FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, November 9, 2006
Members: L. Atkinson, G. Boudreaux, B. Butler, K. Cole, P. Downes, M. Harvey, H. Holt, B. Hook,
D. Lisnerski, J. McClain, C. McKenzie, M. Moseley, G. Nallan, B. Sabo, B. Wilson,
Alternates: C. Bell
Excused: S. Judson, B Larson; M. Padilla.
Visitors: M. Alm, R. Booker, L. Friedenberg, E. Katz, J. Konz, J. Kuhlman, A. Lange, B. Massey,
J. McKnight, A. Shope, B. Spellman.
I. Call to Order, Introductions, Announcements
II. Approval of minutes
The minutes of October 17, 2006, and October 19, 2006, were approved with an editorial correction.
III. Student Government Association Report (SGA)
Anna Lange gave the Student
Government Association report in
Following are issues that the Faculty Senate and SGA need to address:
Ms. Lange added:
JoAnne McKnight reported for the Chancellor’s Staff Advisory Committee.
CSAC is in the final planning stages of projects that are intended to be unveiled early next semester. The projects include a new CSAC website as well as the establishment of a format which will be used by CSAC representatives to meet cyclically with staff in the area which they represent. Both measures are being developed to foster more viable and visible cross-communication with staff; to slay the rumor-mill and replace it with a transparent process; to work in a proactive manner to establish a positive attitude, first among staff and then across all levels of the university community; and to solicit further input from staff to create and implement creative ways to acknowledge the outstanding jobs that employees routinely do.
The “new” CSAC body and leadership that came into place in August, 2006, has been working diligently on campus committees, to provide staff presence and input.
· CSAC served on the University Community Council (UCC) which held a series of campus meetings and identified critical issues for staff. Most notable achievement of the Chancellor in concert with this group is that the salary of every employee on campus is now either at the base of or within the salary range that is appropriate for the work which they do. UCC continues to work to provide training opportunities for staff and to investigate and ensure proper and consistent application of law mandated policies such as those that affect how comp time is to be used to benefit employees.
· CSAC serves now as conveners in the Strategic Planning Process that is taking place during this academic school year. Dr. Ponder has a national reputation as one of the finest strategic planners in higher education today.
· CSAC serves on the Distinguished Staff Member of the Year Committee. Every year a staff member is selected who has served this campus in ways that are above the norm. This person receives an award and a monetary boost in appreciation for the service rendered. This year, the committee’s goal is to ensure that the recipient is honored in ways that parallel the distinctions afforded the faculty member who receives the parallel Faculty of the Year Award. It is also looking at innovations designed to broaden the idea to include more than one staff member.
· CSAC serves on the Chancellor’s Office Support Study Team. This is a team that is currently seeking to update the job descriptions of the administrative support teams that are so vital to the academic function of the university.
UNC Staff Assembly
UNC Asheville representatives to the UNC Staff Assembly are: Connie Schaller, Jonalyn Crite, JoAnne McKnight and Nancy Williams. As the Staff Assembly meets twice a year, the real work of the Assembly will be done in the committees that are charged to work in-between sessions. The UNCA team has expressed an interest in serving on the following committees:
Communications and Technology
Innovations and Initiatives
V. Administrative Report
Nallan announced that
Annual Report of Vice Chancellor for Alumni and Development
Vice Chancellor Bill Massey reported for Alumni and Development. The report is available at: Annual Report of Vice Chancellor for Alumni and Development.
· Mr. Massey noted the impressive gain in the investment pool of the endowments. The Investment Committee which comprises members of the Trustees Board and members of the Foundation Board decided over a year ago to move 50% of our endowed assets to UNC Management Company. It was created by UNC Chapel Hill to manage its $2 billion endowment. Several years ago they were given permission to manage, upon request, the endowments or any portion of the endowments, of the 15 constituents and the affiliated organizations, such as public television. It has a very aggressive, very successful, actively managed portfolio that ranks in the top 10% of all university endowments nationally. This allows us to get into funds that we would not be able to get into otherwise. Fifty percent of the endowment was kept with the more passive management in mutual funds. Now that we have exceeded $20 million in the endowment, both in growth and additions to it, the committee will be reviewing that portion of the endowment to see if they want to move more of it into the more aggressive stance.
· The Friends of the University still tend to be non-alums rather than our own alums. We had a drop last year in the percentage of alumni who participated in giving to the university. We have addressed that and to date we are showing progress and are recouping some of that. It remains to be an issue. If we do not have regular communication with alumni, we have no right to expect their loyalty. Some departments do a good job of keeping in touch with alums but the university has simply not made a commitment. There is nothing that we do any time of the year that goes to all alumni. It is not an absence of talent or ability or knowing that it is something that we need to do – it is a cost issue. At one point we only had the addresses of about 50% of our alumni; we now have the addresses of 95% of them.
Massey’s main concern is the question – are we going to the same pool of people
over and over again and tapping into their generosity. He has never lived in a community that is
more generous to a university than the
VI. Executive Committee Report
Peg Downes reported President Bowles’ top two priorities:
· Need-based financial aid: 25% of the proposed tuition increase would go to financial aid.
· Increasing faculty salaries to bring each campus up to the 80th percentile of its peer institutions. President Bowles will request that this take place over the next two years. He is also requesting a 4% annual cost-of-living increase to faculty salaries. UNCA was particularly mentioned during the meeting of the Faculty Assembly’s Budget Committee as in notable need of increase in faculty salaries. The Board of Governors will consider the proposed budget on November 10, 2006.
o Other items in the proposed budget include:
§ Resources for summer bridge programs, to ease high school students into the universities
§ Resources for research that is driven by NC economic needs
§ Scholarships for more and better K-12 public school teachers
to support the “Arts & Sciences campuses” – that is
· President Bowles will try to convince the Board to pass the budget; if passed, it then goes to the Governor, and then, the 3rd week of June, to the General Assembly.
· To encourage the General Assembly to look kindly on us, the Faculty Assembly will pass a resolution in January, supporting the increase in faculty salaries, and they will soon be requesting that each campus’s Faculty Senate pass a similar resolution in February.
· Other pertinent and interesting remarks by President Bowles:
o He stated a state-wide need for “teachers, nurses, and the liberal arts.”
o He declined to get into detail about tenure and post-tenure reviews, when someone posed the question to him, but he emphasized that “Service has to play a very important role on our campuses.”
o He had thought that to save students hundreds of dollars each semester, a textbook rental system should be set up on each campus; he was persuaded that this would be difficult and expensive to implement, and thus, at this point, asked strongly that we exhort our colleagues to get their book orders in early – a few months before a semester begins. He said, “We must inform students earlier about what books they’ll need to buy for their classes.”
o This week, a UNC System Grievance Committee is to be announced, but there is some concern that it is composed of administrators mostly, not faculty. It includes two faculty.
o In a meeting of the Task Force on Assessment, chair Gary Jones strongly suggested that the Task Force consider recommending three additions to the required curriculum throughout the UNC System: that students learn about Ethics; Sustainability; and Community Engagement.
o Also discussed in that Task Force meeting was the need to develop a new category for assessing administrators – i.e., to list the characteristics of an Outstanding Administrator. Meg Morgan at UNCC asked that anyone with ideas send her suggested criteria: email@example.com. The understanding of this Task Force is that each campus has some procedures for the faculty to regularly and confidentially review the administrators who affect their work and their lives – in accordance with the motion passed by the Faculty Assembly in April 2005.
SGA was encouraged to compare our Bookstore’s pricing guidelines with the National Association of College Bookstores guidelines on mark-up patterns to find the degree to which we are out of line with the normal practices.
Senators discussed the importance of instructors ordering books early; listing books on syllabi and emailing specific information to students early; the need to give ISBN numbers; and the possibility of setting up a web form that takes the data and sends it to the Bookstore and to a website for students simultaneously. Betty Wilson serves on the Textbook Task Force and will send to the Faculty Senate a copy of its report which will be finalized next Wednesday.
Faculty Assembly Representation
Dr. Nallan explained that our
current Faculty Assembly delegates are Gwen Ashburn and
Peg Downes reported for the Institutional Development Committee in Dr. Larson’s absence.
Guidelines for Institutional Centers
IDC is reviewing a proposal on guidelines for institutional centers at UNCA. The proposal addresses how an institutional center can be established, how and when these centers should be reviewed, and under what circumstances an institutional center should be discontinued.
NEMAC (the National Environmental
We have other centers, such as the
VIII. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
The following document was considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 1: Proposal to establish the “Library, Information Resources, & Technology Committee”
as a new Standing Committee replacing the Computing & Telecommunications
Committee and the Library & Media Services Advisory Committee (Replaces SD7403S;
Faculty Handbook 6.5.3; 10.4.4; 10.4.13
The Senate discussed the composition of the committee and the need to balance the number of faculty and administrators with voting privileges. FWDC 1 was withdrawn; an amended proposal will be forthcoming for second reading.
Update on Faculty Mentoring Program
The coordinators of the faculty mentoring program are working on a function for early spring semester. Surveys will be sent to new faculty (first and second year on campus) to learn what areas they feel they need additional information on and whether workshops may be needed. Additional mentors are needed.
Faculty Committee Sunset Policy
At the University Service Committee’s request, FWDC is considering a faculty committee sunset policy as a way to eliminate committees. Some committees are only meant to meet once a year and they should not be eliminated.
Adjunct Faculty meeting
Dr. Lisnerski met with some adjunct faculty members who indicated an interest in having the Adjunct Faculty Committee continue. A number of issues were discussed – the majority of issues tended to be department-oriented rather than university-wide. Several adjunct faculty members plan to call a meeting of all adjuncts to see if there is interest in continuing the committee to deal with their specific issues.
IX. Academic Policies Committee Report
Sense of the Senate Resolution
APC discussed the resolution distributed at the last Senate meeting. Ms. McKenzie noted the assessment period under section 2 and the third paragraph of the rationale. She moved approval of the Sense of the Senate Resolution on behalf of the APC. The resolution follows:
Sense of the Senate Resolution: Deadlines for Grades: Fall, 2006
1. CHANGE IN FALL 2006 CALENDAR DEADLINES
Current Schedule New Schedule
Tuesday (December 12) finals end Tuesday (December 12) Finals End
Thursday (December 14) noon: grades due Wednesday (December 13) noon: senior grades due
Friday (December 15) noon: all grades due
Saturday (December 16) Graduation Saturday (December 16) graduation
Faculty are encouraged to submit their grades, especially for seniors, as soon as possible rather than waiting until the deadline.
The Registrar’s Office will report
complete their task in the time allotted and the degree to which faculty complied with the deadline.
This fall UNCA experiments with a December graduation. Early estimates indicate between 160 and 170 students will be eligible to participate. Before a student can graduate, the Registrar’s Office must certify seniors as having met graduation requirements. The complexity of the task is one reason why senior grades must be submitted early. The traditional UNCA practice has been for faculty to submit senior grades before the final examination period.
Realizing the difficulties associated with submitting senior grades early, the individual responsible for certification is willing to do what she can to alleviate the burden. The change in the deadlines for the Fall, 2006 semester permits seniors to take exams with other students, while still allowing the certification process to be completed in time for the ceremony.
This is a short term solution to a
burden placed on the registrar’s office.
The assessment report will aid in planning for possible future December
graduations and help
McKenzie added that
Second Reading: [Unanimously
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
APC 2 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 0406F
APC 5 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 0506F
[Senators review Minor documents via links on the agenda emailed campus-wide.]
APC 3 became Senate Document 0606F.
X. Old Business
Dr. Nallan reminded Senators that Leah
Mathews chaired the Task Force on Student Rating of Instruction. Dr. Nallan and Bruce Larson (as Director of
CTL) met with Dr. Mathews to discuss the next step following the Task Force
recommendations. Dr. Larson volunteered
to convene a group to discuss issues concerning student rating of instruction,
how that information is gathered from the students, and how it is used by the
administration in evaluation. Dr. Larson
suggested that the group include former directors of the Center for Teaching
and Learning, Archer Gravely, and participants in the
Dr. Sabo suggested that Dr. Mathews or another member of the Task Force participate in the discussions. The final report had a series of recommendations that he would like to see addressed. This would eliminate duplicating work and would keep the group on task.
XI. New Business
Dr. Lisnerski asked Dr. Downes to elaborate on President Bowles’ comment to the Faculty Assembly that “Service has to play a very important role on our campuses.” Dr. Downes stated that President Bowles did not elaborate on the type of service. Dr. Lisnerski noted that FWDC has been discussing how to get faculty to appreciate the need for service and how that is communicated through the administration.
Dr. Nallan adjourned the meeting at 4:30pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely