution recently passed.  Dr. Ponder replied that she held it until she had an opportunity to confer with the Executive Committee; she had received it and is considering it.  She would like to consider it further in light of the work of the People Advisory Committee and she will work on it with the Executive Committee.

            Dr. Nickless asked if a strategic planning process would be in place by May.  Dr. Ponder stated that she did not believe that was realistic.  Some strategic things we need to consider initially are around the issues of people (the People Advisory Committee and an Enrollment Retention work group are gathering advice), and knowing what size the university will be.  We can then take up a comprehensive strategic planning process.  She wants more advice from the Executive Committee.  We may have some preliminary things in place and possibly talk about the process in May, then do external consultation over the summer, strategic conversations next fall, and bring plans forward at that point.


IV.        Administrative Report

            Mark Padilla gave the Administrative Report.

            Summary of Chairs and Program Directors’ meetings

            - Faculty Review Categories

The administration has been working on salary equity issues for the last three years and Dr. Padilla was able to implement the last two Task Force recommendations on equity.  Further progress has been made in using the merit system to discriminate faculty members who have had an exceptionally good year from those who are having a normally good year.  They looked at a number of models to provide the tools that the Chairs need in making these distinctions. 

The consensus at the last department chairs/program directors meeting was that the Chairs and program directors who have faculty in their programs would agree to recommend the category of high merit to no more than 40-60% of their faculty.  This is an artificial cap used by many schools.  Dr. Padilla congratulated Chairs and program directors for reaching a consensus to implement the review of the 2005 calendar year. 

- Compensation for Chairs and Program Directors

            Dr. Padilla accepted the recommendation of the last Task Force on Faculty Salary to move Chairs and program director compensation from a base-pay increase to a yearly stipend allocation.  He used the lower number provided by the Task Force -- $4,000 per year for Chairs.  Program directors will have a sliding scale of $4,000-$2,000, based on the complexity of the program.  This will go into effect for chairs/program directors who start Fall 2006.  Continuing program directors and Chairs will have the option of either staying with the base-pay increase or going to the stipend.

            At Dr. Ruiz’s request, Dr. Padilla explained how an exceptional merit category was determined.  The Chairs make a recommendation for merit or high merit, and the AVCs work with that recommendation.  The AVC recommendations then come to Dr. Padilla.  (In rare cases they have gone to Chairs and asked about a particular recommendation.)  All of the ratings then go to Dr. Padilla along with the files.  He reads every file and then identifies those that he thinks are deserving of exceptional merit.  One benefit of capping the high merit category is the ability to provide more exceptional merit.  He has never provided exceptional merit to any faculty member that had not been recommended for high merit.  It is not allowed for a Chair or for an AVC to recommend exceptional merit.

            - New Method for Requesting Tuition and Fee Increases

            Dr. Padilla reported that in the last five years tuition increases within the university system have ranged between 2.5 to 16.5 percent.  This spring the BOG Finance Committee will work on a new method for allowing campuses to request increases.  As a one year stop-gap provision, the BOG has created a method for campuses to recommend tuition and fee increases, as follows:  The Washington Higher Education Coordinating Board (in Washington state) gathers information about tuition increases of like colleges across the country and produces a yearly Washington State Tuition and Fee Report.  The BOG and OP have decided to use this report to determine how high of an increase each type of campus may request for tuition and fees combined.  The cap for UNCA is $356 for the 2006-07 academic year. 

The process for both tuition and fees is to make a recommendation to a university ad hoc committee; that recommendation goes to the Chancellor, and then to the BOT.  We have a short timeframe to produce the information.  There will likely be a BOT meeting in late December or early January to take up this single topic. 

            Dr. Padilla asked for a volunteer from IDC to serve on a Tuition Study Committee.  Members include Archer Gravely, Jim Kuhlman, an IDC representative, a finance representative, Bill Spellman from Academic Affairs, and two students from SGA.  SGA representative Erica Little was asked to participate.  Peg Downes volunteered to represent IDC.  Bill Spellman has agreed to chair the committee for the third year in a row. 

            Asheville Graduate Center – Memorandum Agreement with WCU

            Dr. Padilla reported that the negotiation to reset the reimbursement by Western Carolina University for use of the Asheville Graduate Center has been resolved with a Memorandum Agreement signed by the Chancellors of both WCU and UNCA.  This was a five-month negotiation and we all owe tremendous gratitude to Bill Styres who was a fierce and honorable negotiator.  The Office of the President assigned a mediator to help the negotiation between the two CFOs of the two universities.  The new rate will be based upon data from the Higher Education Price Index (HEPI) which was used to calculate the inflating price of education since 1981 when the first agreement was set.  Moreover, future rates will be increased by the annual HEPI adjustment.  We will have substantial increases in FTE reimbursement and student fees.  2005-06 will be a transition year because budgets were already set.  The full rates will begin next year.  Parking has been deferred until next year. 

In terms of reimbursement for student FTEs, the established rate had been the reimbursement of $79,931 for a set number of FTEs.  For roughly that same number of FTEs, we anticipate a $371,329 increase.   The per-FTE fee rate will increase from $145 to $790.  Dr. Padilla anticipates a fee increase of $146,508.  In addition, more types of fees will also be coming to us.  

Dr. Padilla asked faculty to begin developing intellectual relationships with WCU faculty that teach on our campus.  He spoke with the Provost of WCU yesterday and recommended a reception on campus for UNCA faculty and WCU faculty that teach on our campus.  There are a lot of opportunities that we are leaving on the table by not cooperating.  A new era is starting – we feel properly reimbursed and WCU feels that they are paying their way – we can look on to interesting relationships organized around course content, scholarship, and collaborations.  


V.         Executive Committee Report

            Dr. Nickless will report on some work she is doing on Robert’s Rules of Order at the next meeting.


VI.        Student Government Association Report

Erica Little reported for the Student Government Association.

The textbook bill has been successfully completed.  It will be implemented next semester, and hopefully many hardcover books will be replaced with softcover books by Fall 2006. 

SGA’s focus next spring will be on a leadership program for Freshmen to encourage more involvement on campus and better communication.   


VII.       Academic Policies Committee

            Gary Nallan reported for the Academic Policies Committee.

            The following documents were distributed for First Reading:


            First Reading:  [Approved Unanimously by APC]

The following documents were distributed for First Reading:

            APC 13:  Change Titles and Descriptions for MUSC 351, 352, 353; Addition of New Courses
                           MUSC 358, 359, 360, 493, 494.

            APC 14:  Change to requirements for Teacher Licensure.  Change to course descriptions for

                           MATH 251 and MATH 155.

            APC 15:   Add MMAS 330 Internet-Based Art and Design. Add MMAS 332 Experimental Media.

            APC 16:   Change requirements for the MMAS Minor.

            APC 17:   Changes to Culture Course offerings in Classics: Delete CLAS 355, 491, 493. 

                           Add CLAS 314, 343, 344, 345, 354, 356, 383, 393.


Second Reading:  [Unanimously approved by APC]

            The following documents were considered for Second Reading:

            Dr. Downes asked that APC 3 be set aside for discussion.


            APC 1:   Change of Program Requirements for Reading Licensure (K-12).  APC 1 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 0905F.


            APC  2:   Change course number of EDUC 342 to 389.  Change prerequisites for PSYC 328.  APC 2 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 1005F.


            APC  4:    Changes to the degree requirements for MLA. Change to the process by which students

select a project. Change to the length of time allowed for completion of the degree.  APC 4 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 1105F.


            APC 11:  Addition of Policy on Failure of LSIC 179/379; Addition of Policy on Grade Replacement for LSIC 179/379.  APC 11 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 1205F.



            APC  3:   Changes to MLA 610, 670 and 680.  Deletion of MLA 620, 640, 660, 681, 690, 691. 


            Dr. Downes suggested a friendly amendment to add the following sentence to MLA 500 Human Condition:  “This course includes guided scholarly research.”   She noted that quality master’s degree programs traditionally begin with some kind of research course, because the ability to do good research is essential to learning at that level.  Students need tutelage early in the program so that they can carefully and confidently incorporate the excellent ideas of scholars with their own.  Members of the APC and a majority of the members of the Graduate Council supported the amendment.  APC 3 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 1305F.      


[Documents Passed APC with a 2-1-3 vote]

APC 9:   Change in Requirements for Declaring a Management Major.

APC 10:  Editorial Change in Major Requirements for Management.


Dr. Nallan explained that APC 9 and APC 10 are regarding the management major and capping the management major.  The proposals passed APC by a vote of two to one with three abstentions. 

Dr. Cornett stated that she voted against the proposal.  After several discussions in APC, she fully understands the reasoning behind the proposal.  The administration expects fiscal constraints to be a permanent part of academia from now on and she was not going to dispute that.  The administration is also interested in preventing a department which requires higher salaries from consuming more of a shrinking budget and she understands and appreciates that.  But she thought that this proposal to those concerns was premature and could be addressed through current policy.  It is premature because the Management department expressed in its proposal confidence that it can continue to serve 175 majors with the 13 allotted positions.  In fact, Management majors have hovered around 155 for the past five years and it is in no danger of suddenly hitting that limit.  Even if it exceeded the 175 limit, there is no guarantee that any department will get faculty positions on the basis of increased majors.  Academic Affairs could just say we cannot afford it right now; we will track these trends and address it in future years if we need to.  In contrast, this proposal represents a drastic departure from the current policy by determining in advance which departments should grow or not administratively, and then fixing the status quo administratively as well.  This might create incentives for departments to try to protect their faculty positions and simultaneously cap their majors by cutting separate deals with the administration.  At the least, we need to think about criteria if we are going to start capping departments.

Dr. Atkinson and Dr. Nallan both voted for the proposals to put them before all 18 Senators for consideration.  Dr. Atkinson added that Ms. McKenzie assured APC that she could begin a search when the document was approved by APC and not necessarily the Senate.  Also, this proposal deals with the problem and he had not heard a concrete superior proposal.   

Dr. Nickless asked if anyone needed clarification before discussing the pros and cons of the proposals; she wanted to make sure that the Senators were familiar with them. 

            Dr. Padilla stated that it has been his pleasure to work with the Department of Management and Accountancy for four years in what is a very unique departmental situation in the university.  He rejected the idea that we are creating a precedent – this is an exceptional situation.  The cost of instructional positions in management and accountancy are exceedingly high throughout the country and we are well below the average salaries reported by the AACSB.  This is not a perfect model but it is a model used by other schools in the liberal arts.  It is a way to signal to the student community, as well as to the entire academic community, that we are (1) committed to having a department of management and accountancy – that it is an important part of our curriculum, and (2) we understand the unique cost that it brings and we are going to cap those costs so they do not impact in an unfair way the rest of the university.  It costs basically twice as much for a starting management professor as it does a non-management professor.  This is a reasonable way to frame an answer to the problem.  It will reassure the administration and the faculty that we have a plan to deal with the increasing cost of the department.  We are looking for a stable management and accountancy department where the faculty know what their size will be, what the nature of their curriculum will be, so as to stop attrition and to signal support and a sense of cost containment.

Dr. Nallan asked why the administration did not simply cap the number of faculty rather than the number of majors, and put it in the Catalog.  Dr. Padilla replied that in a sense we have done that.  We have coordinated the number of faculty positions that we think we can afford for the department with the number of majors that we think are appropriate.  We worry that there may be some years where there is a bulge in students’ interest and we need some means to cap it.   

AVC Friedenberg stated that part of the administration’s concern was also to maintain what we consider to be the liberal arts model of education.  It is true, we could fix the number of faculty and not attend to the number of majors and then end up with classes of 40 and unknown advising loads.  Looking over a period of 15 years, setting a cap at 175 majors puts it at an intermediate level – under what the highest number has been and above the current number. 

Dr. Cornett asked about capping the size of the classes in management.  AVC Friedenberg stated that in her opinion that was unfair advertising.  She was uncomfortable with a model that says we know we will not have enough seats for an unlimited number of people.  She preferred that people know up front that perhaps there might be challenges for certain majors.

Dr. Downes noted that Ms. McKenzie had said that the replacement position would be approved after APC approved the proposals.  She asked whether the position had been approved and if they were searching for the replacement position which would bring them back to 13 full-time faculty.  Ms. McKenize replied that if they had successful searches – there is more than one search – then there would be 13 faculty members.

Dr. Downes stated that she understood AVC Friedenberg’s concern about false advertising – some would be able to get in the classes but not everybody.  She was concerned about our image of serving the community.  It is a great benefit to the community to have this liberal arts management major and for the community to respond to that is excellent.  The wording seems like bad advertising of who we are and how we serve the community.  She also agreed with Dr. Cornett that this could set a precedent.   

            AVC Katz stated that many schools that do not cap the program cannot guarantee students will get the courses that they need in less than six years.  Dr. Hook noted that that could be presumed at almost any university.  A lot of students want to gravitate toward Spanish and the classes may be full.  He was not sure what obligation the university has to offer Spanish if other disciplines are available.  AVC Friedenberg concurred but added that perhaps this system enables the department not to do just first-come-first-serve but also to get higher quality students.   

During discussion of other programs/departments that have a gateway for the declaration of major, Dr. Walters noted that they do not cap the number of students in any of these programs – they simply set a certain criteria.  AVC Friedenberg agreed that the number of faculty is not set – that is the critical difference.

Dr. Walters asked if there was a reason why we could not have a gateway through the department.  The BFA requires a certain GPA but he is assumes that most BFA programs require that the faculty or a representative of the faculty make a decision on the worthiness of a particular student.  Ms. McKenzie stated that Dr. Padilla suggested that students write an essay.  The department did not support that because it would be subjective and time consuming.  The department proposed a GPA in addition to a C or better in certain classes but the administration did not think that a GPA would work.

Dr. Padilla preferred to not have GPA gateways because that suggests that a student who does C work is somehow not benefiting from the intellectual exploration of entering into an area where they are excited about the material but perhaps under-prepared.  In a liberal arts mission, what we hope students will do is push themselves into areas of discomfort but great excitement. 

            Dr. Mills remarked that she did not understand the quality control argument that was suggested.  She could envision a situation where all the slots were filled and some of them were filled with C students.  There might be students with a higher average who could not get in because it was closed.  AVC Friedenberg stated that she would prefer a combination of an application and a GPA requirement.

            Dr. Cole asked what the procedure would be if they reached 175 majors.  The rationale states that: “Once a cap of 175 management majors is reached, no student may declare a management major until another student graduates or withdraws from the program.”  If you have five slots with 15 students waiting, which of those would then be allowed to declare?  AVC Friedenberg replied that right now it is set up for whoever gets there first – there is nothing in there about an application. 

            Dr. Padilla disagreed that an essay is subjective; many schools use essays and we grade essays every day.  Dr. Walters countered that it might not be relevant.  Having someone write an essay to get into the BFA Art program is probably irrelevant because what you are looking at are talents that are specific to that major.  Ms. McKenzie did not think that an essay was relevant to declare a management major. 

            Dr. Walters suggested that the Position Allocation Committee may be a good mechanism for controlling the number of faculty.  The PAC can say no, you cannot have more than 13 faculty.  What we are saying is that the management faculty should not be given the opportunity to say they will take on larger classes in order to accommodate a bulge.   

            AVC Friedenberg asked -- At what point do we say that the institution has a vested interest in what the department’s average class size is?  Perhaps it is okay for one department to grow to whatever student size it wants; perhaps it is okay to agree that we will cap the number of faculty and not the number of students.  If classes have 45 students, then this department will be an exception in that way.  Another model is to have this department be an exception in that we cap and therefore protect students who may not need protecting. 

            Dr. Lisnerski stated that on the positive side of this document, the department would lose a lot of uncertainty, could move forward and recruit and develop a stable faculty.  On the negative side, he fears that the logic is somewhat faulty.  It implies that the departments who have faculty that are paid the least should have the greatest number of majors because then we can serve more majors with less cost.  Personally, he thought we should support this as a stop-gap measure; if Senators were concerned that it is going to set a precedent then there should be a discussion in the future to arrive at a resolution.  We are interviewing candidates now and the uncertainty creates problems.   

            Dr. Hook stated that he was on APC and he was one of the abstentions.  He has listened to these discussions and one of his reasons for abstaining is that he could not see the connection between capping the majors and the stable faculty position.  After all has been said and done, he still cannot support this because he cannot see the connection. 

Dr. Padilla explained that he needs to be relatively sure how much the department is going to cost to meet the needs and allow the department to offer an equally high program as other departments.  If we can agree on the number of majors that are allowed and the size of the faculty body to best serve that, then we can start to have competitive salaries and reduce turnover.  He is looking for an assurance that we can afford the program – it is a cost issue for him. 

Dr. Hook reiterated points that Dr. Cornett and Dr. Walters made:  the average number of majors over the past five years has been 145 and we are discussing a cap of 175 – 30 students higher – and this number will likely fluctuate.  It implies that the management faculty want to cap their work.  Dr. Padilla stated that was not the case.  We will hit the cap when we are fully staffed by competitive faculty of exceptional quality who are not using the department as a stepping stone. 

Dr. Hook asked Dr. Padilla if he thought that was the best way to do this.  Dr. Padilla replied that it may not be the only solution and we may refine it, but what we are doing collectively as shared governance is confronting the fact that this department’s costs are rising exponentially against the cuts of everybody else.  He would also like to see an increase in morale.  He does not like that the management salaries are becoming divisive in the faculty.  We can go to faculty who are upset over the differential and explain that it is a fact of life but we have a management plan to contain the cost.  It is a reasonable way to address a significant threat to the instructional salary budget in the university. 

Dr. Downes noted that parents in the community have expectations of the university that we will serve in certain ways.  With the proposed wording, people will call and ask when the space will be available – we will get questions that we will not be able to answer. 

Ms. McKenzie stated that they had worked hard to build community relationships.  She is concerned about community relations but the department has to be able to move forward.  Junior faculty are probably wondering whether next month part of a program will be cut and maybe they should leave now.     

Dr. Downes asked if the department was in favor of the proposals.  Ms. McKenzie replied that the department is in favor of having a stable faculty that the administration will support.  She has some problems with it but she supports it.  We need it for the stability and to show the department that yes, this university believes that there should be a department of management and accountancy. 

Dr. Padilla stated that he does not know if it will accomplish its goals but it is the product of considerable discussion and debate and it is the plan we have come up with through a shared governance model.  He is willing to commit to the department to provide the resources that it needs to have a stable department if we can have this as a minimum.   

            Dr. Larson summarized as follows:  Ms. McKenzie said that it is important that management have a stable faculty that will enable her to field a program that is necessary to field.  Dr. Padilla said that it is important to gain control over overall salaries for management.  Dr. Larson thought the proposition was a good one.  If the program is more stable and we are able to spend the additional dollars to hire the faculty that we would all like to have in every department, then the quality of the program would increase; it would become more popular to students, there would be more majors, and consequently it might bump up against the 175 cap.  That sounds like a plausible argument.  The question is – how do we deal with it if we do bump up against that number.  It could be dealt with by Academic Affairs through administrative fiat or through the requirements for the major.  It is a question of where we want decisions to be made – in Academic Affairs or in the department.  Presumably if we bump up against 175, this will return to the Senate and there may be a more formalized application process for management or additional courses that are included.  This is not written in stone – more than likely it will change. 

            Dr. Larson suggested a friendly amendment to APC 9 by adding to the third line: ACCT 215.  APC 9 passed as amended by a vote of 8 to 5 with two abstentions and became Senate Document 1405F.


            APC 10:  Editorial Change in Major Requirements for Management.  APC 10 passed by voice vote and became Senate Document 1505F.


VIII.      Institutional Development Committee Report

            Bruce Larson reported for the Institutional Development Committee. 

            Update on Master Programs

            IDC has completed its first stage of discussion about master programs where they became familiar with the historical background and present context regarding graduate education at UNCA.  IDC is now ready to gather additional information from the community at large about what sorts of questions are on their mind with regard to master programs at UNCA.  Dr. Larson has prepared an email which will provide an information update on master programs at UNCA and a request for additional input.  IDC will gather information through email and voice mail until the beginning of the next semester.  The information will be consolidated and IDC will host a forum – perhaps more than one – to solicit face to face responses and ideas about graduate education at UNCA. 


IX.        Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report 

            Don Lisnerski reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee. 

            Second Reading:

            The following documents were considered for Second Reading:

FWDC 4:  Proposal to Revise the Africana Studies Advisory Council (revision of SD1794S; Faculty Handbook 10.4.27).  FWDC 4 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 1605F.


            FWDC 5:  Proposal to Change Membership on Teaching Fellows Advisory Council (revision of SD8303S; Faculty Handbook 10.4.30).  FWDC 5 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 1705F.


X.         Old Business

            There was no Old Business.


XI.        New Business

There was no New Business.


XII.       Adjourn

            Dr. Nickless announced that future meetings will likely last until 5:15 or 5:30pm.  She adjourned the meeting at 5:20pm.


Respectfully submitted by:          Sandra Gravely

                                                Don Lisnerski