The University Of North Carolina At Asheville Faculty Senate Minutes March 13, 1978 The Faculty Senate met Monday, March 13, 1978, at 2:00 p.m. in RS122 with Dr. Browning, chairman, presiding. Members present: Dr. Andrade, Mr. Bernhardt, Dr. Boland, Dr. Browning, Dr. Bruce, Dr. Cole, Dr. Farzanegan, Dr. Gillum, Dr. Howard, Dr. Shoaf, Dr. Squibb, Dr. Stern, Dr. Walker, Dr. Wilson, Chancellor Highsmith. The minutes of the February 21 Senate meeting were approved as published. Dr. Walker, chairman of the Academic Policies Committee, presented and moved adoption of APC Document #10, changes in the grading system. Dr. Cole seconded the motion. Dr. Walker explained that at the last meeting of the Senate, in response to what seemed to be the overwhelming opinion of the faculty, as shown in the questionnaire which was sent around, the Senate voted to change the present grading system of H,G,P,F to A,B,C,D,F. APC was then instructed to bring to the Senate the required details of implementing that change. Dr. Walker reviewed the document in its entirety. There was a very lengthy discussion of the document and the following amendments were moved, seconded, and passed. 1. Change the first sentence in the third paragraph to read as follows: "The 'W' grade is used for a withdrawal from a course up to one week after the mid-point of the term or semester." (Passed 9-4) 2. Add the following sentence at the end of the third paragraph: "Upon recommendation of the instructor extenuating circumstances may be considered by the Academic Policies Committee." (Passed unanimously) 3. Change the first paragraph as follows: In the fifth line remove "(O quality points)" after the phrase "I-incomplete." In the tenth line remove the letter "I" at the end of the line. (Passed unanimously) 4. Add the following sentence to the sixth paragraph on page 2: "Where there are extenuating circumstances a student may petition the Admissions Committee for a waiver of suspension regulations." (Passed Unanimously) 5. Change the fourth paragraph, page 1, to read as follows: "Auditors do not receive credit. Students who are registered for a course for credit may change their status to audit up until one week past the mid-point of the term or semester." (Passed unanimously) 6. Change the first paragraph to read as follows: "The University of North Carolina at Asheville uses a quality point average system and semester hours credit for calculating student achievement. Grading symbols used are A-excellent (4 quality points), B-good (3 quality points), C-average (2 quality points), D-passing (1 quality point), F-failing (0 quality points), U-unsatisfactory (0 quality points). T-Audit, W-withdrawal, I-incomplete, and S- satisfactory, carry no quality points and are not included in the calculation of the quality point average. (Those courses for which the faculty has approved a pass/fail (S/U) grading system have been indicated in the catalog course descriptions.) The grade point average is determined by dividing the accumulated number of quality points earned by the accumulated number of semester hours attempted. In calculating a grade point average, the numbers are not "rounded off"; e.g., 2.999 is a 2.9, not a 3.0 average." (Passed unanimously.) 7. Change the last sentence of the first paragraph to read as follows: "In calculating a grade point average, the numbers will be truncated at the end of the second decimal." (Passed unanimously) 8. First page, second paragraph, second sentence, should be changed to read: "Concomitantly with the recording of an I grade, the instructor files with the Registrar a statement of the student's average grade and specific work which must be accomplished before the I is removed." Delete the third sentence. (Passed 13-1) 9. Page 1, delete the first sentence in the first paragraph under the heading "Satisfactory Progress and Academic Eligibility." (Passed unanimously) The motion to adopt APC Document #10 as amended passed unanimously. Dr. Walker moved adoption of APC Document #11, a request for grading change for Bibliography I from S/U to A,B,C,D,F. The motion, seconded by Dr. Squibb, passed unanimously. Next on the agenda was a report on the revision of the Tenure Document. Dr. Browning called on Dr. Gillum for this report. Dr. Gillum said the proposed changes were initiated by the Board of Trustees and endorsed by the Chancellor. The ad hoc committee of the Faculty Senate responded as follows to the Trustees' proposed revisions to the Tenure Document: 1. The committee concurs in the shifting of primary responsibility for personnel decisions from the Chancellor to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and it agrees with the definition of the Chancellor's response to appeal, in which the Chancellor would essentially review the formal decision-making process as it occurred at lower levels. 2. The committee thought a charge that the chairman based a negative recommendation on impermissible grounds should be heard at the stage in the decision process, rather than deferred until after the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs' final decision. In this we differ from the recommendations of the subcommittee of the Board of Trustees. We feel that a bad decision should be corrected at the earliest possible point rather than allowing it to contaminate later decisions and reversing the whole. 3. Charges of impermissible grounds against the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs should be heard after he has returned a negative decision. The charges should be made as part of the appeal to the Chancellor. We disagree with the Trustees, and with the current Tenure Document, in that we oppose having charges against the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs heard by the Faculty Committee on Hearings. Employees should not be asked to sit in judgment upon their administrative superiors. Such an arrangement is certain to produce either a bad decision or calamitous tensions within the organization. We recommend that charges against the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs be heard by the Chancellor, assisted, if he choose, by an ad hoc committee. We have suggested that the procedures governing the Faculty Committee on Hearings be adapted to hearings before the Chancellor. The details of this need to be checked through very thoroughly; our proposal in this area is quite tentative. 4. The subcommittee of the Trustees has removed the phrase "prima facie case." We would recommend that a definition of the phrase be inserted in the tenure document, such as: "established his case to the extent that rebuttal is required." 5. The trustees have suggested that the grievant in the hearing have the right to call adverse witnesses during the first phase of the hearing. The committee finds itself divided and uncertain on this issue. 6. Regarding timing, we have brought the deadlines for appeals into line with those now specified for the hearing, i.e., five days for the initial appeal. We feel that these deadlines need to be re-examined but that we are not in a position to consider all the exigencies. We could support the suggestion made by Mr. Dawson to expand the periods to ten days for the initial appeal and twenty days when substantial preparation will be required. In our revisions, we have suggested that a deadline also be placed on the Chancellor's response to appeal. Dr. Gillum said this report from the ad hoc committee would be submitted to the Chancellor in a letter. Dr. Browning stated that the Joint Planning Committee of UNC- A/WCU was attempting to determine duplication of courses in the evening program. He said he could not report favorably on the meetings. WCU plans to offer some 100 courses in Asheville this fall. He said copies of the WCU schedule would be distributed to department chairmen. The meeting recessed for five minutes. Dr. Browning turned the meeting over to Chancellor Highsmith to discuss Part II of the agenda. Dr. Highsmith congratulated the Academic Policies Committee and the Senate for their completion of a very significant piece of work in changing the grading system. He felt the change would be beneficial to the University and he said he was glad the change was made. Concerning how the Senate agenda was set up for this meeting, Chancellor Highsmith said the UNC-A Chapter of NCAE presented him with several items and asked him to discuss these issues with them. Dr. Highsmith met with Drs. Browning and Walker and it was decided that it would not be proper to discuss these issues with a specific body of the faculty but that if the items were listed on a Senate agenda he would be glad to meet with the Senate and other interested faculty to discuss the matters. In reference to Part II A 2, Role of department chairmen in the evaluation process, Dr. Highsmith said it was imperative that substantial changes be made in the internal mechanisms on this campus and that one of the places where change was needed was the role and function of the department chairman. Dr. Highsmith then made an unofficial announcement that Dr. Lawrence Dorr had been recommended to the Board of Governors as the new Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. This appointment has not yet been approved by the Board of Governors. The Board will be meeting in mid- April. He said Dr. Dorr was considered exceptional and expressed his thanks to the Search Committee for their work. The Search Committee was formed about a year ago with Dr. Trullinger as Chairman. He said the Committee (Professors Trullinger, Seitz, Shoaf, Christine Gullickson, Perry, and Parsons) had earned the gratitude of the faculty in screening the 428 applications. He said the decision would be official after the Board of Governors gave their approval. Dr. Highsmith said there had been extensive discussion with Dr. Dorr on the need to have a very thorough overhaul on internal matters. This includes all instructional programs, budgets, position of department chairmen, faculty workload, and salary. Although "how" was not determined, it was agreed that one of the first things to start with was the role of the department chairman. He said they both believed that it was essential that there be an annual written evaluation and conference between the department chairman and members of their department and also to have an annual written evaluation of department chairmen by the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. He said there would be no way to insure that everyone would agree at all times, but a system of continuing conferences/records would be maintained so a decision would not come as a surprise. Dr. Highsmith referred to page 9 of the Tenure Document as follows: "Each initial appointment with a fixed or probationary term, each promotion in rank, each reappointment to a fixed term, and each reappointment of an instructor, assistant professor, associate professor, or professor, whether or not the reappointment recommends the conferral of permanent tenure, shall be initiated by recommendation of the chairman of the department concerned after consulting with the department's assembled tenured faculty." He said this placed the initiation of all recommendations upon the department chairman; that the role of the department chairman in the evaluation process was very obvious and very important. Going back to II A 1 on the agenda, Precise definition of the role of the Tenure Committee, Chancellor Highsmith read from page 32 of the Tenure Document as follows: "The [Tenure] Committee's mission is to consult with the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, on call, in cases requiring decision on reappointment, promotion, and the conferral of permanent tenure." Dr. Highsmith stressed the phrases "to consult with" and "on call." He said the purpose of the committee was to provide advice and consultation, not to make recommendations, on matters pertaining to reappointment, promotion, and the conferral of permanent tenure. However, he said, this did not apply to initial appointments, this was the work of the Institutional Development committee. The Chancellor said there was considerable discussion with General Administration concerning the language of the document and that this language prevailed on all 16 campuses and he did not suspect the role of the Tenure Committee would change. With reference to item II A 3, Potential for revision of the Tenure Document (can it be done; to what extent; in what areas; how and by whom), Dr. Highsmith emphasized that the Tenure Document could not be changed except with the Board of Governors' approval. Changes must be initiated by the Board of Trustees to the General Administration and then to the Board of Governors. Dr. Highsmith said he was the sole route to the Board of Trustees. He said he felt that General Administration and the Board of Governors would look very carefully at any request for changing the document coming to them from the Board of Trustees. Certain items could not be changed unless they were changed on all 16 campuses. He said there were other elements he felt would not change. For example, it is stated that in a grievance hearing the grievant has the right to access to counsel, and others in the grievance also have right to counsel. This goes back to due process. Dr. Highsmith said he did not expect the number of persons on the committee or the selection process of the committee would be changed. Referring to item II B, The Senate as a forum for faculty opinion (the current Senate vs. an all-faculty senate; effective means of faculty participation and voice), Dr. Highsmith said there was a certain amount of work that the faculty had to do. The Code of the UNC system insures that each institution will have a council. He said it was permissible within the Code for the faculty to organize itself as an all faculty senate. This would mean that the faculty meetings would be more frequent and that he would suspect that after a few meetings an elected Senate would be preferred. None of the 16 campuses now have an all-faculty senate. Regarding item II C, An effective grievance process (can the present procedure be activated, why has it not been used, potential for an alternative procedure), Dr. Highsmith said the present system could be activated when someone filed a grievance. So far no one has done so. He said he saw no reason to change a procedure until it had been tried. Dr. Highsmith referred to the definition of the Grievance Committee as stated in the Tenure Document and said that similar language prevailed on all 16 campuses of the system. He said changes could not be made without approval of the Board of Governors and he did not feel the Board of Trustees would recommend changing the present system until it had been tried and proven inadequate. Item II D 1, 2, 3, Code of Ethics: faculty and administration (is there a need; what sort of code; problems of enforcement). Dr. Highsmith said he did not know if this referred to a "code" or "ethics". He said he felt this had been tried and tried and observed more in the breech than in obedience. He said if a code could be developed that would stop what he considered to be the most prevalent of faculty sins (gossip, exaggeration, self- righteousness), he would be very pleased. He felt that rather than improving, a Code of Ethics would increase the amount of quarreling. There would be constant argument about what it meant. He said he felt that good judgment, good will, and good sense would be much better than an elaborate Code of Ethics. He said if there was a Code of Ethics there would also have to be a system of reward and punishment. He felt there were enough rules already. Item II E, Hiring patterns for faculty (what has happened to the tenure system as a result of increasing numbers of part-time faculty and non-tenure track appointments; faculty hiring priorities). Dr. Highsmith said nothing had happened to the tenure system, that it was intact. He said the tenure system was not affected as a result of increasing numbers of part-time faculty and non-tenure tract appointments. Dr. Highsmith gave statistics comparing the number of students and part-time instructors. In 1974 at the end of the drop\add period there were only 71 evening students registered. There was great concern about enrollment and the management program was started in the middle of that semester; special courses were also organized. In 1975 there were 252 UNC-A students and 151 WCU students making the evening enrollment 403. In 1976 there was a total of 441 evening students, and in the fall of 1977 there was a total of 486. This is a substantial increase and it is also the reason for the increase in the number of part-time faculty. Dr. Highsmith said this enrollment was too shaky to commit full- time faculty members to take over and until the duplicate WCU courses were resolved UNC-A would continue to use part-time faculty. He said this did not affect the tenure system but that it increased the faculty strength. Regarding faculty hiring priorities, Dr. Highsmith said he was not really sure as to what this question was related to. He said that in the Tenure Document the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, in setting up employment priorities for full-time faculty, must consult with the Institutional Development Committee. Dr. Highsmith asked for questions. Dr. Walker asked if he could say a few words about NCAE. Dr. Highsmith said he felt it would be inappropriate to discuss as a group either NCAE or AAUP. He said if the comments applied to policy or procedure then the discussion would be OK. Dr. Walker said he wished to clear up the question of why the NCAE was formed on this campus and what it was trying to do. He said the group came into existence about a year ago. It is made up of a group of faculty who found that they shared some very deep feelings about the campus, about the way things were going, and they felt these things should be talked about among the faculty. They felt good will was no longer present. The members of NCAE are: Professors Shoaf, Boland, Rainey, Wilson, Squibb, Coyle, Cranston, Greenawalt, Farzanegan, Shorb. He said Dr. Bergemann was also a member but that she had not taken part at UNC-A. Most of these members have been at UNC-A for a long time (an average of 11-12 years), and they all have a serious commitment to UNC-A. They felt it was essential for the people who had been at UNC-A the longest to do what they could to terminate the source of distress, even if it meant painful encounters. NCAE feels faculty friendships have been split and they wondered if they were to blame. NCAE felt that something could be done to restore mutual respect and this is why this list of questions was brought to the Chancellor. Dr. Scism pointed out that the approach of the NCAE was in the interest of the faculty but when they met with Dr. King last fall it was not announced. He said he had received no communication as to what NCAE had done in his behalf. He said the faculty was not informed of their meetings. Dr. Farzanegan disagreed with Dr. Scism. He said he had told him about the NCAE meetings. Dr. Highsmith said that as far as he knew the AAUP communicated only with their members. Dr. Vinson replied that announcements of AAUP meetings were sent to the faculty at large and that minutes were distributed to the whole faculty. Dr. Johnston commented that these matters had not occurred in one or two years but over a period of four or five years. He said he felt some faculty had been isolated and left out of discussions. He felt the institution must get to the bottom of the problem and get it solved. Dr. Highsmith said that at the beginning of the discussion he had announced that Dr. Dorr would be coming to UNC-A. It has been agreed that one of the first things to deal with was departments, not just department chairmen. He said Dr. Dorr was not familiar with all the background and details of the disagreements but that he was experienced in dealing with these types of matters. He asked that everyone give Dr. Dorr a chance. Dr. Highsmith said that with the revision of the tenure document that it would remove the Chancellor from making evaluation decisions, that he would be put in the appeal position, that he would not hear the case on its merits but that he would review the process. He said some very significant responsibilities would be moved to the office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, that the Vice Chancellor would be given much greater delegation of authority of the department chairmen, but that specifics would not be worked out until the new vice Chancellor came. Dr. Highsmith said he could not tell the faculty that all problems would be resolved but he said the system would be changed, that there would be some substantial internal changes. There are some things, such as the Tenure Document, that cannot be changed. Dr. Highsmith asked that everyone give Dr. Dorr an opportunity to do a good job. There was further discussion. It was felt that the meeting had been advantageous in that the faculty as a whole had taken part in the discussion. It was suggested that an ad hoc committee be set up to consider matters of importance and to report to the Senate. Dr. Highsmith pointed out that the Faculty Senate represented the entire faculty. He said that issues of importance should be placed on the Senate agenda and that he would be glad to met with the Senate to discuss these issues. Dr. Hart said he felt that several good things had happened in the meeting and he would like to recall them. The consideration and adoption of the new grading system; the establishing of guidelines in terms of the evaluation process; the fact that the Chancellor was here to discuss problem areas; the fact that specific and identified issues will be put in process at the arrival of the new Vice Chancellor; and the clarification of parts of the Tenure Document. Dr. Hart said he felt all these were wholesome signs. He felt that the comments made by faculty were helpful in that faculty were beginning to talk with each other. He said faculty had to keep at good will, that it had to be worked at. He felt the faculty should continue to recapture an atmosphere in which all would be as productive as possible. He felt wounds could be healed but if nothing was done about it they would get deeper and there would be more division. He felt that maybe scheduled discussions might be helpful. Dr. Highsmith said that in spite of the controversies that have developed over the years concerning personnel decisions he felt UNC-A had a better faculty this year than it had ever had before and that students were getting a better education than ever before. He said he did not have any apprehensions whatsoever about the faculty. He said the problem was the faculty not getting along with each other. He said he would not say that all the fault was on one side and all the right on another side, that there was no such human situation like that. He said that wheels were in motion in order to address this institutions's problems and to try to make improvements in them. He suggested that faculty members talk with Senate members regarding items they feel should be placed on the Senate agenda for discussion. He said that when these matters were placed on the agenda he would be glad to discuss them. Dr. Trullinger reported that since the official announcement had been made about the new Vice Chancellor, the Search Committee would be sending the five consultant's reports to the department chairmen. One problem that all five candidates saw was that UNC- A emphasizes its internal problems too much, that they are problems because we make them so. Dr. Browning said the Executive Committee would be meeting sometime within the next week. He asked that faculty members, in order to guide the Executive Committee in setting up the agenda for the next Senate meeting, look over the agenda that Dr. Highsmith responded to and talk with Senate members regarding which of these issues seem to be the most important in the minds of the faculty. He said the Executive Committee would then be able to fit into the agenda the items on a priority basis. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 5:10 pm. APPROVED: Jack Wilson Jacquelyn Peterson Faculty Senate Secretary Secretary Addendum: In conversation involving the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor, the Registrar, and the Chairman of the Academic Policies Committee, suggestions for changes in APC Document #10 previously approved by the Senate were made. These suggested revisions were circulated to members of the Senate, and a poll then taken of members of the Senate resulted in approval of the suggested changes. These changes are as follows: Page 2, first paragraph, replace as follows: "A student who registers for 12 or more semester hours must pass a minimum of 6 semester hours of work. A student who registers for less than 12 semester hours must pass at least half of the work. A student who fails to meet these minimum hour requirements will be placed on academic probation for the following semester. During the semester in which the student is on probation he must pass 6 semester hours of work if he is registered for 12 or more hours; or if a part-time student, he must pass half of his work. Failure to do this will result in suspension for a semester." Page 2, insert the following two paragraphs before the paragraph titled Student Responsibility: "Any student who is suspended at the end of the spring semester may attend summer school at UNC-A. If he passes half of the hours for which he is registered in summer school and his overall grade point average at the end of the summer term is at the acceptable minimum, he will be permitted to continue for the fall semester." "The probation and suspension regulations apply to all classifications of students. Where there are extenuating circumstances a student may petition the Admissions Committee for a waiver of suspension regulations." Page 2, 6th paragraph, delete the last sentence.