University of North Carolina at Asheville
Minutes, April 13, 2000

Members: W. Bruce, P. Caulfield, R. Dunning, G. Kormanik, K. Krumpe, B. Larson,
P. McClellan, C. McKenzie, C. Mitchell, D. Peifer, T. Rizzo, G. Wilson, J. Pitts.

Excused: R. Bowen, F. Davenport, C. Pons.

Visitors: C. Alderman, C. Bennett, S. Browning, W. Cash, T. Cochran, A. Omer,
B. Sensabaugh, A. Shope, R. Southern.

I. Call to Order and Announcements
Dr. Kormanik called the meeting to order at 3:25 pm and welcomed visitors and senators.

II. Announcements
There were no announcements.

III. Approval of Minutes
The minutes of March 2, 2000 were approved as written.

IV. Administrative Report
Vice Chancellor Jim Pitts gave the Administrative Report.
Dr. Pitts reported that student applications and deposits have risen over last year. This is a competitive process but we are receiving strong student interest.

The Administration recently learned that UNCA will not get the positions we anticipated. UNCA, along with eight other UNC schools, will not make their 1999-00 budgeted enrollment targets. Given the lack of resources to fund all enrollment projections, General Administration trimmed the 2000-01 projections for all schools that did not make their 1999-00 budgeted enrollment back to the 1999-00 projection.

Dr. Pitts credited the departments with bringing in strong international and minority candidates in their searches. Although we have lost some minority candidates to larger schools that could offer more, we have recently hired three African Americans. There will be qualitative increases in faculty of color.

Dr. Pitts discussed the dissatisfaction with the new Post-Tenure Review (PTR) process. He and Dr. Cochran will meet with FWDC and other groups to add elements of humanness that may be lacking from our current process, but also to correct future operations of PTR. The current process does not give senior faculty as much feedback as they deserve. This will be corrected to ensure an improved PTR process that better serves and supports excellence in the careers of tenured faculty.

V. Executive Committee Report
Dr. Gregg Kormanik gave the Executive Committee Report.
Role of the Executive Commission for Minority Affairs (ECMA)
The Executive Commission for Minority Affairs (ECMA) presented a revised proposal in response to concerns expressed at the last Senate meeting. Dr. Afaf Omer explained the revisions. Dr. Pitts supported the revised proposal because consulting is most of what the ECMA does and the language in the original proposal suggested governance changes which would end up in conflict. Dr. Bruce noted that nine or ten individuals indicated a desire to serve on the ECMA and there was only one vacancy. Dr. Omer stated that one of the goals next year is to expand the Commission. The Commission meetings are open and everyone is welcome.

Dr. Mitchell moved that the Senate pass a Sense of the Senate Resolution endorsing the revised plan of action outlined in the Role of the Executive Commission for Minority Affairs proposal. Dr. Peifer seconded the motion. The Resolution passed unanimously and became Senate Document 5100S.

Center for Teaching & Learning Report
Dr. Chuck Bennett, Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL), reported on a recent Learning Technology meeting at General Administration. The General Assembly funded $10M per year for the next three years for Collaborative Teaching and Learning Technology. UNCA is already seeing some benefit from this -- the CTL is in the process of hiring a new instructional technology specialist who will be a valuable resource for faculty and will be part of the CTL. The Collaborative also made some competitive grants available from unexpended salaries. UNCA received one of the grants and Dr. Mike Ruiz and Dr. Ed Katz will be working on a project over the summer.

Dr. Bennett explained that the Collaborative is focused on teaching and learning and has nothing to do with distance education. The Board is comprised of one representative from each campus. The bigger campuses split Teaching and Learning from Instructional Technology and have separate shops to support each endeavor. If funding proceeds as projected, more money will be available to hire instructional technology specialists -- GA has recommended one person per 62.5 faculty members.

Mr. Dunning asked if funds would be available to support faculty giving presentations at teaching conferences, given the new guidelines for evaluating faculty. It was Dr. Bennett's understanding that funding would be increased to support this endeavor. Dr. Pitts noted that attendance at teaching conferences is not a new criteria, it has just been understated.

Task Forces
Dr. Kormanik reported that the Task Forces will present their reports to the Board of Trustees May 12, but no action or vote will occur at that time. The reports will be disseminated to facilitate discussion. In October the reports will be finalized in terms of considering how to act and how to fund the initiatives.

Capital Campaign Kickoff
Dr. Kormanik announced that UNCA's Capital Campaign was kicked off last night at the Grove Park Inn. The evening included an Academic Showcase and a multimedia presentation.

VI. Student Government Association Report
Mr. Wiley Cash reported on the following upcoming student events:
- Women Act in Liberation is sponsoring "Take Back the Night" April 14th, 7:30 pm, on the quad.

- 200 area high school students will participate in National Youth Services Day April 15th, 1:00-5:00 pm in the Highsmith Center. The students will take part in plays and poetry readings on drug and substance abuse and its prevention.

-New SGA officers will be inaugurated April 18th at 9:00 pm in the Laurel Forum. Mr. Cash introduced Mr. Ryan Southern, the new SGA President.

The students passed an Honor Code draft during the last election. Ninety percent of the students who voted supported the Honor Code, with fifteen percent of the student population voting. The APC will review the draft.

VII. Academic Policies Report
Ms. Claudel McKenzie reported for the Academic Policies Committee.
First Reading:
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
APC 44: Addition of First-Year Experience Program Description.

APC 45: Changes to Environmental Studies Departmental Mathematics Requirements.

APC 46: Changes to Environmental Studies Natural Resource Management Requirements.

APC 47: Changes to Prerequisite Requirements for ENVR 241.

APC 48: Changing Title and Course Description of ENVR 334.

APC 49: Changing Course Description of ENVR 382.

APC 50: Adding CHEM 132 to the List of Courses that Satisfy the 3-Hour
Science General Education Requirement.

APC 51: Clarifying the Number of Hours Allowed for Major Fields of Concentration.

APC 52: Curriculum Revision in Biology.

APC 53: New Rules for MAL Theses and Projects.

APC 54: Addition of Practicum in Teaching Foreign Languages, K-12.

Second Reading
The following document was considered for Second Reading:
APC 6: Additions, Deletions, Changes of Engineering Course Offerings and Descriptions (REVISED).

Ms. McKenzie explained that APC 6 was tabled and returned to APC because of concerns over the wording and placement of the ENGR in the Catalog and because of questions about the transferability of those courses to UNCA. Senators received the revised document last week. Ms. McKenzie moved acceptance of the revised document, which was seconded by Dr. Mitchell. APC 6 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 5200S.

VIII. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Report:
Dr. Peter Caulfield gave the Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council report.
Second Reading
The following document was considered for Second Reading:
UPC 4: UNCA Mission Statement (Revision of SD0190F.)
UPC 4 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 5300S.

First Reading
The following document was distributed for First Reading:
UPC 5: Proposed Distance Education Philosophy Statement.

IX. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. William Bruce gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report.
Election Results
- Hearings Committee: New Members Elected for 2000-2002
Humanities: Charles McKnight
Natural Sciences: Gregg Kormanik
Social Sciences: Keith Ray

- Faculty Senate: New Members Elected for 2000-2003
Social Sciences: Heon Lee
Humanities: Melissa Burchard
Natural Sciences: Charles James
At Large: James Kuhlman
At Large: Jeff Rackham

Senate Alternates (2000-2001)
Natural Science: Debra Van Engelen
Social Sciences: Pamela Nickless
Humanities: Scott Walters

- Committee of the Tenured Faculty: New Members Elected for 2000-2002
Gordon Wilson, Kevin Moorhead, Tracy Brown

- Faculty Grievance Committee: New members Elected for 2000-2002
Margaret Downes, Irene Rossell, Virginia Derryberry

- Post Tenure Review Committee: This voting is in progress.

- Academic Appeals Board: This voting will be next.

Committee Work in Progress
- Post-Tenure Review - Revisions to Guidelines and Process (SD2198S)
As required by Senate action last year, the FWDC is reviewing suggestions from the Post-Tenure Review Committee (PTR) for procedure and rating guideline revisions. FWDC will be seeking comments from faculty members who have been through PTR as recommended by the Senate Executive Committee. They also welcome observations from faculty Senators and any others. FWDC has met once jointly with the following, to review possible PTR changes in the light of UNCA experience, the GA mandate, and other UNC system institutions' results -- Academic Affairs (Dr. Pitts, Dr. Browning); the PTR Committee (Dr. Petranka, Dr. Chess, Mr. Cooke); UNC General Administration (Dr. Mary Wakeford). Dr. Bruce distributed an annotated summary of Post-Tenure Review documents.

Mr. Dunning noted that the Senate replaced the word "adequate" to "successful" in the PTR document last February but the Administration failed to make the change. Dr. Pitts acknowledged the error but stated the PTR process would have been unsatisfactory even if the word change had occurred.

Dr. Pitts noted that PTR is a faculty-run process. Although the evaluation letters were signed by Dr. Cochran, they originated from the PTR Committee. Dr. Kormanik added that during the first year of operation the PTRC sent detailed comments and descriptions about the faculty members' performance. This year the Committee did not do this -- perhaps this duty should be specified to become part of the process. Dr. Peifer added that the Committee is supposed to send out the letters.

Dr. Cochran explained that Academic Affairs was requested to deliver the letters rather than members of the PTR Committee. As to the wording, neither the PTR Committee nor Academic Affairs were aware of the word change; he received word of the error from Dr. Bruce after half the letters had been delivered.

Dr. Caulfield stated that Mr. Dunning's comments speak to the underlying confusion regarding passage and official communication of Senate documents. The problem needs to be addressed. Dr. Cochran indicated that his office is trying to convert the Faculty Handbook on the web so that every new document would update at the moment any changes occur; it is a very difficult process at the moment. Dr. Bruce stated that the Senate documents are available on the web. Since documents are required to have the VCAA's signature approval, it is the Senate's sense that it was communicated to Academic Affairs. The fact that the Handbook is not up-to-date poses a significant problem; every Senate document may need a faculty impact statement and a draft may need to go in the Handbook. It will take considerable effort to do this.

Dr. Pitts agreed, but stressed that the fundamental issue is having a peer process that divides Administration involvement. Dr. Bruce concurred; Dr. Pitts approved the word change but no one on the PTR Committee serves on the Faculty Senate.

Dr. Wilson added that after reading Dr. Dohse's E-mail he concluded that there seems to be a sentiment among UNCA faculty that they don't feel appreciated and this has impacted morale. What is to prevent this from happening in the future? Dr. Kormanik replied that this comes under FWDC's charge. A Committee needs to know its charge, what it's supposed to do, and it needs to discharge its duties.

Dr. Bruce stated that the FWDC will proceed on this matter; it is possible to have meetings to voice opinions and modify the document. Dr. Bruce reminded Senators that the source of PTR was a movement within the State legislature to eliminate academic tenure. The UNC system PTR process is a response from General Administration to the issue of continuing evaluation of a tenured faculty member. The procedure is partly to foster faculty development. The procedure also aims to conduct a summative evaluation of tenured faculty members. Combining summative and formative evaluation in the same process is a very tricky task.

Dr. Krumpe noted that there was a significant difference in how our faculty are evaluated compared to other faculty members in the system and asked if Dr. Wakeford made any comments in this regard. Dr. Browning replied that Dr. Wakeford offered no judgement about the relative interpretation. Dr. Rizzo concurred and added that Dr. Wakeford was deliberately cautious. Schools were doing this differently and have different terms; at some level it is fairly decentralized and comparisons should be done with a great deal of caution.

Dr. Krumpe suggested that we discuss how we're going to use this information and how are we going to present this information. Dr. Pitts added that UNCA has to believe that anything we generate can become public. Therefore PTR's responsibilities take on added importance.

Dr. Mitchell stated that Dr. Dohse's E-mail indicated that the staff person who was to work with the PTRC had been changed from the Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) to someone else unnamed. She asked what position was doing this and why was it changed? Dr. Bruce replied that the original PTR had the Dean of Faculty Development involved, with the idea that this was a faculty development process. Then UNCA recently changed our Dean of Faculty Development into a Director for the Center of Teaching and Learning, which has more technology focus than other kinds of faculty development focus.

Dr. Mitchell noted that Dr. Dohse's E-mail said it was moved to Academic Affairs -- and asked if anyone in Academic Affairs met with the Committee. Dr. Cochran replied that he met with the PTRC prior to their meeting, but did not sit with them during deliberations. The Committee wrote the letter and Dr. Cochran signed it. Dr. Pitts commented that UNCA has a tendency to keep administrators from shaping things which may be good, but frankly, he and Dr. Cochran have more experience than most faculty in handling difficult conversations and are inclined to be more compassionate than the faculty.

Dr. Mitchell commented that a lot of excellent senior faculty have been wounded this year and she objects to that. Dr. Pitts noted that we devised what the legislators wanted and there's an irony in that -- good people construct something that comes back against them. We could do this differently. This should not be done to eliminate people. Dr. Kormanik encouraged everyone with comments to contact FWDC.

Election of Faculty to Standing Committees by 2000-2001 Faculty Senate
The Faculty Handbook states that "Members of standing committees elected by the Senate shall be elected at the organizational meeting of the new Faculty Senate at the end of the academic year. Committees included in this policy are the University Research Council, University Teaching Council, and other standing committees for which the Senate elects members." (SD0889F, Faculty Handbook p. 133).

FWDC will propose nominees for Standing Committees which require Senate approval of the new Faculty Senate, based on Assignment Preference Forms and further communications from faculty.

Senate Nominees to Faculty for Academic Appeals Board
The Senate approved FWDC's recommendation for nominees for faculty-wide election of two members for service on the Academic Appeals Board:

McGlinn, Jeanne
Miller, William
Weldon, Alice
Wolfe, Megan
Yates, George

First Reading
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 5: A Teaching-Scholarship Year.
This document provides an opportunity for a small number of faculty who have been heavily involved in university service to apply once every seven years for a year exempt from service responsibilities in order to balance their careers by renewing and further developing their scholarly, creative and teaching accomplishments.

FWDC 6: Sense of the Senate Resolution Encouraging the Chancellor to Involve Faculty in the Honorary Degree Process.

FWDC 7: Teaching Awards Committee Structure and Process
This document was prepared by the current Teaching Awards committee to provide guidelines and procedures to ensure consistency and continuity in the Teaching Awards Committee membership and processes from year to year.

Second Reading
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
FWDC 3: Change in Membership of Honorary Degrees Committee.
Chancellor Mullen and the Board of Trustees are using a new method for selecting and recruiting recipients of Honorary Degrees from UNCA. The former Honorary Degrees Committee of the Board of Trustees is no longer functioning. This document which makes related changes to Senate Documents and the Faculty Handbook passed FWDC unanimously. FWDC 6 also addresses this issue.

Dr. Mitchell opposed passing FWDC 3 until FWDC 6 was resolved because faculty should be involved in selecting who receives honorary degrees. Dr. Rizzo suggested considering FWDC 6 today -- a Sense of the Senate does not require a First Reading. Dr. Bruce stated that FWDC has approached the Chancellor about this issue and he will be glad to talk to faculty; however the Chancellor needs a lot of latitude to use his judgement and be able to invite someone to be a recipient. Dr. Bruce withdrew his motion to approve FWDC 3.

Dr. Bruce moved approval of FWDC 6: Sense of the Senate Resolution Encouraging the Chancellor to Involve Faculty in the Honorary Degree Process.

Editorial changes were made to the document. Dr. Bruce noted that ultimately the awarding of honorary degrees lies with the Board of Trustees. Dr. Mitchell reiterated the importance of faculty input in the process but supported FWDC 6 as a short-term solution. Dr. Mitchell called the question.

FWDC 6 reads as follows:
The Faculty Senate encourages the Chancellor to work with the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee to identify ways for faculty members to contribute to the process of nominating, recruiting and selecting candidates for Honorary Degrees at UNCA. The Senate requests the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee to report the response of the Chancellor and any progress towards this end by the second meeting of the Senate in the Fall of 2000.
FWDC 6 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 5400S.

Dr. Bruce brought FWDC 3 (Changes in Membership of Honorary Degrees Committee) back to the Senate floor for consideration. This document contains a Faculty Handbook impact statement. This Committee no longer has a function following approval of FWDC 6. FWDC 3 passed unanimously and became Senate Document 5500S.

FWDC 4: Sense of the Senate Resolution in Support of Two New Annual Awards for Faculty Excellence in Scholarship and Creative Works.

This document expresses the support of the Faculty Senate for a University Research Council initiative to establish two new awards for faculty excellence in scholarship and/or creative activity. FWDC previewed this at the last meeting and commented that UNCA has seven teaching awards and it has no awards for outstanding scholarship or creative work. The Feldman awards are a partial exception, but they are given first for service to the community and second for competence in three areas: teaching, research, and published writing. The Research Council has developed this proposal which is supported by Dr. Cochran and FWDC.

Dr. Krumpe made a motion to strike all the parentheses in the first paragraph. Dr. Larson seconded the motion, which passed. An editorial correction was made to the document.

Dr. Larson commented that this document awards faculty for scholarship and/or creative works, yet faculty are evaluated in relation to three things -- he asked why service was being ignored. Dr. Mitchell stated that traditionally the Feldman awards have included one service award and one scholarship award. Dr. Rizzo concurred that one award is more principally service than the other one, but it is very vague. Dr. Caulfield remarked that this was likely a consequence of not having a University Service Council while we do have a University Research Council and a University Teaching Council. Dr. Bruce added that this is a well taken point and he supported rewarding people for their service to UNCA. Dr. Larson stated that we are saying something we don't want to say when we privilege both teaching and scholarship to the exclusion of service. Dr. Larson will discuss the possibility of a service award proposal with the advisor to the Key Center. FWDC 4 passed unanimously as amended and became Senate Document 5600S. Dr. Kormanik noted that the Senate supported rewarding individuals for their service and this could be addressed in another Senate proposal.

X. Old Business
There was no Old Business.

XI. New Business
There was no New Business.

XII. Adjourn
Dr. Kormanik adjourned the meeting at 5:15 pm.

Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely
William Bruce
                                     Tracey Rizzo