Date: January 15,2003

Taft Botner Room (Killian 104)

Newt Smith called the meeting to order at 3:00 P.M.


A. Minutes of meeting were approved as presented.

(Proffit & Philyaw)

B. Dr. Collings for Dr. Bardo, Chancellor.

1. Enrollment is at 98% or more of the level needed for complete funding.

2. Freshmen retention went up a small amount. We do, however, have the lowest retention rate in the NC system at a little more than 70%.

3. Leadership workshops are moving along well.

C. Mary Adams, Senior Faculty Assembly Delegate

For the complete report see http://www.wcu.edu/assembly/minutes_11_02.html

Motion: Support Salary Increases for SPA Employees (Adams & Graham)

Nov2002 #4


Passed by voice vote.

Motion: Restore State Matching Funds to TSERS

Nov2002 #5


Passed by voice vote.

D. Lex Davis, SGA President: No report.


D. Keith Stiles, Staff Forum Chair: No report.

E. Nancy Dillard, University Advisory Council Chair: No report.

F. Newt Smith, Chair of Faculty

1. Board of Trustees Report

The Faculty is making progress answering the G. Bataille letter.

It has affirmed academic freedom.

Steps are being taken to fix the technology problems as outlined in the Price Waterhouse report.

The Faculty has a plan to deal with the growth of part time faculty, but not for administrators.

There is progress toward developing an evaluation of faculty tool for use by students.

Council on Faculty Affairs has defined "teaching load."

There is progress toward a "generic id" for faculty staff and students.

Only two system schools have tuition lower than ours. Because of our rural setting it costs more to provide activities for students. Studies show that cost is not a factor in school choice. Tuition and fees are comparable to other institutions, but our housing is less.

2. The WCU Faculty "Assembly" meeting was cancelled until we are ready to discuss changes to the faculty senate constitution and faculty handbook. If we adopt the new form of governance we must have a general faculty meeting for discussion of the changes. Within 10 days of that meeting we must have an election. The new plan must pass by 2/3 of those voting. It may be approved, rejected or sent back to the task force for more work.

F. Roll Call

Members present: Abel, Adams, Atterholt, Banerjee, Beam, Bell, Caruso, Collings, Graham, Hale, Henderson, Kane, Kneller, Kolenbrander, Lunnen, Mallory, Mercer, Metcalf, Oran, Philyaw, Proffit, Shults, Spencer, Smith, Starr, Tholkes, Vihnanek, Wallace, Burns.

Members with proxies: Noel, Pennington, Wooten

Members absent: Bardo, Huff


A. Faculty Affairs (Gael Graham, Chair) : No report

B. Council on Instruction and Curriculum (Scott Philyaw, Chair):

1. Evaluation of teaching being studied.

2. Several proposals will be brought up under new business.

C. Council on Student Affairs ( Debasish Banerjee, Chair): No report.


A. Old Business

1. Motion: Untable the Restructuring Task Force report. (Abel & Philyaw

2. Motion: Send the report back to the Task Force. ( Abel & Wallace.

Questions and Discussion:

1. We should send the report back with comments

2. What new information has come to light that caused this motion.

3. Concerned about how senators are chosen at the department level.

What is the role of the leadership council? (Suggestion: do not to use that name)

4. Who will actually be on the senate?

5. If we send this back now, most likely there will not be a new structure in place next year.

6. There was a call for college meetings. Only two colleges met.

7. Can we approve anything?

8. Why can’t we have new election after the February election if there is a new form of governance in place?

9. New senators will be phased in as the "old " senators terms end.

10. Under this plan there may not be a senator from each department as some departments may wish to join with another to elect a senator to represent them both.

11. Can changes be made later?

12. Report seems flawed. More input is needed.

13. If we send back we should pick out the most egregious problems to work on. There could then be discussion at the Faculty Assembly meeting.

14. Election deadlines have been missed before.

15 We don’t want to go through another year without a new structure.

16. To what degree is the new plan not acceptable?

17. Can we agree in concept to accept the plan and work on the details later and then vote on the plan?

18. Lets identify the things that are wrong.

19. That would restrict the task force too much.

20. Will the report replace the material in the constitution and by-laws?

21. The task Force didn’t know it was supposed to change the language.

22. When the UAC was formed the concept was approved first and then worked out the details.

23. Senate needs to approve the concept.

24. No, the Faculty needs to decide.

25. Senate can’t avoid its responsibility, it must decide.

26. We can do things things:

1. Keep the current structure;

2. Send the report back to the task force for new guidelines and then to reframe;

3. Send back concept and work out the details.

27. Looks like we need two votes. One on the new structure and one on changes to the constitution, by-laws and handbook.

28. No need to rush.

29. Are we asking the Task Force to fix the document or change the document language?

30. What issues need to be addressed?

31. Let the Task Force deal with the issues discussed at the December meeting.

32. We could amend the motion with the issues that need to be changed.

33. We can’t do that in the time left today.

34. Can we be working on it?

35. It was suggested that the task Force has the information to revise the report.

36 Call the question.

Vote on the motion to send the report back to the Task Force:

16 in favor, 6 opposed 3 abstained.

The report will be sent back to the Task Force.

37. Colleges who haven’t met should meet quickly.

38. Need suggestions from the senate-- not just individual opinions. Will the changes in representation from proportion to departments cause a shift toward Arts and Sciences?

39 Departments and faculty change frequently so representatives will change frequently also.

40. Detail concerns. The representation question is also a philosophical one.

Motion: Discuss changes in an overflow meeting to be held January 22, 2002

Proffit & Wallace


1. This doesn’t give the colleges who have not had opportunity to meet any time for discussion.

2. The Senate can discuss its concerns.

Vote: passed by voice vote to meet January 22, 2003 to continue restructuring discussion.

The Task Force will be asked to be present.

Old Business continued

Council on Curriculum and Instruction Proposals.


Council on Instruction and Curricula

Proposals for consideration of the Faculty Senate, January 15, 2003

1. Proposed changes in Library and Faculty Center Committee as outline below:

The purpose of the Library and Faculty Center Advisory Committee is to provide faculty input to the University Librarian and to the Director of the Faculty Center. This committee provides a valuable service to the Library and to the Faculty Center, and therefore it is normally the University Librarian and the Director of the Faculty Center that have the primary concern in having this committee meet.

To facilitate the operation of the committee, we propose that the University Librarian be the convener of the Library and Faculty Center Advisory Committee. The convener will arrange the meetings and handle the office support for the committee. The chair of the committee will continue to be selected from the teaching faculty members of the committee. The chair and convener will be responsible for setting the agenda.


1. Why

2. To facilitate getting things done.

Vote: passed by voice vote.

2. CIC has spent its last three meetings discussing a series of catalog changes for Major, Minor and Program Requirements as proposed by Academic Affairs. Current policies are on pages 67-68 of the 2002-2003 undergraduate catalogs.

Major Requirements: CIC voted to remove the upper limit on the number of hours required for a major, to wit: "A major consists of a group of prescribed and elective courses (totaling at least 27 hours)."

Minor Requirements: CIC voted to strike item (4) of the opening paragraph on page 67, "in cases where majors are less than forty-six hours, a minor, second major, concentration, or other approved program as specified by the appropriate school and department." Note: Similar language is repeated in third paragraph on page 67.

Program Requirements: CIC voted to include program requirements as part of major requirements, thereby deleting the section on Program Requirements on page 67.

Waivers and Substitutions: The Office of Academic Affairs also asked CIC to review the current policy on Waivers and Substitutions found at the top of page 68. The committee consensus was that this approval process for departmental waivers and substitutions should be left in the hands of the department heads as it is now.


1. Changes have been to reflect UNC requirements.

2. WCU has an upper cap.

3. Minors are not required by WCU. That is a department decision.

4. Current policy more prescriptive.

5. We will see more hours in programs.

6. Program requirements will included as part of the major.

7. We will have big majors.

8. Will the business core be included in the major.

9. Isn’t the business core a program requirement?

10. The core is concerned about accreditation issues and the content of the core.

11. How is it different for communication/theater?

12. We are mandated to make majors have fewer hours.

13. Trying to make things simpler for students.

14. Program requirements must be met before entering the major.

15. The program requirements are really prerequisites at other institutions

16. Can’t take the pieces (program requirements and majors) separately.

17. Putting the program requirements and the major course together is a major issue. We shouldn’t rush this decision.

Motion: Table section two. Take to colleges for more discussion.

Spencer& Henderson

Vote: Section two has been tabled , passed by voice vote.

3. CIC also approved with amendments the following proposal from the Liberal Studies Oversight Committee.

1. The Physical and Biological Sciences shall be placed in the Core.

2. The science requirement can be satisfied in any of the following ways:

a. Students may take two Liberal Studies science courses in different disciplines.

b. Students may take a Liberal Studies science course plus one non-Liberal Studies 100- or 200-level science course with a laboratory or applied component in a different discipline.

c. Students may take two non-Liberal Studies 100- or 200-level science courses with laboratory or applied components in different disciplines.

Discussion/ Questions:

1. What is the benefit?

2. Science majors are taking lower level classes to fulfill liberal studies requirements. This is a waste of student hours.

3. Why can’t every department do that also? It is the hope that the liberal studies class would be more like the liberal arts rather than higher-level classes. It would be a different perspective.

4. Problem is that this violates the spirit of liberal studies.

5. Change after two years? Is this good? We haven’t had time to evaluate the programs.

6. Things are different in the sciences. Sciences build on each course. This make s a good argument in favor of science being allowed to change, but not all departments.

7. There is a place in liberal studies for students to contract to take an upper level course to substitute for a perspectives course.

8. Thus is a step back to general education.

9. There is a dual track in science. A student takes a variety of sciences in their program.

10. AP credit is a problem. Hard sciences have 2 different science courses (ex.(biology & physics). Can’t count hour s both ways. Do they need to take a liberal studies class with AP credit?

11. There also is a problem with articulation agreements. If they transfer in from a community college all other requirement are waived.

12. Other UNC institutions allow double dipping in the sciences.

13. Not allowing this will keep our students from moving ahead.

14. No disagreement with previous comments. Tired of seeing easy 100 level classes. We need challenging, rigorous classes.

15. This is a major advising problem. They meet the requirements, but not the hours.

16. Call the question.

Vote. Passed. 18 in favor, 7 opposed o abstained.


Curriculum items and restructuring discussion will be on the agenda for January 22,2003



The meeting adjourned at 5PM

Respectfully submitted

Elizabeth Vihnanek