FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, March 17, 2011
Members: R. Berls, R. Bowen, G. Ettari, V. Frank, E. Gant, G. Kormanik, B. Larson, T. Meigs, S. Mills, K. Moorhead, G. Nallan, L. Nelms, K. Reynolds, L. Russell, B. Schaffer, S. Subramaniam; J. Fernandes.
Excused: G. Boudreaux, M. Sidelnick.
Visitors: G. Ashburn, J. Berryhill, P. Catterfeld, E. Katz, J. Konz, K. Krumpe, L. Langrall, M.L. Manns, P. McClellan, R. Pente, A. Shope.
I. Call to Order and Announcements
Dr. Frank called the meeting to order 3:16 pm and welcomed senators and guests.
II. Approval of minutes
The minutes of February 10, 2011, were approved one editorial correction.
III. Executive Committee (EC) Report
Dr. Volker Frank reported for the Executive Committee.
Vice Chancellor Pierce response to question
Dr. Frank said at the last Senate meeting that some senators had wanted to know what will happen in facilities management with Steve Baxley's impending departure. They were concerned that new
building(s) will have flaws characteristic in buildings built when there was not a knowledgeable person who could discern problems inherent to the construction process, i.e. Lipinsky, Zageir, Rhoades, Carmichael.
Vice Chancellor Pierce’s response follows:
The two main areas of Facilities Management, Design and Construction (Don Gordon), and Facilities Management (David Todd) will directly report to me. Don has 30+ years of experience with designing/building large capital projects, most recently at Cornell University, and came to UNC Asheville in May, 2008. David Todd has been with UNC Asheville since July 1, 2002 and has been overseeing the day to day Facilities Management since then.
Don, from a Design and Construction side, and David, from an operations side, are fully capable of addressing the concerns that you indicate certain senators have relating to the construction process, or the resulting operational considerations. If you have specific concerns or questions, you can contact David at extension 6380 or firstname.lastname@example.org, or Don at extension 6695 or email@example.com.
I have begun meeting with the Campus Operations group daily, and this can, as well, help to quickly address concerns. Going forward, I intend to have a collaborative approach to addressing any issues relating to construction or ongoing facility operations, and would welcome any further feedback.
Curriculum Task Force
Dr. Frank said the first meeting of the entire Curriculum Task Force will be held tomorrow. After receiving feedback from 65 colleagues, approximately thirty have volunteered to serve on this university-wide project. He hopes to accomplish this challenging task in a reasonable time and will keep the Senate, department chairs and program directors informed of its progress.
IV. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee
Dr. Gary Ettari reported for the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee.
The Senate approved a slate of nominees for the Academic Appeals Board ballot:
Karen Cole Megan Wolfe Micheal Stratton Alice Weldon
Noah Allen Cathy Pons Blake Hobby Tracy Brown
4: Revision to Reassigned Time for
First-time MLA Teaching (Faculty Handbook 184.108.40.206.1)
FWDC 5: Clarification to Post-Tenure Review Procedures
(Revision of SD0709F, Faculty Handbook 3.7)
FWDC 6: Removal of Administrative Withdrawal of Students who have not Fulfilled Prerequisites
(Faculty Handbook 220.127.116.11.4) (Revision of SD0589F)
FWDC 7: Proposal to Establish the Key Center Advisory Committee as a Standing Committee
FWDC 8: Editorial Changes to Section 2 of the Faculty Handbook
FWDC 9: Editorial Changes to Section 3 of the Faculty Handbook
Dr. Ettari briefly explained the proposals and asked senators to carefully review changes to the Faculty Handbook in FWDC 8 and FWDC 9.
The order of business was modified.
VI. Academic Policies Committee
Mr. Rob Berls reported for the Academic Policies Committee.
Mr. Berls said he was looking to clarify advising for faculty and students by adding a drop down menu box that would list curriculum changes unanimously approved by APC, but not yet approved by the Senate. He asked for opinions/advice from senators. Mr. Bowen supported this option.
First Reading [Unanimously approved by APC]
APC 19: Change the grading on EDUC 211 to Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory
APC 20: Changes to the 9-12 Social Studies Licensure Program
APC 21: Change titles and descriptions for EDUC 317, 322, 325, 340, 344, 388
APC 22: Add EDUC 215, 219, 220 and 326
APC 23: Delete EDUC 318 and EDUC 345
APC 24: Editorial Changes to K-6 Licensure Program
APC 25: Replace EDUC 314 with EDUC 320 for K-12 Art Licensure
APC 26: Change required Art courses for Art with Teacher Licensure
APC 27: Changes to Language Arts and Social Studies requirements for Middle School Licensure
APC 28: Add ART 401, B.A. Seminar II; Change title of ART 400 to reflect addition of new course;
Add ART 401 to required courses for B.A. in Studio Art and Teacher Licensure;
Replace ART 400 with 401 as course that satisfies competency requirements for B.A. Art students
APC 29: Reduce the number of required hours for the B.F.A. in Art
APC 30: Change LS 479 from 3 credit hours to 4
APC 31: Change oral and computer competencies in Art History from ARTH 480 to ARTH 484, Senior Research Seminar I
APC 32: Allow total of 8 units to count for Studio Art minor for the Art History concentration and adjust required courses
APC 33: Replace PHYS 402 with PHYS 310 in course requirement for Physics with Teacher Licensure
APC 34: Adding concentration in Physics with Comprehensive Science Licensure
APC 35: Add new course, ANTH 338, Anthropology of the ‘New’ Old Europe
APC 37: Add new course, MMAS 144
APC 38: Renumber MMAS 342 to 242
APC 39: Change prerequisites for MMAS 222, 322, 450
APC 40: Delete the Foundation, and Aesthetics and Social Awareness areas in MMAS
APC 41: Add STAT 185 as an option for the Math requirement in MMAS
APC 42: Remove CSCI 344 and MMAS 332 as options in the Interactive Design emphasis area in MMAS;
APC 43: Change to Major and Minor requirements in MMAS
APC 44: Add new course, MCOM 387, Issues in Film Study; Add new course, MCOM 497, Senior Seminar for Commercial Media
APC 45: Delete MCOM 345 and replace with MCOM 346; Change title, credit hours and prerequisites for MCOM/LANG 367
APC 46: Change title, credit hours, and prerequisites for MCOM 327, 329; Change titles, credit hours and descriptions, for MCOM 351, 353
APC 47: Add new workshops for Commercial Media, MCOM 302 and 304
APC 48: Delete MCOM 311; Add S/U grading and allow for repeats in MCOM 301; Change title and description for MCOM 313
APC 49: Delete VMP 305; Add repeat option for VMP 303; Change title and description for VMP 307
APC 50: Change credit hours and prerequisites for MCOM 341, 369, 421, 483, 498
APC 51: Change credit hours and prerequisites for VMP 331, 359, 385, 437, 493
APC 52: Change core requirements for Mass Communication Majors
APC 53: Change Concentration Requirements for Mass Communication Major
[Passed APC by 3 to 1 vote]
APC 36: Change the name of Multimedia Arts and Sciences to New Media
Minor [proposals considered minor by APC]
APC 54: Change Requirements for Mass Communication Minor
APC 55: Changes in Mass Communication Program Description
APC 56: Delete VMP 207 and 209; Add/reinstate VMP205
APC 57: Delete MCOM 384, Contemporary Views of American Media; Delete VMP 333, Broadcast Workshop; Delete VMP 439, Media Production Techniques; Delete VMP 485, Advanced Screenwriting
APC 58: Delete Concentration in Communication Research in Mass Communication
APC 59: Change requirements for declaring a major in Mass Communication
Second Reading: [Unanimously approved by APC]
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
Dr. Larson asked if there was any connection between APC 11 and APC 12 and FWDC 7.
Dr. Berryhill said yes: APC 11 and APC 12 more accurately reflect the mission and work of the Key Center. They do not affect course offerings, but will provide faculty, staff and students information about new academic opportunities (i.e., the Service-Learning Designated courses, as well as the Community Engaged Scholar distinction). In FWDC 7, the Key Center Advisory Committee would oversee and support both the creation of SL designated courses and the academic honor of Community Engaged Scholar.
APC 11: Creation of Community Engaged Scholar Distinction for Graduating Students
APC 11 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 1811S.
APC 12: Change in the description of the Key Center for Community Citizenship and Service Learning; Formalize the designation of Service-Learning Courses
APC 12 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 1911S
APC 13: Delete CSCI 142
APC 13 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2011S
APC 14: Delete CSCI 201; Add new courses, CSCI 181 and CSCI 182
APC 14 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2111S
APC 15: Changes to required courses for CSCI major and minor
APC 15 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2211S
APC 16: Replace CSCI 244 with CSCI 185
APC 16 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2311S
APC 17: Change prerequisites in the course descriptions for CSCI 202, 255, 310, 344
APC 17 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2411S
APC 18: Editorial changes resulting from changes to CSCI courses
APC 18 passed without dissent and became Senate Document 2511S
V. Institutional Development Committee/University Planning Council Reports
University Planning Committee (UPC)
Highlights of the last UPC meeting:
• UPC received an overview of UNC Asheville’s efforts to comply with SACS institution effectiveness requirements and was introduced to Dr. Jessica Dunsmore, Director of Institutional Effectiveness.
• For the 2009-11 cycle, we should have 100% participation in the institutional effectiveness unit planning for both academic and administration units.
• Christine Riley reviewed the Strategic Plan Dashboard.
o As part of the UPC report, Ms. Nelms displayed the Dashboard to the Senate. She reported that the Dashboard was reviewed formally by the Board of Trustees in December and the UPC reviews it annually. She discussed the definition of targets for a number of benchmarks and encouraged faculty to review it when they can take more time: (http://www2.unca.edu/spcms2/index.html#.
• Dr. Larson presented an update on the SACS reaffirmation process. Dr. Manns gave an update on the QEP process from its inception to the present time.
The Chancellor and Ms. Nelms each read statements relating to the recent staff
reductions in force made in response to the budget crisis. Both statements may be seen at: http://www.unca.edu/node/2347.
Ms. Nelms statement says that the values that we celebrate as a school are founded in the liberal arts and those values include critical thinking, which implies the free exchange of ideas and respect for the opinions of others. She has asked for an ability to ask questions and get answers. One place that faculty can ask questions and hopefully get answers is in the Faculty Senate, especially in the areas of New Business and Old Business. We have made limited use of these areas this year; we should consider this opportunity to explore other ideas as we move forward.
The Chancellor gave a statement that addresses the stress that we have faced as a university and the goals that continue to drive us. She addressed the role that UPC and others have played in trying to deal and cope with the stress of budget cutbacks.
• Dr. Kormanik asked if there is an opportunity to provide an explanation and put the benchmarks in context of why we may not be where we want to be by pointing out our progress in the larger picture. For example we are ranked highly in the state in terms of energy consumption, but the dashboard just reflects that we want to do even better. He does not want the data to be misinterpreted.
§ Ms. Nelms said the Dashboard is an amplification of the strategic plan. She will ask Mr. Kuhlman if it is possible to include some explanatory information.
N.B. Some of the wording of this report is taken
from the minutes of the UPC meeting: http://www.unca.edu/node/2347
Institutional Development Committee (IDC)
There was no report from the Institutional Development Committee. Because of Spring Break, it has not met since the last Faculty Senate meeting.
VII. Administrative Reports
Revision of Annual Evaluation Procedures (Faculty Handbook 3.4.1-2)
Dean Jeff Konz said in reviewing the Faculty Handbook in preparation for the upcoming SACS reaffirmation, it became clear that our annual evaluation procedures in section 3.4.1-2 needed revision and clarification. After consultation with FWDC and department chairs/program directors the procedures have been revised so that:
· The timeline for each stage of the process is well-defined. This revision specifies dates for action by the Chair and the Dean as well. Faculty records will be due to Department Chairs on May 15 each year, approximately one week after Spring commencement. Chairs submit their evaluations by June 15, and Deans provide the final evaluation by September 15.
· The Program Area Dean will provide the final merit evaluation and salary recommendation rather than the Provost. The Deans will work together to ensure consistency of standards across program areas.
The Provost will serve as
an appeal to the Dean's recommendation.
In the past, there was no formal appeal process.
· Dr. Russell said during a department meeting someone raised the question that one of the values of having the reports viewed from the provost’s position is that it allowed comparison across the different program areas. Is there a mechanism in place with this procedure whereby the deans, through exchange of information, can make sure that there is no disparity between the way the records are being judged in the different areas?
o Dean Konz said there are two concerns: consistency of standards and the value lost in the provost no longer reading all faculty records every year. On the issue of consistency of standards, the deans plan on having a conversation among themselves (and possibly including the provost if we can all gather together) to talk about what we mean by merit, high merit, and exceptional. They will also come up with definitions of these categories that translate across the program areas so there is consistency across program areas.
· Dr. Russell asked: so those conversations would be part of the procedure that would happen on an annual basis?
o Dean Konz said he did not know if it would be annual. We intend on having this conversation this spring before we receive the records this year.
· Dr. Frank said in three or four years the deans should look at how they evaluated and what they can learn from it.
o One informal check Dean Konz can envision being meaningful is not in the annual evaluation process but in the personnel review process, in which the provost will see records of faculty over time. While it will not be all of the faculty at once, over time the provost will see faculty records for all faculty, allowing the provost to identify discrepancies if they exist across the program areas. This is additional information that can feed into the process to make sure there is some consistency of standards.
· Dr. Kormanik said he would like to see the deans look at the relative distribution of merit, high merit, and exceptional merit.
Dr. Mary Lynn Manns read from the working draft of our QEP: “The QEP will provide students with opportunities to enhance their critical thinking and written communication skills through inquiry-action-impact-reflection (IAIR) experiences”. The QEP work is still right on schedule in the timeline we planned this past summer. Focus Group sessions, open to the whole campus, will be held on March 21 at 12:15pm in Laurel Forum and on April 12 at 4:00pm in the Laurel Forum. More details are available on the QEP website.
The mini focus group discussion has been postponed until the April 7 when the QEP Leadership Team will have worked out more details for our QEP-- this will allow the team to get more useful feedback from the Faculty Senate.
VIII. Old Business
Academic Freedom Resolution
Dr. Gary Nallan reported that the Faculty Senates at the following schools passed a resolution on academic freedom: East Carolina University, Chapel Hill, Appalachian State, Winston Salem State, NC School of the Arts, UNC Wilmington, UNC Greensboro, UNC Charlotte, NC Central, NC A & T, and UNC Asheville. To our knowledge, we are the only school that has received feedback from the administration.
IX. New Business
Remarks from Dr. Gary Nallan
I have grave concerns about our Provost, VCAA, Chief Academic Officer, Dr. Jane Fernandes. This will focus on her treatment of Dr. Scott Walters, but my concerns are also how she has treated other members of the faculty, including myself. I will have to digress before I get to the situation concerning Dr. Walters, so please bear with me.
Please know that I have spoken with Dr. Walters about his matter, and I have written permission from him for the Senate to discuss this matter fully today. This is therefore not a confidential personnel matter.
I take very seriously the important responsibilities I have as a member of the Faculty Senate, and I am certain that every Senator at this table feels exactly the same way.
I will now quote from the Faculty Handbook, in the Section concerning the Faculty Senate Constitution, regarding two of those responsibilities. This is from 14.11.1:
The Faculty Senate has the responsibility to:
l) Establish reappointment, promotion, and tenure policies and regulations.
q) Maintain and promote the welfare of all members of the University Community.
Regarding promotion consideration: It is clearly articulated in the Faculty Handbook that a candidate for promotion submit materials to the dept chair for consideration by the Chair as well as the tenured members of the dept. The chair then makes a recommendation. And then, the whole matter is considered by the elected members of the Tenure Committee, and the VCAA.
Dr. Walters recently sent out an Email on the unca-forum. This, in my opinion, was protected free-speech. After all, the forum is a place people elect to receive Email from, or not.
Dr. Walters has shared with me the certified letter he received from Dr. Fernandes about this matter. She outlined three punishment consequences:
1) She will not appoint Dr. Walters as Chair of the Drama dept;
2) She will not approve Promotion of Dr. Walters to Professor; and
3) Until further notice, he has to submit his grades to his dept chair for scrutiny for arbitrariness.
The Statement by Dr. Fernandes concerning Promotion of Dr. Walters is a clear violation of our standards of Promotion, and again, the Faculty Senate has the responsibility to establish the policies and regulations.
I suggest three things:
1) That Dr. Fernandes send Dr. Walters a written apology;
2) That Dr. Fernandes consider resigning as our Provost, VCAA, and Chief Academic Officer and,
3) That the FWDC discuss these matters.
Dr. Ettari said he would put this on the FWDC agenda. Dr. Nallan suggested that FWDC consider inviting Dr. Walters to the meeting.
Dr. Frank adjourned the meeting at 4:20 pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely