Visitors: T. Cochran, S. Browning, L. Nelms, B. Sensabaugh, A. Shope, P. Weast
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the August 27, 1998 special meeting were approved following an editorial correction.
II. Administrative Report
Dr. Jim Pitts gave the Administrative Report.
Although the legislature has not approved a budget, a 3 percent merit increase and a one-time bonus of 1 percent have been approved. The increases are retroactive to July 1, 1998.
Chancellor Reed Announces Retirement
Chancellor Reed stated that after careful deliberation, and consideration of the fact that she will have completed her fifth year as Chancellor next June, she has decided to announce her intent to retire effective June 30, 1999. She wants this to be a smooth transition and she feels that Rob Cranford, Chair of UNCA's Board of Trustees, will do an excellent job as Chair of the Search Committee. He will be in contact with Gregg Kormanik to ask the Senate to choose the faculty representatives to the search committee. President Broad will charge the search committee on October 22. Chancellor Reed added that this is a bittersweet time; she loves UNCA so it hasn't been an easy decision to leave.
Dr. Kormanik thanked Chancellor Reed on behalf of the faculty for her leadership of UNCA and for her work with the Foundation and capital campaign. He stated that Dr. Reed has been a tremendous asset and we're sorry to see her leave. The Senate wished her the best. A round of applause followed.
Dr. Kormanik stated that Rob Cranford, Vice Chair of the UNCA Board of Trustees, had contacted him and asked that he provide five faculty to serve as representatives on the search committee. The Executive Committee will discuss how to proceed with the selection of these representatives.
Dr. Bruce thanked Chancellor Reed for conveying her announcement personally. Dr. Reed added that UNCA is extremely attractive right now and identifying the next leader will be easier than we might think.
Dr. Reed explained her reasons for making the announcement at this time. She wanted to protect the current capital campaign and was involved with solicitations that needed to be completed prior to her announcement. She also wanted to ensure that we could complete the search this year. She chose the eve of Founder's Day because she wanted to emphasize the point that it takes all of our contributions to make a fine university; there is a continuum of leadership, with successors building upon their predecessor's foundations. This is also a logical time, as it will give her an opportunity to communicate with a number of audiences. Dr. Reed pledged that she will do everything she can to make this a positive transition.
III. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Gregg Kormanik gave the Executive Committee Report.
Faculty Assembly Report
Ms. Linda Nelms gave the Faculty Assembly Report.
The faculty are encouraged to view the Faculty Assembly bylaws and detailed minutes on the web site: http://www.uncg.edu/~duvallp/assembly/
As background information, Ms. Nelms explained that the Faculty Assembly is an advisory body that can speak directly to President Broad. We are one of the few state systems where a group of faculty has this input.
The Faculty Assembly has never had a clearer vision of UNCA as a liberal arts school, and they have never seen us as distinctly different as they do now. This is a tribute to Chancellor Reed.
Ms. Nelms reported that President Broad is very concerned about the UNC system's extreme weakness in the area of benefits and she is making this clear to the legislature. She is also concerned that in the recent past the legislature has been willing to dispense money for continuing programs but they tend to make it one-time money with no promise of additional funding.
The Tuition Task Force, of which Bruce Larson is an integral part, has recommended that the Board of Governors assume the responsibility of setting tuition as they are closer to the universities and the students. Because the State charge is to keep tuition close to zero, the Board of Governors has voted on no tuition increases. As a result, the legislature has basically set tuition, because the BOG has not acted.
A number of administrators within the system have attributed changes they wished to make as mandated by General Administration, when, in fact, they were not. For example, at the present time GA is not requiring any institution to grow. However, they are making growth very attractive as evident in the new funding model which rewards growth.
In response to questions, Ms. Nelms replied that the Tuition Task Force's recommendation was made in response to Chapel Hill's Business School setting their own tuition and going directly to the legislature. The Task Force found that no funding request should be addressed in that fashion.
Chancellor Reed explained that currently in-state tuition goes to the State and institutions receive an appropriation. If this practice continues, UNCA may not want any changes in the tuition. However, if tuition comes directly to the institution, she suggested we consider setting our tuition so that it matches Chapel Hill for undergraduates. Because UNCA is unique, we will have more latitude than other universities in aligning ourselves with the premier flagship institution.
Ms. Nelms stated that the committee Bruce Greenawalt serves on made clear to the President that institutions in the western part of the state no longer receive the same benefits as the rest of the state with the unavailability of HMOs.
In response to Dr. Bruce's question regarding benefits, Ms. Nelms stated that retirement, medical, and dental benefits were grouped together. She did not know if sabbatical leave was included in the benefits under discussion.
Executive Committee Resolution 1: Regarding Post-Tenure Review (Caulfield/Ghidina). Executive Committee Resolution 1 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 0598F.
IV. Student Government Association Report
There was no report.
V. Academic Policies Report
Dr. Bill Sabo reported for the Academic Policies Committee.
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
APC 1: Revision of Management Major Declaration Requirements (Add Econ 102 Option)
APC 2: Policy on Independent Individual Courses
APC 2 writes into the Catalog our policy regarding independent individual courses. The statement is a slight variation from what already appears in the Faculty Handbook. This insertion places it in a more visible and accessible location and informs students of the procedure.
Motion to adjourn early
Dr. Bruce made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 4:20 p.m. in order to attend Chancellor Reed's announcement in Karpen Hall. Dr. Pons seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
VI. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report:
Dr. Peter Caulfield gave the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council report.
At the UPC meeting the following issues were discussed:
The UPC discussed Academic Affair's proposal to change two position titles. Dr. Caulfield received email from a faculty member asking if Department Chairs would report to Dr. Cochran instead of Dr. Pitts, and if faculty issues will now go through Dr. Cochran. The UPC is requesting more specificity to address some questions and concerns.
The UPC discussed reassigned time and found it to be consistent with UNCA's mission to promote teaching and scholarship. The mission statement states that UNCA will support, encourage, and foster scholarship.
Dr. Gravely gave a report on space utilization. Consultants hired by GA are studying the equity of capital construction in the UNC system. They are in the first phase, which is to analyze the use and needs of each campus in terms of space. The UPC had a constructive conversation with the team while they were on campus.
New Funding Model
Dr. Gravely reported on the new UNC system Student Credit Hour (SCH) enrollment funding model and concluded that the change is generally to UNCA's advantage. He connected it to enrollment projections and showed how UNCA would receive fewer faculty positions under the old model.
The UPC discussed extension and distance learning, particularly in relation to the new funding model. Formerly extension learning was solely self-supporting. Under the new funding model UNCA will receive state appropriations ranging from $24K-$40K for each course of 20 students taught as extension. Dr. Gravely projected the courses over the next three years in extension learning: In 1998-1999, nine courses could generate 225 student credit hours; In 1999-2000, 22 courses could generate 770 student credit hours, and in 2000-2001, 25 courses could generate 995 student credit hours.
The UPC discussed the report of the Task Force that was appointed by Dr. Pitts. Merritt Moseley and Kern Parker are members of the Task Force. Dr. Caulfield summarized the concerns, questions, and recommendations of the Task Force to the UPC. Dr. Caulfield stressed that extension learning and distance learning are very different. In some ways, it will be easier for UNCA to stay within our mission guidelines through extension learning rather than distance learning. Extension learning requires a UNCA faculty member to offer a course at another location and faculty can create the kind of classroom environment that we're able to create here. The Task Force was not sure what it would mean to create a virtual environment through distance learning.
Mission Equity Proposal Update
Dr. Gravely gave an update on the mission equity proposal presented to GA. The proposal compared UNCA to our peer institutions, as identified and accepted by GA, and to the funding our peers receive. UNCA received less funding than our peers in every area. Based on GA's advice, UNCA is requesting $750K.
Strategic Plan Update
The strategic plan update was distributed during the UPC meeting.
Dr. Kormanik asked Dr. Caulfield to comment on the notion that UNCA has excess classroom space. Dr. Caulfield replied that the classrooms are very crowded from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., but there is a lot of underutilized classroom space during the remaining hours. There is a shortage of office space.
Dr. Pitts stated that the lead consultant, Eva Klein, asked where UNCA wanted to be in 25 years. Some questions asked by the consultants could have powerful implications if they are even partially implemented. One question is whether academic buildings should be built for large aggregations of people if it appears that learning works best where one can facilitate discussions in smaller numbers. A major theme was the need for creative financing for the system and the need to gain the authority to set tuition differentially. The consultants were raising broad questions about facilities construction and utilization relative to the mission.
Mr. Dunning asked if the Senate would receive a copy of the report and have an opportunity to make comments on the findings. Dr. Pitts replied that the consultants were accountable to the BOG or the legislature and the report will go to them. Dr. Gupton added that Ms. Klein was an advocate for us and the university system as a whole, and the process was mandated by a bill passed by the legislature. Ms. Klein was very knowledgeable about the numbers and what they meant qualitatively.
VII. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. Marcia Ghidina gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report.
Post Tenure Review Election Results
Tucker Cooke, Bill Sabo, Dee James, and Jim Petranka were elected to serve on the Post Tenure Review Committee. Because this is a new committee, the highest vote-getters will serve a two-year term. Tucker Cooke will serve a two-year term. Bill Sabo and Dee James tied, so they will determine which one will serve the two-year term and which one will serve the one-year term. Jim Petranka will serve a one-year term.
Update on Reassigned Time
Dr. Rizzo stated that FWDC is trying to determine what cluster of issues is most important to the faculty as they deliberate on the reassigned time policy. She gave a summary of discussions which included email, the faculty meeting sponsored by FWDC, and the faculty forum held by David Peifer.
Dr. Rizzo noted the following five categories:
1- reasons why reassigned time must be preserved. On these issues there seems to be a widespread consensus.
2- availability of reassigned time. There are some differences of opinion. There seems to be a general spectrum of opinion that it should be either a right available to all faculty, or there should be some kind of competition for it. Most views seem to fall toward the end of the spectrum that guarantees it as a right.
3- distribution of reassigned time. There is a fair amount of agreement that distribution should remain within individual departments. Further, it is thought that the policy we are working on now should be generated from the Senate, with perhaps administration input. Generally, faculty believe distribution should be even across departments, but there is disagreement because different departments have different needs.
4- accountability. There is a widespread consensus that we already have sufficient mechanisms for accountability, at least for the individual faculty member's use of reassigned time. How department chairs allot that reassigned time needs further investigation and perhaps more structuring.
5- related issues that the committee has not been charged to deal with.
One related issue is the use of adjuncts. This is a very important issue for faculty and is related to reassigned time. However, the Task Force agreed at their last meeting that a separate body needs to address this issue.
Another related issue is contact hour equivalent (CHE). This showed up several times in faculty comments and we should be more consistent within the UNC system. Again, the Task Force was not specifically charged to deal with this issue. The last issue is whether reassignment should be derived from service and scholarship. The Task Force agreed that they are principally concerned with reassignment from teaching to do various other activities.
Dr. Bruce added that the Council of Chairs recommended that the reassigned time policy review be conducted by the Senate through the FWDC, with input from all helpful and concerned parties. The administration and the FWDC concurred, feeling that this is an issue that is close to the heart of many faculty. The widest faculty ownership of the eventual revisions is very important and the Senate is the best way to get that. Their committee is small and they will probably seek participation from another senator or two, or Council of Chair members were perfectly willing to help us as they seek a breath of perspective on these issues.
The FWDC has been gathering data on standard course loads and course reduction policies that two groups of institutions, the GA peers, a group of institutions that GA compares us to, and also COPLAC, the Council of Public Liberal Arts Colleges. Thanks to Becky Elkin in Institutional Research, the Task Force has received information from twelve of those institutions. They are also getting some information on the standard teaching loads at the other UNC institutions for tenure track faculty, for department heads. Although, as they have been learning, there is more information under the surface of those numbers.
At this time they have not experienced any pressure from Academic Affairs to come up with a revised policy that reduces the amount of reassigned time or which delegates decision making to Academic Affairs. Administrators also agreed that it could be difficult to adhere to the November 1 timetable, given the amount of work to do. The committee would like to complete their report to the Senate this semester. Dr. Bruce is the Chair of the Task Force.
Dr. Rizzo asked Dr. Cochran to share what the Task Force covered at their last meeting. Dr. Cochran replied that the spring schedule has been finalized as best as feasible prior to preregistration. It appears we will be able to offer the curriculum we need to and spend about $222K on adjuncts to supplement that curriculum. We have been able to address the most critical problem, which was an apparent budget shortfall. By asking approximately 45 faculty members to give up their reassigned time for spring and replacing some of the adjunct hours that have been set aside, we have been able to balance the budget. However, we will have to see if preregistration demand forces us to add sections.
Dr. Caulfield asked if it was a combination of relinquishing reassigned time and eliminating special topic courses. Dr. Cochran was unsure of the exact number of special topic courses that were eliminated. These were typically transferred into general education's high demand sections. In other cases, special topic courses were continued because they met a major requirement at the 300-400 level. The administration tried to listen to each department's unique situation. Although unhappy, the department Chairs were helpful and cooperative in trying to bring our budget into balance. This is a serious issue, as we are mandated to keep a balanced budget.
Mr. Dunning asked if any faculty were not asked to give up reassigned time or if any faculty refused to give up their reassigned time. Dr. Cochran replied that all faculty with departmental reassigned time have given up their reassigned time for the spring and are teaching full-time. The only variation is that some faculty teach 11 hours in the spring because of the four/three credit hour load; nothing can be done about those odd situations. However, there are faculty who have assignments of program directors and Chairs; there are a few institutional reassignments. Dr. Cochran stated that we owe a special thanks to the 45 faculty members whose departmental reassigned time was suspended for the spring.
VllI. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
IX. New Business
Dr. Kormanik asked that Senators hold any New Business until the next meeting.
Dr. Kormanik adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely