University of North Carolina at Asheville

FACULTY SENATE MEETING

Minutes, October 6, 2011

Senate

Members: R. Berls, R. Bowen, G. Boudreaux, M. Burchard, G. Ettari, V. Frank, E. Gant, B. Hook, G. Kormanik,

T. Meigs, S. Mills, K. Moorhead, G. Nallan, K. Reynolds, R. Roig, B. Schaffer, S. Subramaniam;

J. Fernandes.

Excused: N. Ruppert.

Visitors: G. Ashburn, P. Catterfeld, L. Friedenberg, H. Holt, L. Langrall, E. Katz, J. Konz, K. Krumpe, ML Manns,

P. McClellan, P. Mitchell, R. Pente, S. Reiser, R. Ridenour, A. Shope.

I. Call to Order and Announcements

Dr. Volker Frank called the meeting to order at 3:16 pm and welcomed senators and guests.

II. Approval of minutes:

The minutes of September 8, 2011 were approved as distributed.

III. Executive Committee Report

Dr. Frank reported for the Executive Committee.

NCAA Re-certification

Dr. Herman Holt gave an update on our NCAA recertification process which takes place every ten years and involves external peer reviewers. Two major issues left to be resolved are closely related to one another: (1) the requirement to increase athletic participation of women to within 6% of all undergraduate women enrolled; and (2) the proportional distribution of scholarships by gender. In response, UNC Asheville created a gender equity task force, and we are in the process of establishing a women’s swimming team, and a search for a head coach is now underway. The NCAA site visit by the peer review team will occur on October 31 and November 1.
Discussion
The following points were made during discussion:

• Because the pool does not meet current specifications, the facility will book for unofficial competition; official competitions will be held away from campus.

• It was unclear whether this would limit time for faculty and staff to use the pool.

• Funding to hire the swim coach will come from the Athletic budget.

• Teaching responsibilities for coaches have been removed.

• It is not feasible to reduce the number of men’s teams as this would create other problems.

• Dr. Cone looked at the possibility of an aquatic center years ago where we would furnish the land and the city and county would fund the construction of the aquatic center. This was shelved because of the economy.

• We are equitable across sports currently – that is not the issue. The issue is the number of participation opportunities.

IV. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report

Mr. Rob Bowen reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.

FWDC has met three times since our last meeting.

First Reading:

The following document was available for first reading:

FWDC 1: Clarification to Family and Medical Leave (Revision of SD4900S; Faculty Handbook 4.2.1.2)

On-line Student Evaluations

FWDC met with Pat McClellan to discuss updating the on-line student evaluation. Ms. McClellan has been able to remove the quantitative and the writing intensive questions from the on-line survey. These questions can be restored by the instructor or by the department chair when these classes are going to be reviewed.

Ms. McClellan said the main concern since using the new form two years ago and going on-line one year ago was specifically the writing intensive and quantitative intensive questions that ask students to self report on their growth in those areas. These have been removed from the top part of the on-line form as the default. If a course was quantitative intensive or department chairs’ want to include all of their prefixes then they would indicate this. Questions that are course specific will be at the end just before the comments.

Discussion

Dr. Meigs requested information on the on-line response rate compared to the paper response rates.

Ms. McClellan said on-line responses are less than they were when they were handed out as paper. The average over the last several years of handing them out in class was about 83% overall. In the fall we reached 75%. In the spring we reached 67-68%. Seniors completed 32% of the surveys compared to 97% of the freshmen.

Ms. McClellan requested direction from FWDC on the evaluations. She suggested making changes now or waiting another year so students will use the same form for the entire academic year.

Dr. Bowen said this can be enacted if that is the will of the Senate. The Senate charged FWDC to address these concerns before the fall evaluations. Another issue is the form itself: it was constructed before we got the university mission and the student learning outcomes. We may want to review this again to ensure the current questions are relevant to what we are teaching.

Concerns about Junior Faculty Chairing Committees

FWDC met with Rodger Payne who was representing the department chairs in the Humanities division. These department chairs have a growing concern about junior faculty chairing committees which requires a tremendous work load. They feel that senior faculty should chair committees rather than junior faculty. FWDC is hesitant to draw a line in the sand on this issue. It is nice to have junior faculty step up if they want to. Instead, an FWDC representative will talk to the mentoring faculty and reiterate to junior faculty that they can say no without fear of reprisal. They do not have to take these positions just because someone nominates them.

V. Institutional Development Committee / University Planning Council Reports

Dr. Kevin Moorhead reported for Institutional Development Committee and University Planning Council.

Report on University Planning Council meeting – September 23, 2011

1. Chancellor update – describe three things that were going well despite the austere budget:

a. A good visit with the Board of Governors on campus and helping them understand our niche in higher education

b. Success of family weekend and wellabration

c. Opportunity to join in the celebration of the inauguration of President Ross.

2. Update on NCAA Recertification by Herman Holt and Janet Cone – the initial review of our NCAA recertification identified 36 areas of concern. Most were minor and addressed but four issues are yet to be resolved. The two major issues are related to gender equity. UNC Asheville needs to increase participation of female athletes to within 6 percent of the female student distribution on campus (roughly 58%) and distribute a proportional amount in female athlete scholarships. The easy way to increase female student participation is to add a sport for women. After analysis of various options, the consensus was to add a swimming team. The Justice Pool can be used for competition and the students attracted to swimming would be a good academic fit for UNC Asheville. A position for a head women’s swimming team coach has been advertized. The NCAA Peer Review Team will visit UNC Asheville from Oct. 31-Nov 2.

3. Update on QEP by Mary Lynn Manns and Amy Lanou – an update on how the QEP will be implemented was presented. The multi-year implementation starts small in terms of courses and will add more courses over several years. Feedback on the QEP is due on October 10^th.

4. Role of UPC in Social Sustainability – a conversation was initiated with UPC members to address campus issues related to social sustainability. Council members were given an opportunity to voice concerns about issues and decisions that have been impacting morale and creating less desirable working conditions. A variety of issues were discussed, including student concern about programs being cut, the role of UPC in joint degree decisions, faculty buy in with assessment of student learning, disseminating information to appropriate stakeholders, dispelling rumors such as the armed escort of terminated employees, direction of the career center, replacement of the MLA director, and loss of staff positions.

Report on Institutional Development Committee meeting – September 22, 2011

IDC Members Present: Present: Kevin Moorhead, Gregg Kormanik, Ted Meigs, Eric Gant.

Visitors: Gwen Ashburn, Lisa Friedenberg, Jessica Dunsmore.

1. Assessment of Student Learning

Members of IDC discussed assessment of student learning with Director of Academic Assessment Lisa Friedenberg, Dean Gwen Ashburn, and Director of Institutional Effectiveness Jessica Dunsmore.

Lisa Friedenberg provided an update on how assessment of student learning outcomes was piloted last year, with 66 academic units participating. Many issues were discovered during implementation, including departments having too many outcomes, assessment not embedded in existing coursework (resulting in increased faculty workload), and outcomes not clearly articulated (resulting in assessment problems of vague outcomes). Dr. Friedenberg and Dr. Dunsmore are working with departments to address these issues to make assessment work.

Dr. Friedenberg described two critical issues related to assessment: 1) having sustainability of an assessment plan and, 2) making sure the program is formative. The ultimate goal is for faculty to determine what they can do better to improve student learning. Department assessment plans are flexible as student learning outcomes can be modified, dropped, or added.

IDC members also discussed assessment of student learning outcomes associated with components of ILS. SACS requires that general education competencies must be identified and assessed. Issues identified with student learning outcomes for ILS components can be addressed by providing feedback to committees that articulated the outcomes. Assessment of the laboratory science and the health and wellness requirements of ILS are being worked on this year. An assessment plan for the QEP will also have to be developed.

Members of IDC were grateful for the update and the opportunity to discuss faculty concerns with the assessment system. Dr. Moorhead recommends having on-going conversations with faculty on assessment. The Chair of IDC requested faculty input via email on assessment of student learning outcomes before the meeting. The request generated three responses.

2. Proposed joint eight-year B.A./Medical degree with UNC Chapel Hill

IDC Members, Dean Gwen Ashburn, Jessica Dunsmore, Provost Jane Fernandes and Dean Keith Krumpe.

Prior to the conversation about the potential joint degree, Provost Fernandes informed IDC that unless the decision to eliminate the Teaching Fellows Program is reversed, UNC Asheville will have a significant loss of students attracted to the program.

To provide information early in the process and to solicit feedback, Provost Fernandes and Dean Krumpe discussed with IDC a possible joint program with UNC Chapel Hill for a combined UNC Asheville Bachelor’s Degree/UNC Chapel Hill medical degree for students interested in practicing medicine in Western North Carolina. Chancellor Ponder has agreed that UNC Asheville should engage in this conversation. Third and fourth year medical students from UNC are already working at Mission Hospital as part of an agreement between the two institutions.

Students would graduate with a degree from UNC Asheville, spend two of four years in a medical degree program in Chapel Hill, and their final two years working for a hospital in Western North Carolina. Potential advantages of a joint degree program for UNC Asheville will be opportunities to recruit excellent students from Western North Carolina that are interested in a medical field, an opportunity to better serve the region, and an opportunity to educate future doctors with a liberal arts background. Many issues have to be resolved. IDC members raised some of those issues during a lively discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of a joint program, how a program would be implemented, and how course/degree credit would be awarded between the two institutions. IDC members were thankful for an opportunity to provide feedback early in the process and we agreed that future meetings would be used to continue discussion as more information is made available.

Discussion

Highlights of the discussion follow:

• Initiated by the critical need for more physicians in western NC, the program would be structured to yield a substantive number of medical students who intend to practice in rural communities.

• This initiative is not related to our current enrollment. With a guaranteed admission to Chapel Hill Medical School, there may be students who would come to UNCA if they are accepted to the eight year program who might not come here otherwise.

• One idea on the table would be that students would not have to take the MCAT in some programs, if an agreed upon recruiting metric could be used. The Bowman Gray Medical School at Wake Forest University is one such program in place now, where undergraduates are accepted into the medical school without having to take the MCAT.

• When Dean Krumpe presented this information to IDC, there had only been one preliminary conversation between him, Dean Katz and Dr. Jeff Heck who is a Mission Hospital MAHEC affiliated physician in town who serves in an administrative capacity at the medical school in Asheville. He wanted to talk to IDC before he had a more substantive conversation with the Dean of the Admissions Committee from Chapel Hill, which took place last week.

• They are interested in UNC Asheville because of our curriculum, quality education and liberal arts.

• The program would not require a significant amount of resources.

• We already have a sizable cohort of strong pre-med students on campus. The program would potentially take some of those students and perhaps recruit other good students to focus them into a particular area.

• If this were to come to fruition perhaps we could collaborate and get some things we need like resources for research. We could require students in this pathway to perhaps do a research project here.

• Senators want everything on the table – not only talk about the benefits to students but also the potential benefits. We are not altruistic – we have agendas and there are things that we want, and it has to be part of public forum discussions.

• Dean Krumpe has been asked to identify and forward to Chapel Hill’s Admissions Committee current sophomores at UNC Asheville who, based on their course work are pre-med students from counties in western NC. They are open to interviewing these students and potentially offering them a slot in a medical school class two years from now.

• The curriculum would go through the normal steps – nothing will be fast tracked.

• One potential resource available to us is that we will have third and fourth year medical students in this city. Right now there are approximately twenty of these students. The ultimate goal of the Asheville School of Medicine is an enrollment of twenty students who could serve in a mentor capacity. Also potentially there would be classes with mixtures of different types of students –senior level UNC Asheville students sitting in a classroom with medical students, and possibly with postgraduate Pharm. D. students.

• We could use courses that we already have on the books. Also, students who choose not to attend medical school would acquire an interdisciplinary liberal arts degree that would have a health care focus.

• One vision is piggybacking pre-med requirements onto a legitimate UNC Asheville undergraduate degree that focuses on social issues associated with the delivery of health care in western NC.

• Dr. Frank said for the record, we are hearing from Dean Krumpe that we are early in the process with this. He proposed to Kevin Moorhead that in subsequent meetings he give a brief report on the status of this on-going process. The Senate may hear from Deans Krumpe and Katz as well.

• There are a lot of permutations with these kinds of programs and the incorporation of the pharmacy program would be another issue.

• It sounds like we are moving rapidly. Note that IDC asked the administration for a proposal that would be evaluated.

3. Possibility of offering an undergraduate degree in pharmaceutical sciences

Dean Krumpe discussed with IDC the possibility of offering an undergraduate degree in pharmaceutical sciences. The degree would be awarded as part of a curriculum in which students would enroll in the UNC School of Pharmacy after two years at UNC Asheville, and then spend four more years here on campus as Pharm. D. students. Upon completion of the Pharm. D. degree, a student would also receive a 4‐year degree in Pharmaceutical Sciences from UNC Asheville. At this time, it is not clear whether we would be able to count such students as UNC Asheville graduates. We could develop the degree but another possibility is a joint degree with another institution. One significant issue is the difficulty in completing the requirements for the pharmacy degree and our ILS requirements in four years. Apparently students are being led to believe that UNC Asheville offers an undergraduate pharmacy degree which is incorrect.

Discussion

Dean Krumpe said the reason this came up is both Chapel Hill and Elizabeth City State University (which is the other satellite site for the UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy) have these degree opportunities in place. Students can start at the Eshelman School of Pharmacy in Elizabeth City, and as juniors attend the Eshelman School of Pharmacy at Chapel Hill, and upon completion have both the Pharm. D. and a bachelor’s degree.

We have pre-med juniors on campus now, but we do not have the pharmaceutical science option. When students attend open houses and talk to the pharmacy school they hear about all of the programs (not only UNC Asheville) and that is where the confusion lies. Two students have already asked about this and he brought it to IDC for discussion.

Dr. Ettari asked Dean Krumpe if he would classify this confusion as an unforeseen consequence of the decision to have the pharmacy school here.

Dean Krumpe said this was not unforeseen. This was raised in the beginning of discussion about having the pharmacy program on our campus. The Dean of the School of Pharmacy said our most important goal is to have an accredited Pharm. D. program in place; we will worry about other issues afterwards. Dean Krumpe said he expected the issue to come up and was prepared to bring it to the appropriate faculty body – he did not expect to do it in fall 2011.

VI. Academic Policies Committee Reports

Mr. Rob Berls reported for the Academic Policies Committee.

Second Reading

The following documents were considered for second reading:

APC 2: Proposal to amend Class Attendance Policy (Revision of SD0510F) (Handbook 3.1.4.3.4) 

Dr. Gant asked for clarification of the terms “occasional” and “significant” absences. Mr. Berls said these questions were not raised at APC. Senators discussed school sanctioned absences (religious, athletic and students away on university business), instructor’s discretion, and the number of excusable absences. Mr. Ridenour said students would prefer to have a specific number of absences.

Dr. Nallan moved to return the proposal to APC. The motion was seconded by Dr. Burchard and passed.

APC 1: Proposal to allow students to double major in Anthropology and Sociology

APC 1 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 0311F.

VII. Administrative Reports

Academic Affairs
Provost Jane Fernandes addressed the Faculty Senate:

· I know that faculty are feeling overworked and very stressed. I wish circumstances were different and we did not have to shoulder these increased workloads. Unfortunately, there is nothing I or anyone can do about this immediately. It seems that everything around us continues to contract due to the ripple effects of a global economic recession. As I have mentioned before, the ongoing contraction stems from a drive over the past decade or so to equate success with having more and more resources, money and people. Overall I believe our society and world are working now to find sustainability. However, I want you to know that I understand the strain you are under and I am constantly thinking and strategizing about ways that I can help in the long run.

· I hear that faculty are feeling disconnected from important conversations and decisions, feeling as though their input either is not sought or sought but then dismissed. I also hear that some faculty fear retaliation for providing input. I am very concerned about these issues and in this case, there is something I can do. I want to assure you that:

o I do seek and value your input on matters of mutual concern, and support you in your efforts to improve our university. I understand, for example, that some of you have identified problems with policies and procedures governing faculty activities and I urge you to bring these to the attention of Rob Bowen, Chair of FWDC. Amending policies and procedures in our Faculty Handbook to ensure the fair and appropriate handling of faculty issues should be our highest priority.

o In the spirit of the academy, I welcome discussion and debate. I also acknowledge, as you must, that sometimes the result of discussion and debate is disagreement. The views of a provost and of the faculty are often not going to be the same. I value different perspectives, and I strive to hear and understand them, in making decisions, even if everyone does not ultimately agree. If you have questions about a matter under discussion or a recent decision, I encourage you to ask questions—of me or the deans for issues in Academic Affairs, of the appropriate Faculty Senate committee, and of UPC for issues on a university-wide level. I assure you that I am committed to openness in process with the exception, of course, of personnel and other confidential matters.

o I do not find email an effective strategy for communicating, especially about complex and nuanced academic matters. I would prefer personal or face-to-face communication about these matters and I will make myself available to you for these meetings.

· There is a broader issue embedded in all of this, the overarching theme of trust. I trust you as faculty to make good decisions for the benefit of your students. Lately, I am not sure there is a reciprocal trust on your part, a trust that the decisions I make as Provost are for the good of the university, and for the benefit of the faculty and students. We, the Provost and the Faculty, are partners, not adversaries, and though we will at times certainly disagree about decisions, my hope is that these remarks signal a return to the kind of relationship we need to have for the good of UNC Asheville.

· In relation to the teaching load, while there is little I can do to improve it at this time, over the long run, I hope that the Curriculum Review Task Force will help to identify ways that we can continue to provide high quality liberal arts education delivered by our faculty with a sustainable teaching load. I look forward to the results of the sub-committees’ work and to thinking about ways to enable a curriculum that we can deliver reliably over the long term in spite of whatever challenges may come our way.

Diversity Action Council: Provost Fernandes

· I wanted to make also a brief report about the Diversity Action Council (DAC). After three years of service, some members will be stepping away and some new members will be joining the group. Chancellor Ponder is in the process of making these appointments at this time. I will make a full report of the membership when it has been finalized.

· Volker Frank, your Faculty Senate Chair, has asked that the DAC provide the Faculty Senate with feedback in terms of envisioning a more diverse campus, with more diverse thinking and knowledge, more diverse student and faculty bodies, and how that can be accomplished in part through our revised curriculum. I look forward to this work.

· The DAC also accepts the invitation from Volker Frank to come to the Senate later this fall or perhaps early in the spring semester to share where we see UNC Asheville today, and where we need to be tomorrow and to discuss how the DAC and the Senate can work together on important initiatives.

Dr. Burchard thanked Provost Fernandes for speaking openly about the concerns and for acknowledging that there are trust issues working within our community, and for showing that you are willing to discuss those with us and to work together with us. I do like that you say we should not be adversaries but rather partners. That is exactly right but it is going to take more communication than we have had.

Dr. Frank thanked the Provost for her comments.

QEP report

Dr. Mary Lynn Manns gave an update on the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP).

• Campus feedback on the QEP is due on October 10.

• Two classes led by Dr. Han and Mr. Berls are creating videos this semester. The videos will be used to market the QEP to students.

• Two lead evaluators for the QEP have been identified and the one SACS approves will come to campus in March 2012.

• The QEP professional development team has started working on the critical thinking professional development that will be held in summer 2012.

• A campus-wide email will go out soon as we search for the Director who will be responsible for the implementation phase of the QEP, know as the Inquiry ARC.

• QEP is starting to search for ten faculty members from across university who will be the pilot group for the plan. The following year it will be open to a larger portion of the campus. She has been talking to LSIC instructors, particularly 179 instructors as the plan will progress to the 179 classes in year two. The plan will eventually be open to the entire campus.

The Senate discussed activities that could become projects and suggested that Dr. Manns generate a document of best practices after the pilot year. Dr. Manns suggested the plan would help students in undergraduate research and in service learning because it reinforces critical thinking skills.

Mr. Bowen moved approval of the Sense of the Senate Resolution on QEP. Dr. Reynolds seconded the motion.

Sense of the Senate Resolution

The UNC Asheville QEP will focus on enhancing students’ critical thinking through participation in academically rigorous experiences that involve inquiry (identifying an issue), application (designing a project), reflection (reflecting on what was learned as well as the learning process) and communication (broadening the experience).

Rationale:

The draft of the Quality Enhancement Draft (QEP) for our SACS re-accreditation recently became available to the campus-- we are accepting comments and suggestions through October 10, 2011. In order to move forward with the final version of the Plan, the QEP Leadership Team and Academic Affairs request endorsement for the topic of our QEP from the UNC Asheville Faculty Senate. A one-sentence summary appears above.

The Sense of the Senate Resolution passed without dissent and became Senate Document 0411F.

Student Government
Highlights of Ryan Ridenour’s report from the Student Government Association (SGA):

• SGA is compiling student opinions on receiving a physical diploma at graduation, reading days and Undergraduate Research symposium days and the timing of finals in relation to Thanksgiving break.

• SGA has invited the student body president and their VP from all of the UNC schools to the UNC Chapel Hill game in November to support Asheville and have gotten a positive response.

Discussion
Thus far, students have indicated a strong preference to continue receiving a physical diploma on graduation. The issue that received the least interest but most neutral response was having exams right after returning from Thanksgiving break.

VIII. Old Business

There was no Old Business.

IX. New Business

Dr. Frank said over the last year and certainly this semester an important theme has been our policies and procedures. This theme has been repeated in our Senate minutes. The Executive Committee proposes that the Faculty Senate create an ad hoc Task Force to review the application of policies and procedures related to faculty searches and faculty grievances. That Task Force shall consist of two members of FWDC and two members of IDC. The Task Force shall present its findings and recommendations to the Faculty Senate no later than February, 2012. If the Senate approves of the Task Force, he suggested that the spirit that guides the Task Force be one of seeking greater cooperation between the parts – the institution and the different organizations of the institution – so we have clearer policies and procedures that work for everyone’s best interest. We need two volunteers from FWDC and IDC.

Discussion

• Faculty searches and faculty grievances may not be all the Task Force would look into but that is the starting point the Executive Committee contemplated. Certainly the current climate can be taken into consideration. The task force cannot see confidential information it does not have access to, but we also have information that is important for us to look at such as from annual committee reports. The task force will give this body concrete findings and recommendations.

• A starting point would be to look at the policies within the Faculty Handbook to see if the policy is creating an issue on campus. Inconsistencies between the Code and the Faculty Handbook have been found and need to be corrected. The task force also needs to clarify the duties of the Faculty Grievance Committee and the Hearings Committee, and address conflicts of interest in the policies.

• Procedurally, we may want to create a temporary committee which commits itself to this action. Rather than just volunteers from FWDC and IDC, perhaps membership could broadened to consider our policies and procedures in a more general way. There are issues such as federal and state guidelines and UNC-General Administration mandates -- but policies and procedures also are based on what we value as a community. How we value doing things as a community is an important part of our policies in addition to EEOC, federal and state guidelines or mandates by General Administration.

• Our hiring procedures describe how we are going to allocate positions, consider applicants and develop a diverse pool. We consider the under-represented in an effort to hire a diverse faculty to provide a liberal arts education to a diverse community. Can a task force approach that in terms of what we value? Perhaps this task force should have a more global perspective.

• The Hearings Committee, working through FWDC and the Senate, can make recommendations to help clarify which committee (Hearings or Grievance) has jurisdiction over a request. The Tenure Policy may be better done by another committee.

• The Executive Committee welcomes suggestions and will continue discussion at next month’s meeting.

X. Adjourn

Dr. Frank adjourned the meeting at 5:20pm.

Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely

Executive Committee