THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT ASHEVILLE FACULTY SENATE June 3, 1981 The Faculty Senate met on Wednesday, June 3, 1981 at 2:00 pm in the Library with Dr. John G. Stevens, Chairman, presiding. Members present: Dr. Browning, Dr. Comer, Dr. Greenawalt, Dr. Lang, Dr. Rackham, Dr. Rainey, Dr. Schultz, Dr. Squibb, Dr. Stevens, Dr. Stoughton, Dr. Walker, Dr. Wilson. Excused absences: Dr. Dorr, Dr. Grams, Dr. McCoy, Dr. Otti, Dr. Remington. Visitors: Mrs. Cadle, Dr. Hoyer, Mrs. Nelms, Dr. Seitz. The meeting opened with some general comments from Dr. Stevens about the responsibilities of the Faculty Senate. He drew to the Senate's attention that one of the primary responsibilities of the faculty in a university environment is that of academic matters and this will be one of the prime focus points of this Faculty Senate. This particular role is spelled out in the opening paragraph of the Constitution of the Faculty Senate. He also discussed the procedures that should be followed when submitting anything to the Faculty Senate. A one-week rule was established. This means anyone submitting anything to the Senate should have materials ready and distributed to each Faculty Senate member one week prior to the Senate meeting. The minutes of the May 18, 1981 meeting were approved as published. Reports from Senate Committees Executive Committee - EC Document #1 - Resolution on Faculty Senate Responsibilities - was read; Dr. Rackham made the motion to accept the Document and Dr. Lang seconded the motion. The EC Document #1 was then voted on and approved. EC Document #2 - Proposed Procedure for Approval of New Degree Programs, and Tracks Within Programs - was read; Dr. Comer made the motion to accept the Document and Dr. Squibb seconded the motion. A discussion followed concerning the role of the Institutional Development Committee in the process of submitting a "Request to Plan" a degree program or track. An amendment was proposed by Dr. Comer, and seconded by Dr. Wilson, that the Institutional Development Committee and Faculty Senate should approve this request instead of the APC and the Faculty Senate. The amendment was voted on and approved. An amendment was then proposed by Dr. Walker and seconded by Dr. Stoughton for the APC to review new degree programs or tracks and send their recommendations to the Senate. As it was written before Page 2 the APC had to give their approval prior to submission to the Faculty Senate. Dr. Comer proposed a substitute with Dr. Stoughton seconding. The amendment was in regard to the role of the Chairman of APC as a "liason" between the APC, the proposal drafting committee, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the Chancellor. Dr. Comer's amendment was, "The Chairman of APC will monitor a proposal from the time it is first approved for planning by the UNC General Administration." The amendment was accepted by concensus. The document was then voted on and approved. Dr. Comer proposed a substitute document for the Chancellor's document on the University Research Council. His proposal was in the form of a motion which read, "I move that the Faculty Senate adopt the following statement as its official position on the University Research Council and send such to Chancellor Highsmith with the recommendation that he revise his statement of April 15 in a manner that is consistent with this statement." Dr. Stoughton seconded the motion. Postponing the establishing of the Research Council was discussed, but it was decided that this would be impossible because of the July 1 "start-up" date. Some of the points of Dr. Comer's substitute motion were as follows: 1. A more detailed listing of the responsibilities of the council. 2. Faculty membership being expanded to five in order to include representation from each of the five academic buildings. Dr. Rackham made a motion to table the previous motion until a later time. Dr. Schultz seconded the motion. The motion failed with a four to six decision. Dr. Rainey proposed a substitute motion and Dr. Wilson seconded it. His motion was, "That the Chairman inform the Chancellor that the Senate wishes to submit additional revisions of the University Research Council for his consideration during the coming academic year. These revisions will be submitted because the Senate is dissatisfied with some of the details of the Council, while approved the concept of the Council." This motion was voted on and approved. Research Council The Executive Committee selected eight names, of which four would be selected to serve as members of the University Research Council. These names were: Alan Comer, Lisa Friedenberg, Deryl Howard, Jeff Rackham, Gene Rainey, Mike Ruiz, John Stevens, and Joe Sulock. Two other names were nominated and added to the ballot. These were: Ted Uldricks, nominated by Dr. Walker and seconded by Dr. Stoughton; Denise Hoyer, nominated by Dr. Stoughton and seconded by Dr. Rainey. The result of the ballot is as follows: Humanities - Ted Uldricks, Social Science - Denise Hoyer, Sciences - John Stevens, member at large - Alan Comer. Page 3 Report of APC The request to establish a Computer Science Program was submitted to the Senate and moved for approval by Dr. Browning. It was seconded by Dr. Wilson. Dr. Lang had previously submitted this request to the APC. During some discussion it was explained that the management track had been dropped from the program that had been discussed earlier because we were only given approval of the planning stage for a general program in Computer Science. Students can elect to take business or science courses as their electives. Some concern was shown regarding the proper funding of this program. Dr. Walker proposed an amendment for "Only on the condition that adequate funding be provided. Adequate funding is defined as that called for in the proposal," to be added to the present document. Dr. Stoughton seconded this motion. Discussion followed which compared the advisability of Dr. Walker's amendment versus the original APC wording. This amendment was withdrawn by Dr. Walker and replaced by another, which gives the Faculty Senate partial responsibility in deciding when the Institution is able to meet its academic responsibilities to students who wish to major in computer science at UNC-Asheville. This amendment was voted on and approved. The document was then voted on and accepted. Additional Reports from the APC The APC is going to make a review of the Communications Program and the Environmental Studies Program. Institutional Development Committee Dr. Stoughton gave a brief report on the IDC. They are examining their role in the updating of the five-year plan; also, reviewing the Student Evaluation of the faculty. These are now being discussed with Dr. Dorr. Dr. Stevens informed the Senate of his absence for the rest of the summer and advised them that if it became necessary, to continue having meetings without him. No other business was discussed and the meeting was recessed at 4:40 pm.