FACULTY SENATE MEETING
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
II. Approval of minutes
III. Chancellor Ponder
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
- 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
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
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.
The holiday party will be held for faculty, staff, spouses, and significant others at the Grove Arcade on December 12th from . 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,
- Resignation of Board of Trustee Chair
- 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
· 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
· Experienced a change in the president of the university system and in the chairman of the BOT.
Replaced the Chancellor’s Crown
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
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
- 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
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
Dr. Padilla reported that the negotiation to reset the
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.
VII. Academic Policies Committee
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
MUSC 358, 359, 360, 493, 494.
MATH 251 and MATH 155.
Add CLAS 314, 343, 344, 345, 354, 356, 383, 393.
Second Reading: [Unanimously
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
Downes asked that
select a project. Change to the length of
time allowed for completion of the degree.
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
Dr. Nallan explained that
Dr. Cornett stated that she voted against the proposal. After several discussions in
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
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.
Dr. Cornett asked about capping the size of the classes in
Dr. Downes noted that Ms. McKenzie had said that the
replacement position would be approved after
Dr. Downes stated that she understood
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
VIII. Institutional Development Committee Report
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
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.
Dr. Nickless announced that future meetings will likely last until or . She adjourned the meeting at .
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely