THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT ASHEVILLE FACULTY SENATE MEETING Minutes, November 13, 1997 Senate Members: R. Bowen, W. Bruce, T. Dohse, M. Ghidina, J. Gupton, G. Henderson, G. Kormanik, C. McKenzie, K. Moorhead, I. Rossell, B. Sabo, M. Sidelnick, R. Tynes, A. Wengrow, J. Pitts Excused: C. Pons Visitors: S. Browning, T. Cochran, P. McClellan, P. Reed, M. Templeton 1. Call to Order Dr. Dohse called the fourth meeting of the 1997-98 Faculty Senate to order at 3:17 pm and welcomed senators and guests. Minutes The minutes of October 9, 1997 were approved as written (Tynes/Wengrow). II. Administrative Report Dr. Jim Pitts gave the Administrative Report. Board of Visitors The Board of Visitors will be on campus this weekend to give university officials advice on how to challenge ourselves and improve visibility. The Board of Visitors is a select group involved in higher education who can disseminate friendly, but candid, advice. Department Reviews Reviews are currently underway in the Natural Sciences, Mathematics, and Computer Science programs. A language and technology consultant has assisted with this process. Dr. Pitts, Shirley Browning, and Archer Gravely recently visited seven departments to discuss departmental compliance with SACS requirements for institutional effectiveness. Enrollment Enrollment for Spring 1998 has increased five percent compared to last year at this time. Complete figures will be available in January. III. Executive Committee Report Dr. Dohse gave the Executive Committee Report. Meeting with President Molly Broad The Faculty Senate and the Council of Chairs met with UNC President Molly Broad during her visit to campus this week. President Broad was pleased with the way students perceive our faculty. However, she was surprised we had the "audacity" to pursue our goal of an elite liberal arts institution with no endowment. President Broad suggested we needed to creatively enhance our fund raising activities. Comments from Chancellor Reed - Meeting with President Broad Chancellor Reed discussed President Broad's visit to UNCA. This is her second tour of all 16 campuses. While at UNCA, she met with Phil Carson (a long term Board of Governors' member), the editioral board of the Asheville Citizens Times newspaper, the Vice Chancellors', a group of students, selected faculty, and community leaders. In terms of system support for us, President Broad has a background in higher education that gives her a greater understanding of the kind of institution we are and of the particular challenges an institution faces when it is small and growing very slowly by choice in a system that is formula funded based on enrollment. Dr. Sabo's impression was that President Board understood our mission but she was unlikely to support any special funding on that basis. - 1997-1998 State Funding Allocations Chancellor Reed distributed a summary of the 1997-98 State funding allocations for UNCA, including salaries, operations, repairs and renovations, and capital allocations. This document is available on UNCA's web page and on hard copy in Ramsey Library. The operations budget provides on-going support for instruction, the library, equipment, all state personnel, day-to-day expenses and some mandated activities. The total 1997-98 operations budget of $26M is made up of State allocations and an allowance for receipts that we are expected to generate. Receipts of $4,758,189 have been estimated by the BOG. Receipts in excess of this figure can be retained while shortfalls must be accommodated from within. Therefore, enrollment impacts the actual funding that is available. Adjustments for enrollment resulted in a decrease of $11,090 for UNCA. Chancellor Reed noted that UNCA serves as the fiscal agent for the NC Arboretum, so a portion of the total is designated for the Arboretum. For 1997-98, the Arboretum's operations allocation was approximately $1.6M. Efforts have been made to remove the Arboretum from our budget as legislators are unaware that funding for the Arboretum is included in UNCA's budget. A total of $1,351,700 was provided for repairs and renovations. The projects that can be funded from this source are defined by the BOG. Campus priorities are reviewed by the University Planning Council and approved by the UNCA Board of Trustees. The completion of Karpen Hall, the top campus priority, was funded with $792,700. In addition, the General Assembly designated $500,000 for the Kellogg Center. Each year overall State appropriations are distributed among the organizational units on campus and a reserve is retained. The reserve is held until spring, when receipts are finalized and expenditures are known. In the past, part of the reserve has been applied to the state-required reversion of 2% of state-allocated funds. This year, each institution is permitted to retain half of this sum ($213,000 for UNCA) for support of technology and libraries. Typically, equipment dollars for non-instructional uses comprise the majority of the reserve. As the year passes and both revenues and expenses are better known, the reserve is released for equipment and other one-time expenditures. At the end of the year, the balance is carried forward and applied to campus needs via the spending flexibility provided to the Chancellor through our designation among the Special Responsibility Constituent Institutions. Only Elizabeth City and the School of the Arts received less general funding appropriations than UNCA. In response to questions, Chancellor Reed attributed enrollment and construction for our lack of funding. The system is enrollment driven, and UNCA has not received a major allocation for a capital project through the normal process in ten years. Elizabeth City is smaller than UNCA and the School of the Arts' special category exempts them from the funding formula. Pembroke's funding surpassed UNCA's when their classification changed from baccalaureate to comprehensive. UNCA has been arguing for a special category. Further discussion on President Broad's visit Discussion returned to President Broad's visit, her analytical background in institutional research, and the need to clearly establish UNCA's identity so we can more successfully compete with private liberal art schools with large endowments. Capital Campaign Regarding the capital campaign, the interview process has been completed and the consultants will report their results in mid-January. The report will be shared with the whole campus. Chancellor Reed has received positive feedback in our choice of consultants, who have done a good job in representing UNCA and in developing a rapport with the people being interviewed. IV. Student Government Association Report There was no Student Government Association report. V. Academic Policies Report Dr. Bill Sabo reported for the Academic Policies Committee. There were no documents for first or second reading. The deadline for submitting documents to APC for the 1998-99 Catalog is November 14. Several documents have been received this week. VI. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report Mr. Arnold Wengrow gave the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report. Voice Mail Survey On behalf of the Executive Committee, Mr. Wengrow surveyed faculty to ascertain their views on the voice mail system. Results of the survey were circulated via E-mail. Of the forty-eight explicit responses received, 30 were positive, 14 were negative and four were resigned to the system. There were numerous other responses which were not clear enough to include in this tally. Four issues of concern arose from the survey: 1) Was the voice mail system necessary? 2) Was this particular voice mail system the best choice for us, given the kind of institution that we are? 3) Where in the planning process was the decision made to have a voice mail system, and this particular system? and 4) Concerns about spending nearly $100K on this particular project, the source of those funds, and the timing at which those funds became available. Chancellor Reed explained UNCA's unique telephone contract and how funding became available for this project. Each year UNCA receives a rebate of approximately $35K from AT&T; in the past these funds have been used to upgrade telephones. The funds had been accumulating and would cover the expense of voice mail. The State had the option of a contract with a very favorable price until the end of September. UNCA had funds earmarked for telephones, had the favorable price for a short time, and in Chancellor Reed's estimation, the issue had come through the planning process. Dr. Reed acknowledged that there may have been confusion regarding the planning process. Dr. Ghidina expressed concerns about faculty's role in the planning process for decisions that significantly effect them. She was unclear on how faculty were involved in the planning process and what the planning process was regarding the decision to purchase voice mail. Also, when decisions such as voice mail are made, faculty need to be involved or have the opportunity to be involved. Mr. Wengrow served on the UPC last year and stated there was a lack of consensus on exactly how this particular decision entered into the process. It did not come up to the UPC during the academic year. Dr. Kormanik suggested having a more formalized survey after faculty have become comfortable handling the system and have had time to digest the ramifications of voice mail. Mr. Wengrow stated that the Executive Committee was asking the Senate for guidance about what, if anything, they needed to do further. Dr. Sabo asked if the money from the telephone company contract could be used only for telephone communication. Chancellor Reed replied that it was somewhat parallel to our dining service in that we try to use the funds in the same area in which they were originally appropriated. However, it is our choice how the money is used. Dr. Sabo suggested that the important issue was how we make our choice on how to use the money, as the money could be oriented toward other things. Chancellor Reed explained the planning process in which voice mail was included, beginning with the January retreat in Owen Conference Center. Feedback on the major concerns on campus became a working document and the UPC saw this document. Dr. Dohse, Dr. Browning, and Dr. Obergfell participated in the June retreat; Dr. Moorhead and Mr. Wengrow were invited to the retreat but were unable to attend. This retreat included people from across campus, including representatives from student services, the physical plant, and faculty. The voice mail system remained a priority under the "keeping pace with basic services" category. The Vice Chancellors spent a good deal of time with the document over the summer, examining the actions steps that had evolved, determining if the money designated was accurate and what sources we might have to fund them, and identifying priorities for the next two years. Chancellor Reed felt that she had a road map to be used for spending funds which included purchasing a voice mail system, a working document that said what was important to the campus. If what needed to happen was to go back to the group and say we have enough money to do this particular project, is it really a high priority, then we need to get that loop in the process now so we don't find ourselves in this situation again. As a member of UPC last year, Dr. Henderson stated the information they received was not sent back for any further action. They took it as information received. It may be at that point that a loop is needed; UPC wasn't aware that it was closely linked to action. Mr. Wengrow concurred that UPC did not look at the document in any great detail. They felt they had done their work on the planning process at the conclusion of Dr. Whatley's term as UPC Chair. The voice mail system was not on the document that came from UPC; it appeared at the June retreat. According to Dr. Henderson, the action steps were developed by members of subcommittees, not at the June retreat. The Senate discussed ways to evaluate the planning process and ultimately determined that the Institutional Development Committee should conduct an integral assessment of the two year planning process and determine if it is working. Vll. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report Dr. Marcia Ghidina gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report. There were no documents for first or second reading. Post Tenure Review Update Dr. Gregg Kormanik gave an update on the draft of the Post Tenure Review policy. A post tenure review will be implemented every five years. (A successful evaluation for promotion will satisfy that requirement.) Much like the tenure and promotion process, the faculty member up for review will submit his/her materials to his/her chair who in turn will assemble those materials to be forwarded to the PTR committee. In case the chair of the department is being reviewed the most senior tenured member of the department will assume the roll of the chair. Materials that will be included in the evaluee's dossier are: the evaluee's statement, a Curriculum Vitae, a chair's evaluation, results of peer evaluation, annual faculty records and merit evaluations, and a summary of student ratings and course evaluations. The Post Tenure Review committee will be composed of three elected faculty (one from each of the divisions) who have served on UNCA's faculty for at least five years. Members elected to the committee will serve for one year as full members and the second year as alternates. Members will review the materials and summarize their findings in a report to be submitted to the VCAA, the chair of the department, and the evaluee. This report will include a statement whether or not the candidate has performed at an adequate (or possibly superior) level. In the case of "adequate or better" the report may highlight areas where candidate performs well and areas where improvement is possible. If the candidate does not have an adequate performance level, the candidate, in consultation with the Dean of Faculty Development and the department chair, writes a development plan. This plan needs the approval of the VCAA. The PTR committee will rereview the candidates progress after a prespecified number of years (from 1 to 3). Sanctions may be considered if the candidate fails to make a serious effort to improve. VIII. Old Business There was no Old Business. IX. New Business Dr. Sabo announced that the search for the Assistant Vice Chancellor for Enrollment Services position has been narrowed down to six candidates. They will be contacted by telephone. X. Adjournment Dr. Dohse adjourned the meeting at 4:55 pm. Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely Marcia Ghidina