University
of North Carolina at Asheville
FACULTY
SENATE MEETING
Minutes,
December 8, 2011
Senate
Members: R. Berls, R. Bowen, M. Burchard, G. Ettari, V.
Frank, E. Gant, B. Hook, G. Kormanik,
T. Meigs, S. Mills, K.
Moorhead, G. Nallan, K. Reynolds, R. Roig, N. Ruppert, S. Subramaniam;
J. Fernandes.
Excused: G. Nallan.
Absent: G. Boudreaux, B. Schaffer.
Visitors: G. Ashburn, S. Capone, P. Catterfeld, J,
Cope, J. Flora, C. Fogg, L. Holland, L. Langrall, B. Larson,
E. Katz, J. Konz, K. Krumpe,
ML Manns, P. McClellan, P. Mitchell, R. Pente, J. Pierce, A. Ridenour,
R. Ridenour, A. Shope, R.
Shorts.
I. Call
to Order and Announcements
Dr. Volker Frank called the meeting to
order at 3:16 pm and welcomed senators and guests. Several of our guests will be introduced
later in the meeting. Dr. Nallan has a
concussion and is unable to be with us today.
Dr. Frank asked for a moment of silence
for the victims of the shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech today.
II. Approval
of minutes:
Dr.
Ettari asked that the minutes of November 3, 2011, include more details of the
discussion on preparing and budgeting for QEP and SACS. Everyone in the room needs to be accountable
and having records of those transparent conversations would help. The minutes will be amended.
III. Executive
Committee Report
Dr. Frank
reported for the Executive Committee.
Rob
Nelson’s meeting with the Senate has been postponed until next semester.
UNC
Asheville Bookstore
Vice Chancellor Pierce introduced
guests from the bookstore: Joy Flora from finance, helped with the bookstore
transition; Jim Cope, Follett regional manager; Amy Ridenour, bookstore manager;
and Richard Shorts, textbook manager.
Mr. Pierce said we made a decision to
outsource the bookstore at the beginning of the year given the combination of
technology, limited resources, and additional capabilities that a strong
provider could give us. Three groups
participated in a bidding process and we feel very good with Follett who won
the bid from a financial and performance standpoint.
The guests commented on increasing
customer services, learning what our needs are, and providing a service to
faculty and students. They are going
through a lot of change as 80% of what Follett does is textbooks -- digital and
rental textbooks will be evolving over time.
Discussion
• Dr. Hook
asked where the money comes from to give scholarships. Does it add to the cost of the books?
o
The bookstore pays a commission to the university
based on the sales. Outside of the
commission, the bookstore agreed to a dollar amount that goes toward
scholarships. The financial arrangement
is similar to what we had previously with the bookstore. It is a little better for the school if a
book is purchased from the bookstore.
• Dr.
Burchard said because we are a smaller school a lot of courses are offered once
a year, but we still might use the same textbook for a couple of years. Can students use the buyback program?
o
We can get them on a local rental program where
students save 50% up front and turn the book in if we know we are going to be
using it. That is the best option for
books that we are using multiple times but are phased out.
• Dr. Meigs
asked what happens if a student rents a book and later changes his/her mind and
wants to keep it.
o
This is handled on a case by case basis, but it is
okay within 30 days.
• Dr. Roig
asked if the rental program requires a commitment on the part of the professor.
o
There are two rental program lists. (1) The national list includes popular
textbooks among universities in the US and requires no commitment from the
professor. (2) The local list includes
titles requested by professors who have committed to using a particular title
for roughly two years. These titles
require a commitment because they are not on the national rental list. Custom textbooks are generally not on the
national list.
• SGA
representative Ryan Ridenour said students are glad that Follett is here – they
are doing a fantastic job.
Faculty
Assembly Report
Dr. Lora Holland reported that the
November 4, 2011 Faculty Assembly meeting in Chapel Hill had two areas of
concentration. The first initiative was
looking at academic policies across the 16 campuses:
• students’
satisfactory academic progress and what that means on the different campuses
• repeat
and replace policies for courses
• drop, add, and withdrawal dates across campuses.
There is
a lot of variation in these policies.
Some of the policies seem to be driven by federal financial aid
regulations, especially with satisfactory academic progress. The thrust from the meeting was that it would
be good to standardize what we can, but only at a minimum level -- that is,
this is the bar below which the campuses should not fall. More stringent policies should be allowed to
continue on the campuses.
The afternoon session was devoted to campus
safety and security. The security
officer who spoke with them wanted to know what the campuses do for their
emergency training, especially what the campuses offer faculty in terms of this
kind of training: whether it is an active shooter, severe weather threat during
class time, or medical emergency when either the faculty member or a student
has a medical emergency during class. He
asked three questions:
• What do faculty need to help them prepare for some extraordinary
event?
• What are
the areas that need improvement in how we are preparing?
• What are
faculty concerns about security and safety issues on campus?
Dr. Holland and Dr. Nickless will be
working with campus security and safety to answer what we currently do, but
they would also like to hear from the faculty about your concerns. What do you feel would be helpful for you if
something of that nature were to happen on this campus?
The January meeting will focus on the
campus initiated tuition increases.
Discussion
Dr. Frank asked what the mood was in
the Faculty Assembly given that this is Suzanne Ortega’s first semester at
General Administration and we also have a new president. Dr. Ortega came in with ideas about
increasing communication and perhaps even cooperation among the campuses.
Dr. Holland said Dr. Ortega does want
to get feedback from as many people as possible but she is still in the
information gathering stage. It will be
spring semester before we can make a judgment.
5-Year
QEP Budget
Dr. Mary
Lynn Manns said this budget has been approved by senior staff and the
chancellor. She took suggestions from
Senators and reduced the funds allocated to marketing to the bare minimum. This means we will use a lot more people-power
to market the program rather than tangible and visible things around campus,
such as mugs and pens. The stipends to
faculty remain unchanged. However, the
stipends were increased to the ten faculty who will
pilot the QEP. She added the grant
program for our students because the QEP Leadership team highly recommended
it. The budget has been reduced since
she last met with the Senate. We have
$549,000 to create a fabulous initiative with critical thinking and most of the
money goes to faculty and students with little overhead.
Dr. Ettari asked Dr. Manns to explain
the educator stipends on professional development and assessment.
Dr. Manns said $15,000 is $1,500 per
ten faculty in year one to do the professional development, the assessment and
to bring the Inquiry ARC framework into their courses. These faculty members will also have grant
money available to help them with the projects in class and there is travel
money for students to present their projects.
In subsequent years the allocation will be $1,000 a year for 20 faculty. For the
assessment, we are using the critical thinking disposition test at $9 per test
($9 x 1000 = $9,000). The test will be
administered on moodle and will be graded by the assessment company.
Dr. Subramaniam asked about reassigned
time for the director and for clarification on the travel budget.
Dr. Manns said reassigned time for the
director was increased to half-time: 6 credit hours in both the fall and spring
semesters. The travel budget for the
director is $5,000 per year. The
director will travel to the SACS conferences and will hopefully be presenting
at conferences about the initiative our campus is building.
Dr. Roig asked if there were many
applications for the director’s position.
Dr. Manns did not have any information
on the applications which go directly to the Provost.
Budget
Vice
Chancellor Pierce introduced Mr. Clayton Fogg (director of budget) and said
Clayton has been invaluable in providing financial information and keeping up
with all of the reports to the state.
On
behalf of the Chancellor, Mr. Pierce invited everyone to the holiday party next
Wednesday from 3:00-6:30pm in the Highsmith Union.
At
Dr. Frank’s request, Mr. Pierce provided the academic spending as a percent of
our total general fund spending on an historical perspective for about five
years. The figures from Code 101 for
instruction are remarkably consistent:
2007 2011
Instruction
portion 42% of general fund budget 44% of general fund budget
Institutional
support 14% 14%
Plant
operations 17% 16%
All
other 27% 26%
(“All
other” includes student services, academic support, library, and financial aid)
In
dealing with the budget cuts, we have followed the UPC criteria of trying to
protect the academic core, student experience and things that generate revenue
as best as we could.
Our
plant operation is about 20-30% below the state average and we have not
received funds for repair and renovations (R&R) the last two years. This is frustrating when we need to fix the
roof of Carmichael Hall and the Humanities Lecture Hall, and we need to get rid
of the asbestos in Carmichael Hall. Mark
Mondell from fiscal research visited campus and we explained our situation, but
it is a time of austerity. Last year
there was an 11.8% cut (about $4.6 million), we did not receive $1.6 million in
R&R, and the state ran short of money at the end of last year and we
returned about $1 million. The tuition
increase (which we may or may not receive) will be less than a fifth of the
over $6 million after financial aid which is twenty-five percent. State revenues are up slightly right now but
they have some fairly significant increases built-in in terms of revenues for
the rest of the year. The Medicaid
portion of the budget in the state is one that is constantly under stress.
Mr.
Pierce has been working with the Provost, the Dean of Admissions and others to
match fundraising with our scholarship needs.
We looked at restricted and unrestricted to make sure the dollars are
spent well and that we utilize these resources appropriately.
Discussion
• Dr. Gant
asked where we stand on purchasing the MAHEC building on W.T. Weaver Blvd.
o Mr. Pierce
said we are very close – it will probably take a year before MAHEC relocates to
its new building. The MAHEC building was
in the proposed student fees. The first
floor of the building would be used for student health and counseling. This move puts us in a position where student
health and counseling can be accredited.
The second floor would use non-state appropriated funds for development
and alumni affairs. We would then
relocate campus police from Vance Hall to Weizenblatt Hall. That
would lead us toward accreditation on the police department but keep the police
on campus. Those recommendations came
from the 2007 VA Tech shooting of trying to have both student counseling and
police departments accredited.
• Dr. Kormanik asked, in
terms of percentages, how have the total amount of dollars spendable varied
over the past five years.
o Mr. Pierce said
instruction has increased from about $20.2 million to $24.4 million – about 5.2
percent. The overall expense has
increased from $47.9 million to $55.8 million – 4.2 percent. The instructional part has increased at a
higher percent than the remainder of the spending. Plant operation has increased below 2 percent
and student financial aid is growing at a rapid rate.
• Dr. Kormanik said his
point was that we are talking about a 5-10-15% budget cut, yet the dollars we
are spending every year has been increasing the last five years.
o Mr. Pierce
agreed. We have enrollment growth where
funds come back and in some cases we have building reserves that come
back.
• Ryan Ridenour said SGA
had some concerns about moving the police department.
o Mr. Pierce said this
was debated and there was a little concern about it, but much less so than when
we considered moving it to the second floor of MAHEC. We are moving from roughly 4,000 square feet
in Vance Hall to about 7,000 square feet in Weizenblatt Hall. We have not had enough room for evidence,
interviews, confidentiality and storage.
• Dr. Frank asked if the
Alumni Office is moved to the second floor of the MAHEC building would this be
the first location for parents to come to campus.
o Mr. Pierce said it
could be.
• Dr. Frank said that
would not be a perfect idea. He is
familiar with other campuses and one thing that parents and alumni want to do
is to see where their daughters and sons walk.
This may not be the warmest signal that we can send to our parents and
alumni. They want to be in the middle of
campus. The concept could work but he
urged for caution. At the MAHEC building
parents and alumni do not see the campus, they do not see the library, they do
not see faculty, they do not see the flag, and they do not see the quad. They need to be in the center of attention
when they get to campus and they need to feel that way.
o Mr. Pierce said the
MAHEC building can be an initial point – there are some benefits of having
development and alumni affairs together from the standing point of better
integration towards fundraising. Our
parking has been so frustrating for a lot of people coming to campus and there
is adequate parking at MAHEC. Trying to
make sure that when the alumni come they do get integrated. In our long term master plan we need to make
sure than we are presenting our best foot forward with admissions as well –
this is a point well taken.
IV. Faculty
Welfare and Development Committee Report
Mr. Rob Bowen reported for the Faculty Welfare and
Development Committee.
Committee
update
FWDC
accepted Melissa Smith’s request to step down from ILS-Writing. Dr. Irene Rossell is a current member of the
subcommittee and she has agreed to serve as chair. FWDC will recommend a nominee to replace Dr.
Smith at the January meeting.
First
Reading:
FWDC 2: Merit Categories for Annual Evaluation of
Faculty (Faculty Handbook 3.4.3)
FWDC 3: Annual Evaluation of Chairs and Program
Directors (Faculty Handbook Sections 3.4.4; 3.3.4.; 3.3.5)
FWDC 4: Supplemental Pay Policy (Faculty Handbook Section
2.9.4)
FWDC
5: Proposal
to Eliminate the Library, Information Resources & Technology Committee
(Revision of SD5507S, SD07706F; Faculty Handbook 10.4.4)
FWDC
6: Proposal
to establish the Library and Instructional Technology Committee as a
Standing Committee (Faculty Handbook 10.4.4)
Mr.
Bowen called attention to FWDC 2 and FWDC 3.
These proposals concern merit categories for annual evaluation of
faculty and the annual evaluation of chairs and program directors. These two documents were held up in the
Executive Committee because they are very closely tied to the Tenure and
Rewards System documents which are also under review at this time. A lot of faculty input went into FWDC 2 and
3; they were considered at the chairs meeting and they went to the entire
faculty. Because of this input FWDC
thought the Senate should make this decision.
Response to Tenure and Rewards System
Report
Senators received via email information on Academic Affairs’
response to the Tenure and Rewards System report presented to the Provost’s
Cabinet on October 17, 2011 to read at your leisure. Attention should be given to the proposed
steps and timetable response to the report on Tenure and Rewards System:
• Discussions about the criteria
for reappointment, tenure and promotion to respond to the question: How do
we ensure that we develop and retain the best faculty for UNC Asheville?
•
Discussions
about process safeguards: How do we ensure that the Committee of
Tenured Faculty with rotating faculty members maintains continuity in the
evaluation and decision process?
•
Discussions
leading to a clear definition for “engagement” and how it manifests in
teaching, scholarship, service and related professional activities.
Proposed
action steps need to lead to:
1.
Development at the department level of a clear
set of expectations for reappointment and tenure of faculty at UNC Asheville,
including contributions to the ILS Program, interdisciplinary teaching,
engagement, and other areas central to the wider liberal arts mission of the
University.
2.
Changes
to the annual review of faculty
•
Revisions
to the Faculty Record process and form
• Revisions to the Faculty Handbook
description
3.
Changes to the institutional review of faculty
for reappointment, tenure and promotion
• Revision of sections in the Faculty
Handbook
• Re-instating the Provost’s charge to
the Committee for Tenured Faculty at the start of each year
The
FWDC and the Provost’s Cabinet will begin meeting in January with the intention
of having draft documents prepared for Faculty Senate discussion and review in
May 2012.
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 – November 18, 2011
1.
Chancellor Update
The Thomas Howerton Endowed Professorship in Humanities is complete
and will be advertised soon. A small
astronomy lab/observatory has been proposed near the top of Chestnut
Ridge. A donor is providing the funding
for the entire project. The Board of
Trustees will have to approve the project.
The MAHEC property may be available for acquisition by UNC Asheville. Ideas for using the space include using the
bottom floor (street level) for the health and counseling center currently
housed in Weizenblatt Hall. The second
floor would be used for the office of development and alumni affairs. The property also includes 118 parking spaces. The health and counseling centers can be paid
by a debt service fee for students of about $45 a semester. The space could be available as early as
January 2013. Public safety would move
into Weizenblatt Hall.
2. Social
Sustainability
The Provost
announced that only 7 of 94 standards were in noncompliance for SACS. Of the seven standards, only two will require
substantial work.
3.
QEP Update
Mary Lynn Manns provided an update on the Quality
Enhancement Plan (QEP). The budget for implementing the QEP has been
adjusted to $548,900 over six years. The
budget was revised through input from several sources. Dr. Manns also explained the timeline for
marketing the QEP.
4.
Institutional Effectiveness
Jessica Dunsmore described the work of Institutional Effectiveness
(IE) over the past year. Accomplishments
include having all 95 academic and administrative units with IE plans and a
year of assessment results entered into the TRAC-DAT system. Administrative units will have an annual
reporting cycle. Academic units will
remain on a biennial reporting system.
UNC Asheville is in compliance with SACS institutional effectiveness
requirements.
5.
Benchmark changes for the Dashboard
John Pierce proposed
a new strategic plan benchmark for economic sustainability. The benchmark would be the proportion of
operating expenditures funded by state appropriations. The goal is to increase state funding over
time. UPC will continue discussion of
the proposed benchmark at our next meeting.
Provost Fernandes proposed a change in a benchmark for
undergraduate education. The change
would be replacing the current use of NSSE data that measures the extent of
senior satisfaction with their education with a more objective measure of
student learning provided by the Collegiate Learning Assessment (CLA)
test. The CLA test is a nationally
normalized measure of writing and critical thinking. UPC will review more information about the
CLA tests and continue a discussion on the proposed change at our next
meeting.
Report on Institutional Development
Committee meeting – November 17, 2011
Present: Kevin Moorhead, Gregg Kormanik, Ted Meigs,
Gary Nallan, Melissa Burchard, Eric Gant.
Guests: Archer Gravely, Gwen Ashburn, Jessica Dunsmore
1.
Update on Campus Master Plan
Rob Nelson
provided an update on the campus master plan.
He described the work of the two primary groups that participated in the
process of developing the master plan: a steering committee and the working
group. The main accomplishment of the
working group so far is a set of guiding principles that align with the
strategic plan. The guiding principles
can be found on the web page dedicated to the master plan. The guiding principles articulate our values
and will help guide decision making. The
long-term comprehensive plan may be deferred due to the lack of resources. However, several recommendations will be made
that can be implemented. The short-term
recommendations include 1) provide better signage and way finding on campus, 2)
develop a sustainability plan that includes guidelines for new facilities, 3)
institutionalize governance for making decisions, and, 4) develop plans to
improve the appearance of campus. Dr.
Nelson explained that the past year of work was focused more on process and
that the actual master plan will come later.
IDC members asked a few questions related to signage and improved
lighting for campus safety.
2.
Sophomore Survey
Archer Gravely,
Director of Institutional Research, provided IDC with copies of the recent
sophomore survey that is required every two years. Data from UNC Asheville are compared with the
university system averages. Jessica
Dunsmore explained how Institutional Effectiveness is using the data for IE
plans. IDC discuss several of the
categories of data and Dr. Gravely provided historical context for the data. The information derived from the sophomore
and senior surveys has been used in the past for resource allocation
decisions. We do not use the data
consistently and Dr. Gravely suggested that faculty could use the data to
communicate weaknesses and strengths of the university.
3.
Chestnut Ridge Astronomy Lab/Observatory
Keith Krumpe, Head of Natural Sciences,
explained the recent proposal to build an astronomy lab/observatory at the top
of Chestnut Ridge (at the end of Campus View Drive, also known as the road to Nowhere). Funding
will be provided by the Community Foundation of Western North Carolina on
behalf of the Astronomy Club of Asheville.
A planning group was established to review the merits of the
project. The recommendation from the
planning group for the Board of Trustees was to move the project forward. IDC members Kevin Moorhead and Gregg Kormanik
served on the planning group. The
facility, roughly 600 square feet in area, would be located below the ridge top
and house two 14-inch telescopes. The
facility will not be heated to protect the telescopes and will have a motorized
roof to open the facility for night viewing of the skies. The footprint and the resources required to
operate facility are minimal. IDC
discussed the benefits and potential issues of the observatory. Main concerns were the operating costs,
neighborhood issues, and scheduling of the lab among the many potential
users.
4.
Update of the Joint UNC Asheville/UNC Chapel Hill Medical Degree.
No change in
status at this point.
Discussion
Dr. Reynolds asked if
there was a map to see the proposed observatory site. Dean Krumpe said there is a map but it is not
on the web site. Dr. Reynolds asked if
David Clarke, Jonathan Horton, and Jen Ward are involved in this and aware of
its location. Dean Krumpe said Jen Ward
was a member of the planning group and indicated that she has discussed this in
detail with Jonathan Horton. The site is
below the ridgeline nearer to campus and is not near the research cooperative
activities.
VI. Academic
Policies Committee Reports
Mr. Rob Berls reported for the Academic Policies Committee.
First Reading [Unanimously approved by APC]
The
following documents were considered for first reading:
APC 7: Add Academic
Credit for History International Baccalaureate Exam
APC 8: Add
new course, HIST 309, History of the Old South;
Add
new course, HIST 391, The History of the Atlantic World, 1492-1820
APC
9: Add HIST 309 and 391 to list of
elective options for Africana Studies minor
APC
10: Restore HIST 349 to the catalog
APC
11: Require
Instructor’s Permission to Register for HIST 250, The Historian’s Craft
APC 12: Delete
ENVR /ATMS 331, Principles of Air Pollution;
Replace
ENVR 331 with ENVR 381 in the elective options in the Earth Science
concentration
APC
13: Add new course, ENVR 312, Effects of
Air Pollution on Ecosystems listing it as an option for Ecology Concentration
students
APC
14: Add new courses, ENVR 311, 410, 411;
Add
Mineral Processing as an option for students in the Earth Science Concentration
in ENVR
APC
15: Academic Calendars: 2013-14, 2014-2015
APC
16: Add concentration in K-12 Health and
Physical Education to the HWP major;
Add
K-12 Health and Physical Education to licensure areas
Second Reading [Unanimously approved by APC]
The
following proposals were considered for second reading:
APC 2 Revised: Proposal to amend Class Attendance Policy
Dr. Burchard noted that this proposal no longer says that
absences may affect student grades or academic performance – it says it may
affect student learning. Mr. Berls asked
Mr. Capone to comment. Mr. Capone said
rather than a threat, he suggested wording it more positively. Others agreed that it could have been interpreted
that there would be punitive action taken against the student for missing
class. A number of faculty
do not have an attendance policy – students are not required to come to their
class. But we all know that not
attending lectures, generally speaking, speaks negatively to the ability of the
student to learn. Dean Krumpe said that
was what drove the change – to take it away from a punitive nature in terms of
grades and put it on the shoulders of the students: If you are not in class, that will impact
your learning, but you will not be penalized.
In an editorial correction, the word “days” was deleted under section
2. APC 2 passed as amended without
dissent and became SD0611F.
APC 3: Add
CHEM 132 as pre-requisite for ENVR 364.
APC 3
passed without dissent and became SD0711F.
APC 4: Change description for MLA 670,
Scholarly Inquiry Seminar.
APC 4
passed without dissent and became SD0811F.
APC 5: Change
MCOM 201 from 4 hours to 3 hours; Reduce required
hours for MCOM major and minor
APC 5
passed without dissent and became SD0911F.
APC 6: Change
when Oral Competency will be tested for majors in French
APC 6
passed without dissent and became SD1011F.
VII. Administrative
Reports
Academic Affairs
Update on Diversity Action
Council
Provost
Fernandes said Chancellor Ponder has reconstructed the membership of the
Diversity Action Council (DAC). The
number of students has increased from one to six and she already sees new
energy in the group which includes some new faculty, staff and administrators. Dr. Bill Haggard is now a member; having two
senior staff in the group will make our efforts more university-wide and more
widely embraced and enacted.
Priorities
for DAC: the new director of the
Intercultural Center will start a diversity dialogue initiative spring semester
where hopefully many students, faculty and staff will participate in a variety
of topics in diversity. Last summer we
sponsored a university-wide institute on diversity with trainers from the National
Multicultural Institute. Early next
spring we will have follow-up training with people from our campus to ensure we
have fully understand and are enacting the group’s recommendations.
DAC
has been asked by the Muslim Student Association to sponsor a speaker spring
semester. Dr. Subramaniam and Dr. Katz are working with students and others to
bring the speaker here in a series of learning activities.
DAC
put a lot of work into researching the possibility of equitable benefits for
all employees and it was not very promising.
This issue is deeply ingrained in state law and policies. Dr. Fernandes said she is not an expert on
all of those areas, but in the spring Keith Bramlett, Debra Miles and Chris
Dahlquist can meet with the Senate and explain the research. We will be able to do some minimum level of
initiatives about this issue on our campus.
Shane Snowdon, whom we met at the Queer Conference last year, advised us
to do what we can here.
DAC
will make recommendations for the Curriculum Review Task Force to influence and
maintain an emphasis on diversity in our curriculum.
We
have had some success in attracting diverse candidates in our faculty
searches. Last year about half of the
faculty hired were from underrepresented groups.
Dr.
Fernandes suggested having a more intense dialogue about these issues in the
spring.
Discussion
Dr.
Frank concurred that equitable benefits for all employees is an uphill battle
which is reiterated in Faculty Senates across the system. The activities we do on our campus in the
spring will hopefully set an example that our representatives can take to the
Faculty Assembly, and help to reenergize the campuses out of the feeling that
nothing can ever be done.
SACS update
Dr.
Bruce Larson thanked Ed Katz, Pat McClellan and Patrice Mitchell for their
astonishing work in relation to our SACS reaffirmation activities in addition
to their daily responsibilities.
Senators gave a round of applause.
Dr.
Larson discussed
the SACS Off-Site Team report and noted that we were found to be non-compliant
on only seven standards. Five of these non-compliant standards are either
minor, deal with on-line learning, or have already been resolved. The most problematic issue was the percentage
of terminal degree faculty in one program.
UNC Asheville must also respond to changes made to existing SACS
standards at the December SACS Annual meeting.
Additionally, there are four new federal standards, three of which deal
with on-line learning, and a new requirement on the definition of credit hours.
UNC Asheville responses will be submitted with the Focused Report in February
2012.
Dr. Frank thanked Dr. Larson
for his steadfast work and Senators extended a round of applause.
Student Government
Highlights of Ryan Ridenour’s
report from the Student Government Association (SGA):
SGA
hosted a meeting with the mayor and commissioners of Asheville with Warren
Wilson and other colleges in the area.
They would like to provide more internships and career opportunities for
college students, both while they are still in college and right out of
college.
SGA
is working on planning and assessment for spring; proposing new sustainability
initiatives for the campus and continuing the annual rights week, and starting
our second annual faculty lecture series.
VIII. Old
Business
Ad Hoc Task Force
The FWDC
and the Executive Committee came to an agreement to postpone the work of the ad
hoc task force until after the FWDC has completed reviewing the annual
committee reports. Let Dr. Frank know if
you are interested in serving on the task force.
IX. New
Business
There was no New Business.
X. Adjourn
Dr. Frank thanked everyone for their
hard work, and wished everyone a wonderful holiday season and new year. He adjourned the meeting at 5:12.
(Portions of the minutes are from the UPC meeting: http://www.unca.edu/node/3231)
Respectfully
submitted by: Sandra Gravely
Executive
Committee