WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE MEETING MINUTES
Date: October 17, 2002
Taft Botner Room (Killian 104)
(Kolenbrander & Pennington)
1. The outcome of the budget is better than expected. We are a "focused growth" institution. We will receive money for growth that will be equal to or larger than the general cuts to the budget. The Legislature may tell us how the money will be distributed. The Board of Governors has stated that raises are to be for equity and market driven.
2. The use of local tuition needs to be clarified. Visiting lecturers are approved. We are working within the state rules and will put this into effect as soon as possible.
3. The Student Personnel Program was approved.
4. The recreation center was approved.
5. We have permission to recruit out-of-state students for teacher education. These students would pay in-state tuition with the promise to teach in NC schools.
NOTES FROM FACULTY ASSEMBLY FOR SEPTEMBER 15, 2002
Below you'll find a short summary of discussions we thought of greatest concern for the WCU community at the last session, along with links to the web pages for the Faculty Senate and the Office of the President for you to read more.
These notes are not the official assembly minutes. You can read the official minutes at http://www.uncwil.edu/facassembly/minutes.htm.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE
BUDGET AND FINANCE
PLANNING, GLOBAL ISSUES, AND THE HOMELAND SECURITY ACT
ACCESS, RECRUITMENT, RETENTION
BOARD OF GOVERNORS RESOLUTION PRAISING ASSEMBLY AND FACULTY
COMMITTEE PRIORITIES FOR THIS YEAR
D. Lex Davis, SGA President
SGA discussed the following issues:
1. Working with Political Science Department concerning the upcoming election.
2. The calendar.
3. A safety walk will be conducted 10/18/02 and the results will be added to the University safety walk results. Suggestions fro improvement will also be made.
E. Keith Stiles, Staff Forum Chair: No report.
F. Nancy Dillard, University Advisory Council Chair
The Council discussed the following issues:
1. Student housing issues. The UAC requested input/comments from faculty about student housing.
2. The use social security numbers for ID will become a non-issue when the computer center installs a software program that will allow for the generation of an ID number not related to the SS number. This happening now.
G. Newt Smith, Chair of Faculty
1. The technology item on the agenda is there in part as a result of the information gathered at EDUCAUSE. WCU was an early technology adopter, but we are slipping from our cutting edge place. We need to discuss what is the role of the faculty in teaching and learning with technology.
2. Paul Voight sent the following letter concerning the old assessment tool.
Regarding your suggestion at the General Faculty Meeting this fall that Faculty be utilized more in campus issues, I have an area which Faculty might consider providing input/expertise.
Our office handles the 'cafeteria' forms for faculty evaluations, for those departments who do not do their own evaluations.
The computer program we utilize to generate and compile these cafeteria forms was written in 1974, by the then Director of University Planning Ken Wood. We have several problems with this program now.
1) It is to the point our office cannot support the program, since the author is long since retired. The folks in our office have a very limited knowledge of the program and are not able to insure its continued operation. Essentially, this program could crash at any time, and we would not have the ability to resurrect it. Thus, we would have no ability to generate faculty evaluations for the bulk of the departments on campus.
2) It is my understanding that this program does not meet the needs of many departments in providing the evaluation they desire. This is related to the inflexibility of the program in regards to being able to customize the questions.
3) This program was not written by our computer center (ITS), and so is not supported by them.
In sum, this program is a dinosaur, could go belly up at any time, and there's nothing we can do about it. Plus, if it does crash, it would be an unwise use of resources to try and get it going again.
Here's where the faculty come in. They could research what programs are currently available on the market to meet our faculty evaluation needs. There may even be other institutions that have programs that would meet our needs. Going to a privately-developed program would also solve our support needs, as most software these days is supported by the vendor. In addition, this would give faculty/departments the chance to make a recommendation for a new system and thus get a system that will meet their needs. Plus, from a budgeting standpoint, I think it would behoove the university to at least begin looking at this since it is not a matter if, but when, we will need a new system for cafeteria forms.
Just let me know if you'd like to discuss further as we'd be glad to provide any information you need on our current status with this issue.
H. Roll Call
Members present: Abel, M., Adams, M., Atterholt, C., Banerjee, D., Beam, R., Caruso, R. Collings, R., Graham, G., Hale, D., Kneller, P., Kolenbrander, N., Mercer, G., Metcalf, C., Noel, R., Oran, T., Pennington, K., Philyaw,S., Proffit, A., Shults, B., Smith, N., Starr, K., Tholkes. B., Vihnanek, E., Wooten, C.
Members with proxies: Bauer, K., Bell, B., Henderson, B., Kane, H., Lunnen, K., Mallory, J., Wallace, J.
Members absent: Bardo, J. Huff, M., Spencer, A.
II. Old Business
Motion to accept the roster of council and subcommittee members
( Philyaw & Proffitt)
III. COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Faculty Affairs, Gael Graham Chair
1. Motion to make part-time faculty salaries available to public by creating a list to attach to the BD119.
(Graham & Philyaw)
Discussion & Questions:
b. An alphabetical listing of all part-time faculty salaries can be created each semester.
2. The Council is working on defining a full-time faculty work load.
B. Council on Instruction and Curriculum, Scott Philyaw, Chair
1. Council reviewed a special studies curriculum for a student in the Honors College.
2. Discussed hours required for major and minor programs. Should a minor be required? How should course wavers be used?
3. How should adjunct and full-time faculty be rewarded for teaching first year students? The Council is seeking input from the faculty.
Teaching first year students is hard work . It is much more difficult and requires tremendous preparation.
A feedback/ assessment tool is needed for each class.
The Liberal Studies Over-site Committee is concerned with the academic/intellectual level of courses and is working to increase the intellectual climate of the university community.
There may be some money for department operating budgets that could support lower level course needs.
Something other than lip service needs to be done.
4. Is the Faculty aware of the "Gretchen Bataille" letter? Are Faculty aware of how students perceive their courses? The Liberal Studies Committee is concerned about the academic level of courses and is working to make the climate of the courses more intellectual.
C. Council on Student Affairs, Dabisish Banerjee, Chair
1. Senate Restructuring Task Force, Casey Hurley
This report covers AFE, TPR and PTR.
The procedures of the Task Force were outlined. Casey looked at the Code and the Faculty Handbook. The information is long and confusing. The Task Force began its review and found a need for significant change. The report is for information and discussion.
EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER VI OF THE CODE OF THE UNC SYSTEM
ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND TENURE
SECTION 602. ACADEMIC TENURE. (Approved by the UNC Board of Governors, April 2, 1976)
(1) To promote and protect the academic freedom of its faculty, the Board of Trustees of each constituent institution shall adopt policies and regulations governing academic tenure. Policies adopted by a Board of Trustees regarding academic tenure and promotion shall be effective upon review by the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and the Vice President and General Counsel, and approved by the President.
This section says each BOT shall adopt TPR policies and procedures, which must be approved by the UNC President.
(2) In all instances, the tenure conferred on a faculty member is held with reference to employment by a constituent institution, rather than to employment by the University of North Carolina.
This section says that tenure is granted by each institution, not the system.
(3) The tenure policies and regulations of each constituent institution shall prescribe the procedures by which decisions concerning appointment, reappointment, promotion, and the conferral of permanent tenure shall be made. The length of terms of appointment that do not carry permanent tenure and those faculty ranks or titles whose holders shall be eligible for permanent tenure shall be prescribed. The institutional policies and regulations also shall prescribe the intervals at which the review of candidates for reappointment and promotion, including the conferral of permanent tenure, shall occur. The tenure policies and regulations of each institution, which shall include the complete text of Chapter VI of The Code, shall be published by the institution and distributed to its faculty members.
Things that shall be in BOT policies and procedures:
It also says that each institution shall publish and distribute a copy of Chapter VI of The Code to faculty members.
(4) The tenure policies and regulations of each institution shall set forth the general considerations upon which appointment, reappointment, promotion, and permanent tenure are to be recommended. The institutional regulations shall provide that these considerations shall include an assessment of at least the following: the faculty member's demonstrated professional competence, the faculty members potential for future contribution, and institutional needs and resources.
So, up to this point we have the following assessment areas for the TPR of UNC faculty:
An assessment of the faculty member's
And an assessment of the
The first two are designed to guide the collegial review process, but I did not find them helpful. Therefore, I went to the WCU Faculty Handbook.
EXCERPTS FROM SECTION 4.02 OF THE WCU FACULTY HANDBOOK
4.02 Guidelines for Conferral of Academic Rank, Promotion, and Tenure
More than 80% of this section repeats what is in The Code, probably because The Code states:
The tenure policies and regulations of each institution, which shall include the complete text of Chapter VI of The Code, shall be published by the institution and distributed to its faculty members.
Following are the sections of 4.02, which provide additional standards, policies, or procedures to guide the faculty collegial review process. These are sections that appear to be specific to WCU.
In Section III, entitled, "Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Permanent Tenure Faculty at Western Carolina University," we find the following standards, policy, or procedure language:
While academic tenure may be withheld on any grounds other than those specifically stated to be impermissible under Section V, its conferral requires an assessment of the faculty member's demonstrated professional competence, the faculty member's potential for future contribution, the faculty member's commitment to effective teaching, research, and public service.
In Section D, entitled, "Consideration in the Appointment"
When recommendations and decisions on appointment, reappointment, promotion, and permanent tenure are made, at least the following considerations must be assessed: The faculty member's demonstrated professional competence and potential for future contribution, and the needs and resources of the institution.
"the faculty member's commitment to effective teaching, research, and public service." Is a new, slightly more specific standard to guide the collegial review process.
The "commitment" word, however, may create more confusion than clarity; but this is what we say on P. 50 of the Faculty Handbook.
Faculty appointments shall be of three kinds: Appointments with permanent tenure, probationary appointments, and fixed-term appointments. All recommendations for initial, full-time appointments shall be made by the department head after consultation with the departmental advisory committee.
In Section D, entitled, "Consideration in the Appointment"
Departmental and college criteria shall be submitted annually for approval by the appropriate dean and the vice chancellor for academic affairs. Detailed minimal criteria and standards are found in the current Faculty Handbook and are available from the departments and colleges. The criteria to be used shall be those in effect when the candidate is considered.
In Section L, entitled, "The Role of Administrators"
Administrators will have the following responsibilities in the appointment, reappointment, promotion, and tenure granting process:
1. To serve as nonvoting chairs of their respective tenure and promotion committees.
2. After consulting with their respective tenure and promotion committees, to make recommendations to the next administrative level on appointment, reappointment, nonreappointment, promotion, and permanent tenure.
3. To notify the faculty member by a simple, unelaborated statement whether a positive or negative recommendation was made by the administrator with respect to the faculty member's reappointment, promotion, and/or permanent tenure.
4. To forward their recommendations and their committee's report as written by the elected secretary, including the results of the committee's votes, to the next higher level.
5. To review and approve or disapprove the tenure and promotion criteria and standards of departments.
6. To provide tenure and promotion advisory committees with the written minimal criteria and standards of departments and the information they have which will aid the committees in their advisory roles.
7. To make recommendations for prior service credit on the probationary period. Prior to the initial probationary appointment at Western Carolina University, and upon the recommendation of the concerned departmental advisory committee and departmental head, credit for prior service may be granted by the vice chancellor for academic affairs to be applied against the faculty member's probationary period. The extent of such credit shall be noted in the faculty member's
M. If the chancellor concurs in a recommendation that will confer permanent tenure, the chancellor shall consult with the Board of Trustees and, unless dissuaded, forward the recommendation to the president and Board of Governors for final approval. All other favorable recommendations by the chancellor in regard to appointments, reappointments, and promotions shall be forwarded to the Board of Trustees for final approval unless that Board delegates the authority to give final approval.
I had three problems with this procedural language:
(1) I cannot find "Detailed minimal criteria and standards," in the HB, and some departments and colleges do not have "Detailed minimal criteria and standards." My own department is one.
1. Appointments with permanent Tenure
An appointment with permanent tenure is a continuing appointment to a professorial rank that is not affected by changes in such rank and continues until ended by resignation, by retirement, or by approved procedures as provided in Sections IV and VIII of this document and in Sections 603 and 605 of The Code of The University of North Carolina. Only faculty members at the ranks of assistant professor, associate professor, and professor are eligible for permanent tenure.
Administrative personnel with professorial rank shall be eligible for permanent tenure in rank as faculty members but not in their administrative positions. Although criteria may vary, an administrative officer shall be recommended for permanent tenure by the same procedure prescribed for other faculty members, i.e., a recommendation must originate within the faculty
member's academic department and receive consideration by the appropriate dean and the vice-chancellor for academic affairs. Faculty members with permanent tenure who are appointed to administrative positions shall retain tenure in the academic rank.
2. Probationary Appointments
a. A probationary appointment is a trial-period appointment which has as its major purpose the determination of the suitability of the faculty member for a permanent-tenure appointment, consistent with the provisions of Section 604 (4) of The Code of The University of North Carolina.
b. The maximum probationary period shall be seven years of continuous, full-time service at Western Carolina University. Faculty members whose probationary service has extended into the sixth year must be given in that year notice of either (1) an offer of a terminal appointment of one academic year, or (2) a recommendation for permanent tenure.
c. The probationary appointment period is normally a one-year appointment which is renewable at the option of the university. However, the chancellor may under unusual circumstances authorize a probationary appointment for a period not to exceed three years.
d. The review of probationary appointees must be conducted on a schedule that permits the timely notice requirements in Section III H to be observed.
e. When awarded, permanent tenure shall become effective at the beginning of the academic year following the academic year in which the recommendation was made.
f. The chancellor, after the regular consultation and review, may recommend the award of permanent tenure prior to the completion of six years of probationary service.
g. Permanent tenure may be conferred only by action of the president and the Board of Governors, or by such other agencies or officers as may be delegated such authority by the Board of Governors. The award of permanent tenure by the president and the Board of Governors shall refer to tenure at Western Carolina University and not to The University of North Carolina.
Sections e, f, and g are about awarding tenure, not about probationary appointments, so they should be under "Appointments of Permanent Tenure." Poor organization and inconsistency are the norm, not the exception, in Section 4.02 of our handbook.
In Section D, entitled, "Consideration in the Appointment"
In making recommendations and decisions, administrators and committees shall use criteria and standards recommended by the faculty and approved by the chancellor and shall comply with all applicable requirements of The Code. General guidelines for colleges and departments to use in preparing criteria will be set forth by the chancellor upon the recommendation of the University Tenure and Promotion Committee.
Each year department heads receive a memo from the VCAA with the subject "Tenure, Promotion, and Reappointment and Annual Faculty Evaluation Processes. These guidelines are not clear, helpful, or user friendly for three reasons: (1) The language waffles between legalistic restrictions and requirements and "suggestions" to candidates. (2) The TPR document contains two headings -- General Guidelines and Contents of Files for Candidates. Both sections are lengthy, and mix directions to the candidates, with directions to TPR committees and department heads. (3) Appropriate forms are not included where they would be helpful.
In other words, what is supposed to be a "guidelines" document is actually a confusing, unnecessarily lengthy, document; which "warns" candidates, "asks" candidates, and "specifies" to a great extent without providing the forms that would help the candidate complete the process.
Section K, entitled, "Tenure and Promotion Advisory Committees"
Detailed procedures for forming advisory committees at the departmental, college, and university-wide level shall be recommended by the faculty and approved by the chancellor. These procedures shall include how committees at each level are to be composed, procedures governing committee functions, responsibilities, and role.
We have a detailed explanation of these committees --their makeup and their roles -- in Section 4.02, Subsection VI, of the WCU Faculty Handbook.
In an "Addendum to the 'Guidelines for Conferral for Academic Rank, Promotion, and Tenure'" adopted by the BOG on February 9, 1979, we have the following additional guidelines governing the TPR process.
Section I. Preamble
Considerations and recommendations for tenure and promotion should be based on published criteria and should be applied equitably within the total university. It should be understood that the requirements that follow will serve as guidelines, rather than absolute criteria, for tenure and promotion considerations. Requirements may be waived in exceptional cases where individuals demonstrate unusually high competence and make highly significant contributions to the university.
Section II. Purposes of Academic Rank
A. To encourage the development of professional excellence on the part of individual faculty members.
B. To give a basis for stability that is derived from a clear understanding of one's status and how it is changed.
C. To establish a scale of economic compensation commensurate with level of work and responsibilities.
D. To develop an appealing program for recruiting and for maintaining an excellent faculty.
Section III. Criteria for the Conferral of Academic Rank, Promotion, and Tenure
The appointment of an individual to an academic rank, promotion to a higher rank, and the award of permanent tenure require consideration of the following criteria as appropriate to the disciplines and responsibilities of each individual:
A. Earned academic degrees.
B. Professional preparation and experience.
C. Quality and effectiveness of teaching.
D. Evidence of professional development.
1. Research and/or publications.
2. Creative works and projects.
3. Professional activity including participation, contributions, or recognition of achievement.
4. Other evidence of professional growth and leadership.
E. Quality of role in, and special contributions to institutional affairs.
1. Off-campus instruction and regional service.
2. Work with students.
3. University activities at the departmental, college, and university levels.
F. Promise for sustained future professional achievement.
G. Institutional needs and resources.
All recommendations must be based on approved departmental criteria, and each departmental recommendation must be accompanied by evidence that all the relevant criteria have been met. Complete credentials must be on file, and documentation must be provided that all written conditions and special terms attached to the appointment and its renewal have been met.
Summer school teaching or service and experience as a graduate assistant, graduate fellow, or in other part-time employment may not be included in the computation of years of experience for purposes of determining the appropriate initial rank, promotion in rank, or completion of the probationary period of a faculty member.
All changes in these criteria and guidelines in any year will normally be made and published at least 30 days prior to the beginning of that year's review at the departmental level.
Section IV. Qualifications for the Conferral of Academic Rank and for Promotion
The qualifications listed below shall serve as guidelines for the development of more specific or stringent criteria at the departmental and college levels. The qualifications cited here are supplemental to the criteria listed in section 4.02.02 of this handbook.
A. Earned Degrees
An appropriate earned master's degree is a minimal requirement for appointment to the rank of instructor. For appointments at the ranks of assistant, associate, and full professor, an appropriate earned doctorate is normally required. If specified in the approved departmental and college criteria, the highest degree normally earned in the field may be accepted in lieu of a doctorate.
Except in cases where individuals have demonstrated unusually high competence and have made highly significant contributions to the university, the years of experience and times in rank indicated below are the minimum for appointment or promotion.
Promotion in rank is based primarily upon merit and the sustained cumulative record of performance of the individual. It is not based primarily or solely upon seniority, and it is never automatic.
With a master's or other appropriate degree, no experience is required.
2. Assistant Professor
With a doctorate or the highest degree normally earned in a field, teaching experience is not required. With less than the highest degree, three years of college-level teaching experience or six years of other appropriate teaching and professional experience are normally required.
To be eligible for promotion to the rank of assistant professor, an instructor normally must have served at least three years at the rank of instructor. However, an individual who at the time of initial appointment met all the requirements for the rank of assistant professor except the appropriate earned degree may be recommended for promotion in less than three years if the degree is earned.
3. Associate Professor
With a doctorate or the highest degree normally earned in the field, five years of teaching experience at the college level at the rank of assistant professor, are normally required. With less than the highest degree, nine years of teaching experience at the college level, including six years at the rank of assistant professor, are normally required.
With a doctorate or the highest degree normally earned in the field, ten years of teaching experience at the college level, including five years at the rank of associate professor, are normally required. With less than the highest degree, fourteen years of teaching experience at the college level, including five years at the rank of associate professor, are normally required.
Equivalent professional experience or educational preparation other than that specified for the ranks may be presented in support of an appointment or promotion if the approved departmental and college criteria include specific provisions for such recommendations.
C. Other Qualifications
In considering candidates in relation to the stated criteria, the following guidelines apply:
1. Instructor: Evidence of experience and achievement or, in lieu of these, evidence of ability and potential.
2. Assistant Professor: Evidence of achievement or definite promise for sustained professional development and contribution to the institution.
3. Associate Professor: A sustained record of superior teaching, strong professional development, scholarly and professional contributions to the institution, and evidence of promise for future professional development and achievement.
4. Professor: A sustained record of superior teaching; a record of sustained professional development and contribution to the institution; demonstrated ability to assume a role of leadership in university affairs and recognition of one's peers outside the university itself; and promise for future professional development and scholarly achievement of distinguished quality.
Section V. Conferral of Permanent Tenure
The award of permanent tenure requires an assessment of the criteria stated above, compliance with the Tenure Policies and Regulations of Western Carolina University and The Code of the University of North Carolina, and consideration of the provisions of the approved departmental and college criteria.
In determining the year in which a faculty member will have completed the maximum probationary period, the pertinent provisions of the Tenure Policies and Regulations and the following guidelines shall apply:
A. Each successive year of full-time service over an entire academic year, extending from the beginning of the fall term of one calendar year to the end of the spring term of the next calendar year, shall be counted as fulfilling one year of the probationary period for nine-month faculty.
B. For the faculty on twelve-month appointments, each successive year of full-time service beginning not later than September 15, of one calendar year and extending through June of the next calendar year shall be counted as fulfilling one year of the probationary period.
C. Adjustments in these guidelines shall be made only in accordance with the provisions of Sections III.G. and III.L.7. of the Tenure Policies and Regulations of Western Carolina University.
D. The tenure procedures outlined below shall apply when an individual is being considered for an initial appointment to the rank of full professor. With prior approval of the VCAA, they may apply to initial appointments to the rank of associate professor.
1. A file will be prepared by the administrative office to whom the candidate would report if employed. The file will contain:
(a) a copy of the individual's vita; (b) three letters of recommendation; (c) a letter from the administrator recommending professional rank and requesting a favorable tenure recommendation. A copy of the file will be provided to the vice chancellor for academic affairs. The VCAA will endorse the administrator's recommendation and request or add a letter of endorsement.
2. The appropriate departmental tenure and promotion committee will review the file and recommend to the next higher-level administrative office whether tenure should be recommended. A written report of this recommendation will be transmitted to the VCAA through normal administrative channels with intervening administrative levels indicating their concurrence with the recommendations. The administrators recommending action will consult with their respective tenure and promotion advisory
committees as necessary.
3. In making their recommendation, the various tenure and promotion committees will rely on current university, college and departmental criteria, but will, of necessity, base their judgment on the candidate's record of performance established prior to coming to WCU.
4. Following receipt of this recommendation, the VCAA will make a recommendation and transmit all information to the chancellor for appropriate action.
5. The recommendation for professorial rank and tenure can be made simultaneously with the offering of the position and can occur at any time during the year.
6. The recommendation from the chancellor to the Board of Trustees and the Board of Governors can be made at any point in the academic year, but normally would be made when all other tenure recommendations are forwarded.
This addendum provides the most guidance for departments and candidates. I will summarize its main points by citing the key language in the different sections.
From the Preamble -- the requirements that follow will serve as guidelines, rather than absolute criteria, for tenure and promotion considerations. It is clear that departments are to develop more specific criteria for TPR.
Section III, instead of being actual "Criteria" for the Conferral of Academic Rank, Promotion and Tenure, describes the areas in which criteria are to be developed. (If you read this section in search of a criterion, you will not find one.) The authors probably realize this because the second paragraph starts, "All recommendations must be based on approved departmental criteria." So the criteria are supposed to come from the departments.
The next part of that sentence specifies that candidates must do more than assert they have met various criteria, the candidate must provide evidence of meeting department criteria: "and each departmental recommendation must be accompanied by evidence that all the relevant criteria have been met."
From Section IV -- Similarly, this section provides guidance for more specific criteria to be developed at the department level. This section elaborates, in general language, what is being asked for in the areas of (A.) Earned academic degrees, (B.) Professional preparation and experience, and Other qualifications (C., D., E., and F.) listed in Section III. Minimums are specified for A. and B. For "Other qualifications (C., D., E., and F.), the key paragraphs are those that describe minimum qualifications at the different ranks. (These are highlighted above.)
So, Section IV of this addendum makes it clear that departments are to develop specific criteria in several areas, and that they must keep in mind the minimum UNC system requirements for each rank. By including this addendum in our Faculty Handbook, we are affirming that these are also our minimum requirements.
Section V of this 1979 addendum describes rules for counting years toward the probationary period, and the procedures to be followed when awarding the rank of full professor.
In conclusion, I found these TPR sections of the handbook to be unnecessarily long and confusing. After reviewing our internal policies, procedures and roles, I asked the Sub-Task Force to read the AAUP report, Good Practice in Tenure Evaluation (2000), a report of the NC State Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee submitted to the NC State Faculty Senate and the Provost on July 31, 2000. Based on the principles in these documents, they decided to develop the Standards, Principles, and Roles that are in your packet, today. They submitted those to the Restructuring Task Force and the Task Force wanted me to present them to you for your information and subsequent discussion and action. What is in your packet is being proposed to take the place of much of section 4.02 of the current handbook. The Restructuring TF wants the Senate to be aware of this significant set of changes. The task force wants feedback, and then it will decide how to proceed with proposing a Council on Collegial Review in the restructured Senate.
2 questions the Restructuring TF wanted the Senate to discuss:
These specific issues are the only ones in which the Restructuring Task Force disagreed with the Collegial Review Sub-Task Force. Because this is such a significant set of changes, however, there are many questions the Senate could discuss. I hope Senators keep the discussion on a philosophical level and not get into too many specifics.
The philosophical questions have to do with the degree to which Senators believe that collegial review is a faculty domain, and the degree to which our policies and procedures should reflect and reinforce this belief. If there is agreement about this question, the Senate ought to ask if the AFE, TPR, and PTR Standards, Principles and Roles do a good job of reflecting and reinforcing this belief. If not, how can it be improved? Or is there a better way to describe our collegial review domain. Maybe the current handbook should stay just as it is, and we should simply continue to follow it. These are the issues before the Senate.
A motion was made to accept this report.
(Philyaw & Adams)
An e-mail copy will be sent to all Senators.
2. Calendar Committee
Attached to the Agenda is a PROPOSED calendar for a 15 week semester. The 15 weeks would include final exams. Each semester must have 75 days. There would be no switching of days.
The exam period is 5 days and may include a Saturday.
Students should be encouraged to work in the summers and not during the school year.
Retention studies show students who work 10-20 hours on campus during the school year are retained better. Working makes better students.
A later start date saves money.
Suggest we use cost saving options.
Transfers need more time to complete the necessary procedures.
We need to look at what is in the students best interest.
B. New Business
1.Certificate proposal from the faculty Center.
It is recommended that Alan Altany from the Faculty Center be invited to address the Faculty Senate. The Senate does not want to get into the business of approving certificate programs.
2. Support of media and technology across campus.
How should this be studied?
We do a good job of introducing technology, but a poor job of on-going support.
The Council on Curriculum and Instruction is charged to study where we are and what we should do in the future.
This study is to include issues of repair, media center, money for software purchase. We need to create a strategic plan. We are part of the UNC TLC cooperative, but we dont use the resources well. Computers are running slow. We need ports in the classrooms. No one checks to see if the freshman have computers. There is an audit of student ports completed around fall break. What happens when the ports are found empty?
3. Controlling the growth of part-time faculty and administrators.
How should we investigate this problem?
Statistics are available on the university planning web page. Why are there more part-time and non-tenure track faculty when the budget and the students are about the same over the last five years? Are we keeping position vacant? There is a shift in the work load.
The Council on Faculty Affairs is charged to study the issue of growth of part-time, non-tenure track faculty and administrators.
4. Faculty evaluation by students.
What should we do? Should a council or task force study this issue?
We need to look at research and software programs. The Office of the President wants everyone to use the same tool. What form of evaluation will help us to be better teachers? This evaluation might also be used for tenure/ promotion/ merit pay.
The subcommittee on Instruction is charged to study and make recommendations on a plan for student evaluation of faculty.
C. Curriculum items
For information only.
Construction management is a very large program. What about curriculum creep? There is a concern that we are building programs by accreditation standards. Are these standards guidelines or requirements? Construction management requirements match those at other institutions. The ability to explore other areas is limited when a program requires so many hours. We need to have a rigorous program, but can some courses be combined? The broad range should come from liberal studies.
The meeting adjourned at 4:45PM