THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT ASHEVILLE Faculty Senate Minutes September 19, 1979 The Faculty Senate held its first meeting of the 1979-80 academic year on Wednesday, September 19, 1979, at 3:15 pm in RL1, with Dr. Richard Reed, Chairman, presiding. Members present: Dr. Braggio, Dr. Coyne, Dr. Dorr, Dr. Friedenberg, Dr. Greenawalt, Dr. Hart, Dr. Howard, Dr. Johnston, Dr. Otti, Dr. Perry, Dr. Remington, Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Seitz, Dr. Sulock, Mr. Wengrow. Visitors: Dr. Allen, Mrs. Cadle, Dr. Cochran, Dr. Iovacchini, Ms. Debbie Crowell, Mr. Mike Ochsenreiter. The minutes of the April 20 Senate meeting were approved as published. Senate meetings for the 1979 Fall Semester were scheduled as follows: October 17 November 16 December 12 Dr. Reed reminded the Senate committees of business carried over from 1978-79. He also said the Executive Committee would meet before the October 17 Senate meeting. One of the items of business carried over from last year for the Senate was the matter of student evaluations. Dr. Reed distributed a "Recommendation on Student Evaluations" and said the matter would be brought up at the October Senate meeting. He said that since an evaluation would not be ready for the end of Term I he felt chairmen might want to get together to decide on what should be done. He said he felt a faculty member would be done a disservice if an evaluation was not administered, that faculty had a right to be evaluated and students had a right to evaluate faculty. He said he planned to use the recommended student evaluation in his department. He asked that Dr. Dorr prepare instructions concerning evaluations for the first term. Dr. Reed referred to a two-page proposal distributed to the Senate concerning a "Proposed Policy on Chancellor's Approval of Senate Actions." He said he had discussed this with the Chancellor and the Chancellor had said that except under certain circumstances Senate Documents do become University policy. The problem seems to be in communication. In the future any actions of the Senate will go to the Chancellor and he will report back to the Senate in writing. Another area for concern was that of a definite charge for the Senate committees. The Institutional Development Committee had prepared a draft of a charge which was distributed to the Senate. The draft was discussed. Dr. Reed asked that each committee Page 2 prepare a clear statement as to what it does, something that can be put in the minutes and also in the Faculty Handbook. Last spring the Institutional Development Committee was given a charge to revise the University Catalog. Dr. Reed asked the Senate how it would respond to the institution going to a two-year catalog rather than a one-year. There was general discussion and several matters were brought up: the severe paper shortage and the fact that there was a 90-120 day delay in paper ordering; the price of catalogs; the fact that some flexibility would be lost with regard to curriculum changes; how significant catalogs were to the recruiting process; and the term vs. the semester system which would need to be resolved before such a decision on the catalog could be made. Dr. Reed said the term vs. the semester system was one of the major concerns of the Academic Policies Committee. The majority of the Senate favored a two-year catalog. Faculty Welfare Committee - Dr. Otti Dr. Otti said the committee met a couple of times over the summer. Its main project so far is the planned forum in conjunction with AAUP regarding TIAA and other retirement benefits which is scheduled for October 19. Concerning the charge of the committee, Dr. Otti said it had 12-15 goals (faculty voice, professional development, travel money, released time, grants, summer school salaries, tenure system, etc.). There is also some planning going on for a child care center and a survey will be sent out soon regarding this matter. Dr. Dorr asked if at the meeting on the 19th other state fringe benefits would be discussed besides the retirement system and if there would be someone at the meeting to speak on the merits of the two systems. Dr. Otti said they planned to ask either Mr. Pott or Mr. Neuse to speak about the state system. Institutional Development Committee - Dr. Remington Dr. Remington said the committee met last spring and considered two topics: the revision of the catalog and the charge of the committee. Regarding the catalog, Dr. Remington said committee members had talked with various faculty members and also the Chancellor and it was decided to start out with a survey of the faculty which would be done very soon. Regarding the charge of the committee, Dr. Remington said the Tenure Document charged IDC with two very definite matters: the matter of initial appointments of faculty and the concern for policy, planning and initiatives in areas of institutional development where faculty involvement is proper. The matter of initial appointments has been interpreted as not only initial appointments but also reappointment of faculty not on tenure track and Dr. Remington said the committee felt that reappointments were more in line with what the Tenure Committee was doing and it had requested that this matter be given to the Tenure Committee. Another function of the IDC has been to meet with faculty candidates to answer any questions they might ask and to tell them as much about the institution as they could and the Page 3 committee feels this is worthwhile and wishes to continue doing this. In the past IDC has also been involved in the updating of the five-year plan and it would like to continue doing this also. Dr. Remington said IDC would appreciate any suggestions as to what the faculty and administration felt it should be doing. Academic Policies Committee - Dr. Hart Dr. Hart said APC met its first time on Tuesday, September 18th, and the minutes had not been prepared. He presented a proposal from the Literature Department for a complete curriculum revision. He said that ordinarily this would not be brought before the Senate on such short notice but since the revision called for two new tracks which would take the approval of the Chancellor and Central Administration it was felt that it should be acted on as soon as possible. The proposal calls for three programs in the department: A-Literature; B-Journalism; and C-Creative Writing. Dr. Hart moved adoption of the proposal. Mr. Wengrow seconded the motion. There was general discussion concerning the programs, how they were prepared, the impact on resources, the fact that they were tracks and not majors, and the fact that the degree would be in literature. The motion to adopt APC Document #1 passed unanimously. Dr. Reed reminded the Senate that the business of student evaluations would be brought up at the next Senate meeting. He asked the Senators to review the proposal and if they had any questions or felt there was anything drastically wrong with it to get their objections to one of the ad hoc committee members (Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Arthea Reed, or Dr. Remington) in writing before the next Senate meeting. He said he felt the Senate had a duty to tell its colleagues about the proposed evaluation and to show it to them and to talk with them about it. Dr. Dorr pointed out that the institution was purchasing a card reader which would be wired into the computer system and the evaluations could be analyzed in any way the faculty wished. This system would be available at the end of the second term. The meeting adjourned at 4:25 pm. APPROVED: Phyllis Otti Jacquelyn Peterson Faculty Senate Secretary Secretary