The University Of North Carolina At Asheville Faculty Senate Minutes April 4, 1978 The Faculty Senate met Tuesday, April 4, 1978, at 3:45 p.m. in RL1 with Dr. Browning, chairman, presiding. Members present: Dr. Andrade, Mr. Bernhardt, Dr. Boland, Dr. Browning, Dr. Bruce, Dr. Cole, Dr. Gillum, Dr. Howard, Dr. O'Donnell, Dr. Perry, Dr. Shoaf, Dr. Squibb, Dr. Stern, Dr. Walker, Dr. Wilson. Visitors: Dr. Bergemann, Mrs. Cadle, Dr. Otti, Dr. Stevens. Speaking privileges were granted to visitors. First on the agenda was a report from the Academic Policies Committee. Dr. Walker said that since the last Senate meeting a poll had been taken regarding further changes to APC Document #10. These changes were suggested by the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Registrar. A majority of the Senators expressed approval of the changes. Next from APC was a proposal from Dr. Bergemann concerning the discontinuation of teacher education tracks in Political Science and Sociology. Dr. Walker asked Dr. Bergemann to speak to this matter. Dr. Bergemann said she was sure everyone was familiar with the TERP report regarding secondary education tracks at UNC-A and other state colleges. She said she and Dr. Highsmith went to Chapel Hill in February and at that time Dr. Stedman recommended that it would be to UNC-A's benefit if some of the social studies tracks were dropped before the on-site visit in March. These deletions have been discussed with the Chancellor and the departments of Political Science and Sociology and they are in agreement that these tracks should be dropped. Dr. Walker moved adoption of the proposal. Dr. Cole seconded the motion. There was discussion. It was pointed out that there had only been one person certified in Political Science and only two in Sociology in the last five years and there were no students currently enrolled for certification in these two areas. The question was called and the motion to drop the teacher certification tracks in Sociology and Political Science, beginning in August 1978, passed unanimously. Next from APC Dr. Walker distributed a Draft Resolution and read a memorandum from Mr. Bernhardt regarding permanent files for institutional committees. Dr. Walker said the resolution should be number two. He moved adoption of the resolution. The motion was seconded and passed: in favor - 12; abstaining - 1. Dr. Walker said that APC did not have anything on its agenda to pass on to the new APC committee. Dr. Cole, reporting for the Institutional Development Committee, said IDC had expressed a desire to have some people from UNC-A meet with John Saunders in General Administration to discuss the 5-year plan that this school had submitted in years past and will submit in the future. This meeting is scheduled for April 21. Dr. Cole said they wished to discuss with General Administration why so many of UNC-A's proposed new degree programs were turned down and what would be realistic proposals for new programs in light of the fact that traditionally black schools were getting the major support for new programs. Dr. Friday has issued a call for the revisions of the 5-year plan by August 1. That means that the new IDC committee will have a good bit of work to do over the summer since our revisions are to be into Dr. Highsmith by July 1. Dr. Cole said he was in the process of outlining issues that he felt were relevant and would forward them to the new chairman of IDC. He said he would like to solicit input from the faculty but that time restraints would not allow the kind of comments he would like. He did not feel that simply adding new programs was the best way to revise the plan. He felt that a good look should be taken at a lot of our programs and that department chairmen needed to sit down with the new Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and talk as to where we want to go, etc. Last year UNC-A was authorized to plan for a new program in meteorology and environmental sciences but it was felt this program should not be undertaken until the move of the National Climatic Center to the campus was more of a reality. Dr. Cole said that the next revision of the 5-year plan would be in two years, that it would not be done on a yearly basis any more. Dr. Browning asked that any suggestions for revision of the 5- year plan be made to Dr. Cole and to the chairman of the new IDC committee. Dr. Wilson said he did not have anything special to report from the Faculty Welfare Committee. He said the committee was ending the year with a lot of unfinished work. He asked Dr. Gillum to speak to the matter of the Faculty Handbook. Dr. Gillum said he was sorry about the delay in the handbook revision, that he felt he made a mistake in offering to do this by himself. He said that he had the draft updated as best he could at this point and that one major piece of work to be done was the definition and scope of action for institutional committees. Outside of that, he said, there was not too much more to be done. He felt the handbook should be in loose-leaf form so that it could be changed easily. He said he felt the best way to speak to matters such as tenure policies, promotion, etc., the Senate Constitution, and Chapter 6 of the University Code was simply to include these documents in their entirety in the handbook. He said the handbook could be ready, with the exception of the committees, to distribute to the faculty in the fall. The committee definitions could then be done as an appendix later on. Dr. Browning said that speaking from a chairman's point of view, in recruiting most of the candidates asked for a faculty handbook. He asked Dr. Gillum if he was not giving the handbook back to the Executive Committee. Dr. Gillum said this was what he would like to do and that he would be willing to assist the Executive Committee in the completion of it. Dr. Browning received Dr. Gillum's report for the Senate and asked that Dr. Gillum meet with the Executive Committee regarding the matter. Dr. Browning called on Dr. Stevens, chairman of the ad hoc committee to study the student evaluation of courses and faculty. Dr. Stevens distributed a report from the committee along with an appendix which was a list of items relative to evaluations which had been found useful at other institutions. He read the report which listed the objectives of the evaluation, the designing and establishing of the evaluation, and the administering of the evaluation. He said the committee, which was set up last summer by Vice Chancellor Riggs, had a charge to come up with a procedure which would better meet the needs than the current evaluation. After discussion with Dr. Browning and Dr. Riggs it was felt that the committee should report to the Senate since it involved faculty. Dr. Browning pointed out that the faculty were in a position where they had approved an evaluation in the past but that this evaluation fell from favor when it was discovered that there was a high level of error in the computer results. This process was discontinued pending the report of this committee. There was discussion concerning the old evaluation process and whether if the computer problems were resolved the old evaluation would be acceptable. Dr. Stevens said he did not feel this was the main issue. He said it was felt that the old procedure was too much in the hands of the administration and that the committee had worked very hard to get a procedure run more by the faculty. Discussion continued concerning how a new evaluation would be administered, would it have to be done every term for every faculty member, would it be a uniform questionnaire, would each department make up its own evaluation, and if each department does its own how would the results be tabulated. Dr. Stevens pointed out that several departments were now doing their own evaluations and the tabulations were done by the departmental secretaries with apparently little trouble. Also, he said, it was the committee's intent that the evaluations be done every term for every one. Some senators felt that class time should not be taken to administer evaluations. Several suggestions were made such as having experienced faculty observe in classes, do evaluations and have face to face discussions with faculty, and using video tape so faculty would have a chance to observe themselves. Mr. Bernhardt made a motion that the faculty adopt some procedures for student evaluation of courses and instructors. Dr. Gillum seconded the motion. Dr. Boland said there was a lot of literature concerning faculty evaluations and he felt it would be wise to have a committee or body of faculty familiarize themselves with this and report back to the Senate. Both Dr. Squibb and Dr. Wilson said literature they had read regarding evaluations indicated that almost all universities denied the validity of student evaluations. Dr. Cole disagreed with Drs. Squibb and Wilson. He said he had read some literature concerning evaluations and it was his interpretation that it was not clear about the validity. He said he would support the motion. Dr. Browning reviewed the motion on the floor. He said it was an affirmative motion that this institution would have some policy for student evaluation of faculty. It does not say how, etc., but it would imply that everyone would participate in some fashion. He said it was his interpretation that if this motion fails there would not be a policy at this institution on student evaluation of courses and instructions. Dr. Squibb moved to table the motion. Dr. Stern seconded the motion and it passed, 7-5. Dr. Browning thanked Dr. Stevens and the committee for their work. He apologized that the Senate did not receive the report in any other way. Dr. Browning said that at the last Faculty Senate meeting there was a section of the agenda to which the Chancellor spoke. There was a feeling that these issues should be looked at further in some form of committees. The Executive Committee has met to discuss this and Dr. Browning asked Dr. Wilson to report on the matter. Dr. Wilson said the Executive Committee assigned each area under Section II of the March 13 agenda, with the exception of one section, to a committee for further study and eventual reporting to the Senate. He said the entire list of committees had not been finalized due to the fact that he had not been able to contact everyone with regard to serving on a committee but that just as soon as the lists were made he would be sending out a memorandum to the faculty announcing the committees. Obviously, he said, the entire faculty would not be included in the committees. Dr. Browning asked for any old business. Regarding the amendment to the Faculty Senate Constitution which as voted on last week, he said the amendment failed by a very narrow margin. It seemed to him that there was some sympathy for the amendment and he wondered if it should be reconsidered again next year. Dr. Browning announced that the Senate election was going on this week and that once the results were obtained an organizational meeting would be set up, hopefully for April 13 or 14. The Senate is suppose to reorganize by the 15th of April. One other item of information which Dr. Browning felt was important for the faculty to know was that the Committee of the Tenured Faculty was considering the question of the granting of tenure to people holding administrative positions. He did not have a report regarding this matter at this time. The meeting adjourned at 5:40 pm. APPROVED: Jack Wilson Jacquelyn Peterson Faculty Senate Secretary Secretary