THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT ASHEVILLE Faculty Senate Minutes March 7, 1980 The Faculty Senate met on Friday, March 7, 1980, at 3:15 pm in RL1. Dr. Richard Reed, Chairman, presided over the meeting. Members present: Dr. Braggio, Dr. Coyne, Dr. Dorr, Dr. Friedenberg, Dr. Greenawalt, Dr. Hart, Dr. Howard, Dr. Otti, Dr. Perry, Dr. Remington, Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Seitz, Dr. Stevens, Dr. Sulock, Mr. Wengrow. Visitors: Dr. Browning, Dr. Cochran, Mrs. Cadle, Dr. Lang, Dr. Moseley, Dr. Ruiz, Dr. Weber. The minutes of the February 15, 1980 Senate meeting were corrected as follows: in the recommended catalog revision committee Bob Williams was replaced by Eugene Schultz. The minutes were approved as corrected. Academic Policies Committee - Dr. Hart, Chairman No report. Institutional Development Committee - Dr. Remington, Chairman Dr. Remington reported that IDC was still putting together committees on catalog revision and evaluations. Dr. Dorr said the committees would meet soon after spring break. Also, he said, the deadline for the 1981-82 catalog revisions was November 1, 1980 and this deadline will be adhered to. Dr. Reed asked that a memo be sent to all departments on March 17 reminding them of the catalog deadline. Faculty Welfare Committee - Dr. Otti, Chairman Dr. Otti said that most of her report was based on issues that had been in the works for some time. She distributed a report of a meeting FWC had with Dr. Dorr concerning the tenure situation at UNC-A (attached). Dr. Otti then distributed three FWC Resolutions to the Senate. FWC Resolution #8 recommended a salary increase of $50 per credit hour for full-time faculty (as opposed to part-time academic year appointees) teaching summer school. The separate scales for part-time vs. full-time reflect a new approach that recognizes the greater involvement of full-time faculty with institutional matters during summer school. She said FWC had met with Mr. Pott and that given the increase for the 1980 summer school budget it was felt the salary increase was justified. Dr. Otti moved adoption of FWC Resolution #8. The motion passed unanimously. Dr. Dorr commented that the salary increase is reasonably likely. Dr. Otti called attention to FWC Resolution #9 recommended that administrative position priorities, as recommended in the Page 2 long-range plan, be reconsidered and that the grants position be elevated to the second priority. Dr. Otti moved adoption of the resolution. There was discussion and the motion passed unanimously. FWC Resolution #10 dealt with travel money, recommending that a goal of $200 per year for each faculty member's professional travel be set. She said FWC had been looking into ways to get extra money from the change budget. The faculty feel this goal is very important and that if there is flexibility in the travel budget it is something they want to push for. Dr. Otti moved adoption of FWC Resolution #10. The motion passed unanimously. Dr. Reed said these resolutions were very important, especially #9, and he wondered how they should be presented to the Chancellor. It was decided that Dr. Reed would communicate with the Chancellor and seek his response to the resolutions. Dr. Otti reported that the faculty activity survey was in the final form and would be sent to the faculty soon. Also, it looks as though it is negotiable as to where registration will be held in the future - the Student center or the gymnasium. (There had been numerous complaints about Lipinsky which were communicated to Dr. Dorr by the FWC.) Dr. Reed commended the Faculty Welfare Committee for its work this year. Old Business None. New Business Dr. Remington asked the faculty to please return the questionnaires sent to them this week. Dr. Reed said that on March 5 he sent the faculty a memo cancelling the Tenure Committee Ballot sent out on March 3. He said there were some reasonable and valid objections raised about the ballot and he had asked Shirley Browning to attend the meeting to discuss how people are determined eligible for the ballot and some of the problems that arise. Dr. Browning said that in order to understand how the ballots were made up a person needed to first read the various documents governing the ballots (Senate Constitution, Tenure Document, University Code, Constitution and By-Laws of Faculty Assembly). Problems usually arise due to tie ballots, resignations from a committee or from the faculty, leaves-of-absence, and, something which has never been taken into consideration in the past, promotions. Historically, a vacancy on a committee has been filled by the person in the correct catagory receiving the next highest vote on the ballot on which the person was elected. Also traditionally, those not fulfilling their terms due to leave-of-absence have been ineligible to succeed what would have Page 3 been their term, while those completing vacated terms have been eligible. The Cole-Johnston situation was used as an illustration, with Cole ineligible and Johnston eligible given tradition. It was noted that through various ineligibility rulings (another member of a department on the same committee in the case of Tenure Committee; serving on Hearings or Grievance at time of Tenure Committee election, etc.) it would be conceivable to have only one or two candidates from a given division. Discussion revealed the sense of the Senate that a broader range of candidates was the desirable situation. Another concern was that the Tenure Document places a dependency relationship on three committees: Tenure, Hearings and Grievance. That is, those serving on one committee are ineligible for election to another. There was discussion that the Tenure Committee might draw from other committees, with persons being replaced on Hearings and Grievance if elected to tenure. The Tenure Document calls for continuity, however. A very sticky situation can occur when someone leaves who is on the Tenure Committee and the next highest vote in that category is a person who happens to be on the Hearings Committee. There was discussion on various points: how the ballot should be set (as of the time the ballot is made up or as of the time the committee goes into effect); should persons in a continuing term on Hearings be on the Tenure Ballot, thereby removing them from Hearings if they are elected; should a person on leave during the second year of his term on a committee be eligible for re-election at the end of his expiring term; should the person filling in on a one-year basis for a person on leave be eligible for election; how a vacancy should be filled when someone resigns. The following rules were agreed upon: (1) A ballot is made up of persons eligible at the time the ballot is set (rather than those who would be eligible when the committee officially commences). (2) Continuing Hearings Committee members are not eligible for the Tenure Committee. (3) Faculty who were elected for two years but who were on leave for one of those years are eligible. (4) When a vacancy occurs it will be filled by an election for persons eligible at that time for the remainder of the term. (5) A person cannot succeed themself if they have filled a full term of two academic years, but those elected to fill a vacated seat for less than two years will be eligible. Dr. Reed said these rules would apply to the upcoming elections, Page 4 including the Senate election. The meeting adjourned at 5 pm. APPROVED: Phyllis Otti Jacquelyn Peterson Faculty Senate Secretary Secretary