FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, February 8, 2007
Members: L. Atkinson, G. Boudreaux, B. Butler, K. Cole, P. Downes, M. Harvey, H. Holt, B. Hook,
S. Judson, B. Larson, D. Lisnerski, J. McClain, C. McKenzie, M. Moseley, G. Nallan,
B. Sabo, B. Wilson, J. Wood; K. Whatley.
Visitors: C. Bell, K. Bramlett, V. Frank, M. Ghidina, B. Haas, J. Hartsfield, E. Katz, G. Kormanik,
A. Lange, T. Laughlin, J. McKnight, S. Mills, J. Noor, K. Peterson, K. Ray, A. Shope,
B. Spellman, A. Weldon.
I. Call to Order, Introductions, Announcements
II. Approval of minutes
The minutes of January 18, 2007, were approved as written.
Anna Lange and Tim Laughlin reported for the Student Government Association.
Ms. Lange reported:
Mr. Laughlin reported:
IV. Chancellor’s Staff Advisory Committee (CSAC)
JoAnne McKnight reported for the Chancellor’s Staff Advisory Committee (CSAC).
- President’s Advisory Council on Efficiency and Effectiveness (PACE) report
The Chancellor’s Staff Advisory Committee recently held two campus-wide staff meetings to consider the recommendations on the President’s Advisory Committee on Efficiency and Effectiveness (PACE) report. A two-hour educational meeting was held on January 11th with an open exchange among 70 staff members. A follow-up session was held on January 24th with approximately 110 people in attendance. Participants divided into three groups to hear concerns and recommendations but the discussion was not as open at this meeting and one group actually shut down. CSAC’s report will address processes, recommendations, and concerns related to those recommendations. Comments from the two meetings, email messages and private discussions will be included in the report.
Dr. Lisnerski noted that one concern was campus accountability – if there is a separation from the Office of State Personnel (OSP) who is going to make sure that the campuses adhere to guidelines? Ms. McKnight replied that the staff gave specific recommendations on areas that would need oversight by General Administration.
CSAC meeting with Chancellor
On February 1, CSAC advised the Chancellor regarding the termination of Maggie Weshner.
V. Administrative Report
Dr. Whatley gave a brief overview of the President’s Advisory Committee on Efficiency and Effectiveness (PACE) . It is the President’s idea that if we can convince the legislators and the taxpayers that we are wisely using the money we now have they might give us more. A small committee made up mostly of business people with a representative from the chancellors and a representative from the Board of Governors worked last spring and summer and issued a final report on November 1, 2006. Many of their recommendations deal with areas other than Academic Affairs such as facilities and institutional technology. The PACE report focused on system-wide opportunities that would trickle down to campus-wide opportunities to ensure resources are used effectively.
The recommendation that affects the campus most is in Human Resources – to modify the existing processes to manage university human resources more directly. This is the question of whether we should stay with the Office of State Personnel or have a university-wide system instead. This is a very important issue, particularly to SPA employees, that CSAC is addressing.
Another recommendation that involves academic administration and support is to rework processes to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness, focus on leveraging strengths of the institution which is looking at buying power, not only in the purchasing office but also through library and book store purchases. Most of the other recommendations deal with auxiliary services, book stores and facilities management.
The cumulative impact expected in the short-run is a net savings of $13.6 million and a cost avoidance of $169 million. Medium to long-run recommendations would have upfront investment costs with an expected loss of $104 million in the short-run but a cost avoidance in the long-run of over $250 million. The report has gone to the Board of Governors.
VI. Executive Committee Report
The following document was considered for Second Reading:
EC 1: Faculty Assembly Standards of Shared Governance Resolution
Dr. Sabo moved that the Senate endorse the Faculty Assembly Shared Governance Resolution and accept it as a guideline for practice at UNCA. The motion was seconded by Dr. Moseley.
Dr. Moseley asked if there would be an investigative process to discern areas not aligned with this policy and to make recommendations. Dr. Sabo replied that a resolution addressing the process would be distributed today. EC 1 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 3007S.
Sense of the Senate Resolution - First Reading:
A Sense of the Senate Resolution was distributed for First Reading. This resolution asks FWDC in consultation with IDC to see how the Planning Council’s duties could be adapted to make it an effective system. It addresses points Dr. Sabo made in January and Pamela Nickless’ commentary on the Faculty Assembly resolution she made last year as Faculty Senate Chair.
Faculty Assembly Report
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
[Unanimously approved by APC]
APC 27: Change Course Descriptions for DRAM 362 and 462.
APC 30: Separate ARTH 310: Greek and Roman Art, into two courses: ARTH 311 and ARTH 312.
APC 31: Change requirements for declaring a concentration in Art History.
32: Add a new course ARTH 381: Art in
APC 33: Clarify the 9 hours of required courses outside the department of Art History.
APC 34: Delete Math 212 and 216. Remove co-requisites for MATH 211 and 215.
APC 35: Change introductory Psychology requirement for teacher licensure students to include
PSYC 102 as an option.
APC 36: Reinstate EDUC 340 as required course in the K-6 licensure program. Reduce credit hours
for EDUC 322 from 4 to 3. Editorial changes to listing of required courses for K-6 licensure.
APC 37: Revision of ECON 380 and ECON 480; Editorial change in graduation requirements.
APC 38: Change the prerequisite for MATH 191.
APC 40: Replace MGMT 320 with MGMT 325
APC 41: Change Course Description and Title of MGMT 460
APC 42: Change Information Systems Requirement for Accounting
APC 43: Change Management Competency Exam Criteria
APC 44: Adding new European History Courses: HIST 357 and 358.
Adding HIST 357 and 358 to Women’s Studies Options
APC Approved as Minor Proposals:
[Senators review Minor documents via links on the agenda emailed campus-wide.]
APC 26: Prerequisite Changes to PHYS 221 and PHYS 222
APC 28: Increase the offering of DRAM 111 and 144; Change semester DRAM 124 is offered.
APC 29: Add prerequisites to DRAM 244 and 245 and change times offered.
Modify course description for DRAM 245.
APC 39: Change Prerequisite for ACCT 330
VIII. Institutional Development Committee Report
Bruce Larson reported for the Institutional Development Committee.
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
IDC 1: Proposal to Establish the Environmental Quality Institute at UNCA.
Report on Prospective Activities
· Review the preliminary criteria for additional master’s programs developed in light of the meeting held at the end of the second semester last year.
· Consider the resolution distributed today as first reading.
· Think about what a new University Planning Council would look like.
IX. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
The Senate approved the following slates presented by FWDC:
Academic Appeals Board Nominees (2007-2009)
Four faculty to be elected at-large from the following:
- Humanities: Rob Bowen, Robert Dunning, Laura Facciponti, James Kuhlman
- Natural Sciences: Mark Boyd, Forest
- Social Sciences: Marcia Ghidina, Tammy Huffman, Afaf Omer, Mark Sidelnick, Joe Sulock
The Senate approved the following slate of nominees for 2007-08 Alternate Faculty Conciliator:
SGA chooses the Alternate Faculty Conciliator from a list of tenured faculty nominated by the Faculty Senate. After one year the Alternate becomes the Conciliator. Dr. Caulfield is the 2007-08 Conciliator.
Faculty Mentoring Program
The Faculty Mentoring Program will have an informal social from 3:15-5:30 pm on February 13th in the Laurel Forum. Senators were asked to encourage new faculty members in their departments to attend.
X. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
XI. New Business
Dr. Wood asked for a report on the January 30th Executive Committee meeting with Chancellor Ponder. Dr. Nallan stated that since asked, he would give a report. Chancellor Ponder is unable to be here today because of a Board of Governors meeting. At her request, a special Faculty Senate meeting is scheduled on Thursday, February 15th, at 3:15 pm in Karpen Hall 038.
On January 29th, Chancellor
Ponder asked to attend the Faculty Senate Executive Committee meeting
accompanied by Bill Haggard (VC for Student Affairs) and Calvin Kelly (Director
of Campus life). Faculty who expressed
an interest also attended the meeting.
In attendance were Gary Nallan, Bruce Larson, Claudel McKenzie, Don
Lisnerski, Chancellor Ponder, Bill Haggard, Calvin Kelly,
Dr. Downes and Dr. Lisnerski concurred with Dr. Nallan’s summary and added that there was a sense of frustration because the more restructuring was discussed, the more apparent it became that there was no plan for restructuring. They thought that to be unable to explain the plan added to a lack of credibility and a lack of confidence.
Dr. Nallan added that Dr. Himelein was present at the Executive Committee meeting and she had explained the ethics involved in terminating a counselor. Dr. Haggard said he had called the American Psychological Association (APA), and Dr. Himelein asked if it was before or after she had called them. Dr. Hook, who was not at the Executive Committee meeting, noted if the call was made, the answer “two weeks termination” would not have been given; the APA suggests six weeks but under some circumstances, i.e. a college with a short-term therapy model, it could be as little as three weeks. Dr. Whatley expressed concern that Dr. Haggard was not present to defend himself. Also, she knew Dr. Haggard had in fact called the APA. Dr. Larson recalled that Dr. Haggard said he talked with the APA and Dr. Himelein spoke with someone in the Ethics Office of the APA – those could have been different people.
Dr. Sabo argued that a core problem is a sense of trust and respect that has to be developed and earned. We are in a situation at this campus where civil discourse in many respects deteriorates partly because of a lack of trust and is caused by the nature of the environment. He introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution on the growing gap between the values of the University and our mission statement and what we do in practice, and moved that the Senate approve the resolution.
Dr. Judson said one of the root
problems is the lack of protection that state employees have in
Dr. Lisnerski asked the purpose of the resolution. The Senate has passed similar resolutions – the most recent one requested the establishment of a staff and faculty ombudsperson/conciliator. Dr. Sabo explained that the resolution acknowledges the loss of a number of long-time employees. It also incorporates statements made last month regarding the reconstruction of the Planning Council and his concern with the growing gap between values and the need to begin to access and judge actions according to the shared values and the mission statement. In many respects it could be good to make a statement about this rather than hear it from arbitrary or strident voices.
Dr. Holt and Dr. Harvey asked where the wording of the “shared values of our community” originated. Dr. Sabo explained it is a statement published by the University Community Council dated October 18, 2006, and it is posted on the website.
Dr. Hook, Dr. Downes, and Dr. Moseley explored ways to strengthen the resolution. Dr. Hook wanted Dr. Weshner to be reinstated until the end of the semester. Dr. Downes was troubled about Dr. Weshner and about the employees leaving UNCA but there is an underlying malaise; there are problems beyond those that manifest themselves in losing long term employees. She wanted the Senate to express this – this adds to the atmosphere of distrust which leads to founded or unfounded suspicion. Dr. Moseley suggested amending the resolution to include not just the fact of the departures alluded to but the process – there are both substantive issues and procedural issues that bear on this climate. In a friendly amendment from Dr. Downes the first sentence in the second paragraph was moved to the end of the first paragraph to focus on the bigger problem.
Dr. Holt asked for clarification on what Senate resolutions accomplish and how the current resolution was different from the strategic planning process currently underway. Dr. Nallan said the resolution will go to the chancellor – it is the Sense of the Senate that we believe this. Dr. Moseley noted that it is asking practice to become more in conformity with the strategic planning process. Dr. Sabo said his basic concern is that we were told at the Executive Committee meeting that this is part of a reorganization – a plan that has not been formed. A plan that is nonexistent makes it difficult for faculty to hold anyone accountable. In the absence of guidelines, what standards do we apply? The strategic plan was brought up at the Executive Committee meeting and he had expressed an objection to administrative actions supposedly implementing a plan that we have not participated in completely, have not seen in its entirety, and have not evaluated.
In a friendly amendment from Dr. Downes, the phrase “…and hold ourselves accountable…” was added to the first sentence in the third paragraph. Dr. Larson thanked Dr. Sabo for the judicious resolution. It is a clear voice and that is what a Sense of the Senate Resolution is – we are speaking as a Faculty Senate. It is not a blaming document. We are all part of the university community and the atmosphere of mutual trust, respect, openness, and accountability is one that we are all responsible for.
Discussion turned to how the campus community will be held accountable. Dr. Nallan suggested the next step is the meeting with the chancellor next week. Dr. Sabo added that the resolution regarding the improvement of the University Planning Council is a positive step because there is a phrase that addresses oversight and assessment.
Dr. Wood noted that there are several issues – we have the long-term health and safety of the community and we have an immediate crisis or a perception of an immediate event that needs to be addressed. Is this resolution sufficient? Is the meeting next week the next step in the near term as well as the long term? Dr. Larson stated that as a strategic planning process unfolds, we will have a sense of direction; how we hold ourselves accountable and the processes and procedures will develop over time. Dr. Wood argued that was in the long term – he was wondering about the near term. Are we going to channel our concerns in some way? He asked to hear from the visitors if they had something to say.
Dr. Sabo called the question. Dr. Nallan stated that he had made a procedural error -- Dr. Sabo made a motion and there is not a second. Dr. Moseley seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and Senators declined to use written ballots. The Sense of the Senate Resolution passed as amended with one dissenting vote and became Senate Document 2807S. The Resolution follows:
Sense of the Senate Resolution
The Faculty Senate of the
It is impossible “to interact closely in a supportive community,” as the UNCA mission statement promises, unless there is an atmosphere of mutual trust, respect, openness, and accountability.
The Senate calls upon all members of the campus community to commit ourselves and hold ourselves accountable to the Shared Values of Our Community statement, particularly the principles of Engaged Citizenship, Equity, and Trust and Integrity in order to move closer to our stated mission that humane “values play a role in thought and action.”
Dr. Sabo asked for the Senate’s indulgence and distributed another Sense of the Senate Resolution.
Dr. Lisnerski had a serious problem with a resolution asking to reverse a personnel decision that was made based on information the Senate does not have. Dr. Nallan suggested that this is the way counselors are fired at colleges and universities – they are given until the end of the term or the end of the academic year rather than two weeks.
Dr. Sabo acknowledged having difficulty intervening in personnel decisions. Several individuals have been dismissed from the university and he has worked with them through the procedures. He has been consulted and has been very uncomfortable with these matters. This resolution was prompted by his interpretation of the Executive Committee meeting last week – that there is a smokescreen. More importantly, he is deferring to his colleague, Dr. Himelein, who has served as a counselor at another university; this is what she teaches, and she has checked this out. He was also greatly disturbed by the issues that were brought up at the meeting and the unsatisfactory answers. As much as he would like to help Dr. Weshner, his primary concern is the 109 students currently under Dr. Weshner’s care.
Dr. Moseley explained that he was uneasy with the resolution because there have been other people who have been fired instantly and we did not like that either. How can we now criticize the people that made this decision for not making it immediate? We do not know the reasons for the decision itself or for the time span involved. Also, if it is based on therapeutic needs, a timely procedure can be arranged – perhaps until the end of the academic year, not the fiscal year.
Dr. Holt suggested that the resolution sounds like the Senate is telling administrators what they should be doing as opposed to advising them to reconsider the time span. Dr. Harvey said he was uncomfortable delving into personnel matters. Perhaps we cannot find out more information because of legal reasons. Dr. Atkinson countered that if that were the case – that there is some compelling hard and fast reason why Maggie Weshner had to be fired right away – would the administration be offering evasive and contradictory excuses? They would just say we had to do it and cannot talk about it. Dr. Downes agreed with Dr. Atkinson -- if the administration had the trust of the faculty and staff they would be able to say “this is the decision we have made” – and that is part of the problem.
Dr. Alice Weldon noted the big issue
is that we do not know enough, so how can we second guess this decision. Maggie Weshner
would be happy to share her complete file with anybody. Nothing Maggie has done or that has happened
Dr. Lisnerski expressed frustration in trying to find logic in these events. He has known Maggie for 25 years and has no reason to doubt her but he is trying to find logic as to why somebody would get rid of an employee after 29 years without good reason.
Dr. Lisnerski noted that Mr. Noor has learned more than the Executive Committee did in an hour and a half meeting. He asked when the meeting took place and Mr. Noor answered this past Monday, February 5th. Dr. Lisnerski noted that this was after the Executive Committee meeting with Dr. Haggard and the Chancellor. But there is still no reason why Maggie could not be kept on as a psychologist. Mr. Noor seconded Dr. Harvey’s concerns – the details of terminations are not disclosed to anyone other than the individual involved and the school. There may be underlying causes as to why this was done.
Dr. Larson suggested that as a Faculty Senate, we get to say what it is we want as a university community. We are expressing a value and that is what the resolution is really about. He asked Dr. Nallan if the Chancellor would be surprised that we had this discussion today. Dr. Nallan replied yes – she asked him to schedule a special meeting next week. He did not put this on the agenda but colleagues on the Senate asked for a report. It was also addressed earlier from the students and the staff in their respective reports.
Discussion turned to the APA guidelines for terminating counselors at colleges and universities and the wording of the resolution. Dr. Karin Peterson stressed that this resolution is really about the students’ welfare. There are students who do not know when they are going to need their next therapy appointment. If we do not say that this is a problem what are we going to do if there is a crisis and Maggie is not there this semester? Dr. Wood said his preference is that Maggie would be reinstated until she wants to retire. The Senate is making a declaration – a plea – for some reconsideration that is reasonable.
Dr. Volker Frank noted that what is at stake, as it was initially invoked, is a question of values. He wanted to bring the conversation back to the substantive issue of accountability. Dr. Butler added that we do not want to target the bare minimum of values. Dr. Frank suggested that, as we discuss accountability, we think about it in terms of its substantive content rather than its procedural content. When we have these parameters, accountability will be clearer to us and we can enter into co-governance with the administration.
explained that his first question upon hearing about Maggie and the
restructuring was how we are going to pick up the slack for those who are being
restructured away from Maggie to other areas and make sure that all those who
need counseling services receive them.
He did not mention this earlier, but part of the issue is that the
service that we offer in the
Dr. Sabo asked if this was the official plan and Mr. Noor replied that this is what was communicated to him by Dr. Haggard. He was not speaking on behalf of the administration; he was speaking on what had been relayed to him from Dr. Haggard.
Dr. Larson referred back to Dr. Butler’s point – we do not want to do things at a minimum level. In a friendly amendment, the word “fiscal” was changed to “academic.” Dr. Lisnerski stated that since being enlightened by the new restructuring plan, he now supported the resolution. Dr. Sabo moved acceptance of the resolution. The motion was seconded by Dr. Atkinson. The Senators declined to use written ballots. The Sense of the Senate Resolution passed as amended without dissent and became Senate Document 2907S. The Resolution follows:
Sense of the Senate Resolution
The Faculty Senate of the
Dr. Keith Ray gave a brief update on the
progress of the
Dr. Nallan reminded faculty that all Chairs of standing and ad hoc committees of the faculty shall submit a summary report of their significant activities for the year to the VCAA and the Chairs of the Senate and FWDC by May 30 of each academic year. This report should list uncompleted projects and other recommended activities for the next academic year, and any proposed changes in the committee structure, membership or focus. These reports should be made available to new committee chairs to aid in accomplishing committee objectives (per SD1490S).
Dr. Lisnerski made the following motion: “That the Faculty Senate direct the Chair of the Faculty Senate to voice our displeasure and concern to Vice Chancellor Haggard with his inability or unwillingness to share or explain his restructuring plan with the Executive Committee at the meeting last week as he was able to explain to the President of the SGA.” The motion died for lack of a second.
Dr. Nallan adjourned the meeting at 5:23pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely