The University Of North Carolina At Asheville
                     Faculty Senate Minutes
                        February 21, 1978


The Faculty Senate met Thursday, February 21, 1978, at 3:30 p.m.
in RL1 with Dr. Browning, chairman, presiding.  

Members present:  Dr. Andrade, Mr. Bernhardt, Dr. Browning, 
Dr. Bruce, Dr. Cole, Dr. Farzanegan, Dr. Gillum, Dr. Howard, 
Dr. O'Donnell, Dr. Perry, Dr. Shoaf, Dr. Squibb, Dr. Stern, 
Dr. Walker, Dr. Wilson.  

Visitors present:  Mr. Blowers, Mrs. Cadle, Mr. Lawson, Dr. Mock,
Dr. Seitz, Dr. J. Sulock, Mrs. D. Sulock.  

Dr. Browning announced that Dr. Boland was ill and could not
attend the meeting.


Speaking privileges were granted to visitors.  The minutes of the
January 31 Senate meeting were approved as published.

Dr. Browning said the Chancellor had planned to attend the Senate
meeting to discuss the grading system and then leave for Chapel
Hill to join one of the two candidates for the Vice Chancellor
position.  However, due to weather conditions, the Chancellor
felt he should leave for Chapel Hill earlier than he had
originally planned.  With reference to the question of the
grading system, Dr. Highsmith had left the following message for
Dr. Browning:  1) it appeared to him that there was an obvious
preference for an A,B,C,D,F grading system as was shown on the
report from the Academic Policies Committee; 2) he was unclear as
to how the decision relative to a switch could be made - the
Senate could take it up as a matter of business; it could go to
the entire faculty for discussion and vote; or a compromise could
be made and have the Senate make a recommendation to the faculty
and have them respond to it.

Dr. Walker, speaking for the Academic Policies Committee, said
the results of the survey had only been sent to the Senate but,
if the Senate wished, the results could be distributed to the
entire faculty.  The results spoke very clearly for the change. 
APC did not have a recommendation to make regarding the grading
system.  The results of the questionnaire were submitted to the
Senate for whatever action it felt necessary to take.  

There was general discussion regarding whether or not the Senate
was empowered to make a decision on the matter and the fact that
if the grading system was changed that it would also affect the
grade point average and the suspension formula.  It was pointed
out that APC conducted the same type survey several years ago and
the results of that survey were strikingly similar, including the
D grade.


Dr. Squibb moved that the present grading system of H,G,P,F be
changed to A,B,C,D,F.  Dr. Cole seconded the motion.

There was further discussion.  One Senate member felt that the
question should be taken to the entire faculty for discussion and
action; others felt that the sentiments of the faculty were
expressed by the results of the survey.  Mrs. Cadle was asked if
the change were made how it would effect her office.  She said
she assumed that Dr. Squibb's motion spoke only to the grading
system and not to the suspension formula, grade point average,
etc.  She felt there should be a date set for the change and that
if the change could be included in next year's catalog that the
effective date should be fall 1978.

It was felt that the matter of dealing with the suspension
formula, quality point system, gradepoint average, etc., was an
easy matter to deal with if the system were changed since the
A,B,C,D,F system was the traditional system.  It was also felt
that some thought should be given to what the students wanted.

Dr. Walker spoke against changing the present grading system.  He
said he knew the expression of the majority of the faculty was to
change and he would not try to block this.  However, he felt the
grades currently being used implied something of symbolic
importance, something that was good and worthwhile.  He said he
would vote against the motion.  

Dr. Farzanegan called the question on the motion to change the
current grading system to an A,B,C,D,F system.  The motion
carried 9-3.

The Academic Policies Committee was requested to recommend to the
Senate some policy regarding a quality point system, the
suspension formula, and related matters, in time for the policy
to be included in next year's catalog.

Dr. Cole, reporting for the Institutional Development Committee,
said the committee had met and discussed the non-tenure track
reappointment positions and had forwarded its advice to the Vice
Chancellor.  IDC has also discussed the new arrangements with WCU
regarding the joint offerings and the presumed transferring of
courses from WCU to UNC-A in management-economics, business
related courses, and computer science.  The Committee has also
given its advice to the Vice Chancellor regarding new faculty
positions for next year.  It was originally thought there would
be four new positions but due to the drop in FTE it was felt the
positions should be cut to two.  IDC felt the priorities for new
positions for next year should be in Economics and
Physics/Computer Science.  This decision is related in part to
the WCU/UNC-A joint programs.  The committee will review the
five-year plan upon request from Chapel Hill.

There was no report from the Faculty Welfare Committee.

With regard to old business, Dr.  Browning said at the last
Senate meeting a recommendation from the Faculty Welfare
Committee was considered with respect to a potential alteration
in the Faculty Senate Constitution speaking directly at how
people who hold faculty rank outside the regular ranks of
Instructor, Assistant, Associate, and Professor, might
participate in faculty business.  The action on the proposal was
postponed to the next Senate meeting.

Dr. Cole moved that the motion be brought back before the Senate. 
Dr. Squibb seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

Dr. Browning asked Dr. Cole to review the proposal and discussion
of the last Senate meeting.

Dr. Cole said that Dr. Wilson introduced a motion from the
Faculty Welfare Committee which basically addressed how members
who do not now have academic rank (lecturers, visiting, adjunct,
research, etc.) might be included in Senate elections and service
on the Senate.  This proposal was to be an amendment to the
Senate Constitution.  Dr. Squibb introduced a motion to amend the
proposal as follows:  in the second line of the third paragraph
change the phrase "at least the equivalent of a 50% load" to read
"teaching a full-time load."  Also, in the sixth line, the phrase
"at least 50% equivalent teaching responsibility" to read "who
carry in a given academic year a full-time teaching
responsibility."  There was discussion, basically centered on how
much of a teaching load one should carry to be allowed to
participate in faculty business and also whether persons on a
one-year contract should be allowed to participate or whether it
should be in the second, third, or fourth year.  It was decided
to table the motion, give the matter some thought, and then
address it again today.

Dr. Wilson distributed information which he had obtained from the
Vice Chancellor's office concerning part-time faculty, lecturers,
and administrators holding faculty rank.  He said the first thing
that struck him was that something was happening to faculty as a
profession.  It is no longer the case that there are four
academic ranks - Instructor, Assistant, Associate, and Professor. 
UNC-A has 8 administrators with faculty rank who do not teach
full-time; 60 full-time faculty with academic rank; 18 full-time
faculty who hold contracts for at least one year or multi-years
(these are non-tenure track faculty and they are really the cause
of the Faculty Welfare Committee's proposal); and 54 part-time
faculty who teach course by course.  Dr. Wilson said he thought
the discussion about part-time load was focused on these 54
people but that it seemed to him that the key point in the
amendment was were we talking about people with special titles or
people contracted on a course-by-course basis.  Some of the 18
full-time faculty on a non-tenure track are people who are hired
as "visiting" but who will be given a position when they receive
their degree.  Others are people who have been here a number of
years, people who at one time held an academic rank but are now
ranked as lecturers.  The sense of the Faculty Welfare Committee
was to give the faculty a chance to voice its views.  The Faculty
Senate Constitution says that faculty have the right to overturn
any action of the Senate but these 18 people do not vote in
faculty matters.  Some, not all, vote in faculty meetings but
cannot vote in the Senate elections.

There was discussion concerning what constituted the faculty and
what constituted a full-time load.  It was pointed out that there
might be a time when some of these 54 part-time faculty would
accumulate a full-time load by the end of a year and would be
eligible to vote.  There was also a question concerning some
faculty who are on a yearly contract for a certain percentage of
a load.  Dr. Squibb said his amendment to the proposal would
exclude these people.

The question was called on Dr. Squibb's motion to amend the
proposal, a vote taken, and the motion failed 11-2.

Dr. Wilson, with the approval of Dr. Bruce who was the seconder
to the original motion, made the following editorial change in
the proposal:  in the third paragraph, line 1, after the word
"holding' add the words "one-year or multi-year."  In line six,
after the word "status" add "with one-year or multi-year
contracts."

Dr. Howard moved to amend the motion to read as follows:  in the
second line of the third paragraph, change "50%" to "75%", and
also in the sixth line change "50%" to "75%."  Dr. Perry seconded
the motion. 

Dr. Farzanegan said he did not really care about percentages.  He
said he felt the issue at hand was that of faculty governance and
that there were some inconsistencies.  There are administrators
who are not part of the faculty and faculty who are teaching a
full-time load who are not included as faculty.  He did not think
it fair to have administrators with faculty privileges and not
include full-time faculty without academic rank.  He said he
thought if there was to be a percentage attached to the
definition of faculty that it should apply to the administration
as well.  He did not feel a person should be eligible to serve on
the Senate if he was not teaching full-time.

Mr. Lawson said he felt the question was not eligibility to the
Senate but to the faculty.  Dr. Bruce said the Faculty Welfare
Committee had been careful in wording the amendment because of
the varying definitions of faculty.  His interpretation of the
amendment was that it was for the purpose of voting and serving
on the Senate and only that.  Dr. Browning said if Dr. Bruce's
observations were correct then these people would only be allowed
to participate in one election during the year - the Senate
election.  Dr. Wilson felt it was the Tenure Document's
definition of faculty and not the Senate's definition of who
voted on other issues.  He said we were subject to the Tenure
Document on all other elections.  

Dr. Bruce called the question on Dr. Howard's proposed amendment. 
The vote was a tie, 7-7.  The chair voted against the motion and
it failed.  

Mr. Bernhardt asked if it was clear that if this amendment to the
Constitution was passed these people would be able to serve on
the Senate and vote on the Senate but could not vote on other
issues.  Dr. Browning said that was right, they could be elected
to the Senate and then vote on Senate business.  

Dr. Wilson said his interpretation of the amendment was that
these people be eligible to vote on everything with the exception
of things spoken to in the Tenure Document.

Dr. Cole called the question on the motion to amend the Senate
Constitution.  The motion passed, 11-1.

Dr. Wilson said he felt this amendment was marginal to the main
issue at hand.  He felt the main issue was the definition of
faculty.  He objected to the institution having 18 people in
these categories.  He said the tenure system died without a
whimper on this campus.

Dr. Browning had two announcements.  First, with regard to the
UNC-A/ WCU joint offerings, the three individuals from this
campus on the joint committee were Dr. Riggs, Dr. Vinson, and
him.  He asked that as faculty familiarized themselves with the
WCU offerings on this campus if anyone felt there were any direct
duplications of courses the committee would appreciate it being
brought to its attention.

The second announcement had to do with HEW and the implementation
of new programs, particularly in predominately black schools. 
Dr. Browning felt that if schools like UNC-A were going to engage
in new programs that their cases would have to be stated very
well in order to compete, that it was obvious that there would be
pressure for predominately black schools.

The Senate and faculty committee elections this year will begin
the week of March 13 in the following order:  Committee of the
Tenured Faculty, Hearings Committee, Grievance Committee, Faculty
Senate, and Faculty Assembly.

Dr. Browning said the Chancellor had asked that a special Senate
meeting be held to discuss issues of concern and importance to
the faculty.  This meeting has been tentatively set for March 13.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:20
pm.

APPROVED:  Jack Wilson                     Jacquelyn Peterson
           Faculty Senate Secretary        Secretary