Tuesday, 8 September 2009
2:00 p.m., EB 162
Meeting 2010-01

Meeting called to order at 2:04pm.

Roll sign-in

• Attendance sheets were distributed.
• Absent:
  • Departmental senators: Ashe (English), Black (Physics & Physical Oceanography), Bourgeois (Information Systems & Operations Management), Clark (Dean, Business), Cordle (Dean, CAS), Fritzler (Randall Library), Hurst (Psychology), Jarosinski (School of Nursing), Lanier (Sociology & Criminology), McCann (Dean, Nursing), Moore (Dean, University College).

Approval of the May 2009 minutes

• May 2009 minutes were approved.

Special order of the day

1. Election of the Vice President, the Secretary, and the Steering Committee of the Senate (More information from Bylaws)

• Nominations open for Vice President.
• Nomination for Steve Pullum.
  • Declined.
• Nomination for Gabriel Lugo.
• Andy Jackson, Motion from the floor [Motion 10-01-03]: Move that the nominations are closed and the secretary cast the ballot for Gabriel Lugo.
  • Motion [Motion 10-01-03] seconded and carried.
• Nominations open for Secretary.
• Nomination for Liza Palmer.
• Motion from the floor [Motion 10-01-04]: Move that the nominations are closed and the secretary cast the ballot for Liza Palmer.
  • Motion [Motion 10-01-04] seconded and carried.
• Nominations open for Steering Committee.
• Nomination for Andy Jackson.
• Nomination for Steve Pullum.
• Nomination for Jennifer Horan.
• Nomination for Kim Cook.
  • Declined.
• Nomination for Patty Turrisi.
• Motion from the floor [Motion 10-01-05]: Move that the nominations are closed and the secretary cast the ballot for Andy Jackson, Steve Pullum, Jennifer Horan, and Patty Turrisi.
  • Motion [Motion 10-01-05] seconded and carried.

Individual reports

1. Chancellor DePaolo

• Welcome to the start of a new academic year.
• Right now, we have not had hurricanes but we have had several hundred cases of H1N1.
• Mostly, pretty mild from what I am hearing.  Students are just not very aware of these things – they are still around campus coughing.  So please keep encouraging them about healthy habits in enclosed spaces. We’re doing the best we can with that. Washington State has thousands of cases. We have more than other reports from the other UNC campuses, maybe because we started earlier. My next worry is when rush starts, which is next week.
• Budget.             
• It looks like the next two years we’ll be seeing more of the same.
• The budget forums were last week; if you couldn't attend, you can access the slide presentations on the Budget Office site (http://www.uncw.edu/ba/finance/Budget/index.html).
• The faculty meeting last week was celebratory so not the appropriate time to discuss the budget.
• We are continuing to stress basic principles. Last year, when we lost $12 million from our budget, we came up with the principles that guide us. You’ll recall that we decided to protect the academic experience for our students. Increasingly we have little left – it’s getting harder to protect that core. We are going to try to maintain that as much as possible.
• The News & Observer is covering the cuts more than the Star News.
• If you read those articles and read the editorial after Erskine Bowles visited the Editorial Department last week, if you read all that, what you will see is in response to all of our understandable wailing that this is causing larger classes, fewer sections, the response is, "So what?"
  • Kim Cook: It’s worse than so what, it’s vicious.
• Erskine Bowles has taken the tack that part of the way to save money is to cut administrative costs and administrators. We all might go hurrah, but that is a pretty slippery term. If we just had people in classrooms and we didn’t have IT people, or library people, or counseling people, your jobs would be a lot harder. This is particularly hard for UNCW to negotiate – we are already the 2nd or 3rd most administratively efficient campus:
• Systemwide, 28 % administration versus 24% faculty.
• UNCW: 16% administration versus 32% faculty.
• We were on the right track already but it doesn’t give us a lot of flexibility that the other campuses have, as far as cuts.
• Questions? We’ll get through this – we always do, and I thank you for your patience.
  

1. President of the Senate McKinney

• Candidate’s letter in RTP Document.
  • PPT Presentation.
  • There is confusion surrounding the RTP letter.
  • What we all really what to do is insure that the applicant has the best chance in the RTP process; if a letter from the candidate and/or the department chair will facilitate that, then we should consider it.
    • Ken Gurganus: Whatever changes we make today will not be in effect this year – I defer to the administration on the actual process for change.
  • Let’s try to have a constructive discussion about this.
  • Floor ceded to Craig Galbraith, Chair of RTP Committee.
  • This came up as an important issue last year with the previous Provost.
  • We talked about this in the RTP Committee at length. It was our feeling that the narrative was embodied in the application.
  • It was our recommendation to Steering that everyone has a narrative in the context of the list of accomplishments. Our general feeling is again that this [a separate letter] created an additional burden on the faculty.
  • Our recommendation last year was not to change but that the Faculty Senate address some of the language that addresses this.
  • Maybe we need to define “narrative.”
    • Steve Pullum: In the last five years, has anyone supplied a separate document?
    • Galbraith: If there were, less than 5%.
    • Meghan Sweeney: I didn’t do a [separate] narrative but at the last minute, I was told to include one -- but it did not take the letter form.
    • Those of us going up this year have been told to write a three-page narrative – it seems very important to say whether we do it at this point and we haven’t done it, or don’t do it and we have.
    • Galbraith: In the Faculty Handbook, it certainly does not say what the form of this narrative is – and certainly not three pages long. We can change the definition without changing the process -- nothing specifies that it be a separate document, three pages in length, etc.
    • I think we need to make this optional at this point, given the timing.
    • Martin Posey: Faculty have been advised to put this in. I think this is a definitional component – it’s not only a matter of getting ready for it, in our department, they are already in because we ask for them two weeks in advance for review – I think we should talk about this and decide what we want for next year.
    • Lou Buttino: When I view a narrative from my faculty, I see it as a story – I would like an opportunity for the faculty to speak for themselves.  To me, they are enjoyable to read.
    • Gurganus [subbing for Freeze]: I agree with everything that has been said, but eventually, we do need to change the language. The Handbook does give a prescribed format – Academic Affairs needs to make sure that all the candidates adhere to the format. So if we truly want faculty to have more room to express themselves, we need to include that in the prescribed format.
    • Dan Noland: I don’t understand what the candidate writing a separate letter is going to do?  Doesn’t the chair already do that?  Why should we ask the poor candidate to do it in addition to everything else?
    • Russ Herman: Ken, if we change the prescribed format, do we need to send those changes up the chain?
    • We are already reviewing credentials in our dept, I would hate to go back and say to the candidates you didn’t need to do it. So we have to be careful this year so that this isn’t an unusual year.
    • The candidate does not have an opportunity to synthesize all of his/her work in the application.  If the department chair is the person responsible for this and the chair doesn’t understand what the candidate is doing or there are conflicts between the chair and the faculty member, then they may not be portraying the candidates as they should.  This is more a list of accomplishments.
    • Galbraith: I probably have reviewed 400 applications in five years.  We had this discussion for hours last year.  If you take this as a list of accomplishments, it would be a vita.  The vast majority of these applications, there is a narrative that comes through in the different sections – the narrative embodied in the list of accomplishments is far more illuminating.  I think it will be looked at far more seriously than a separate document of three pages and a list of accomplishments.
    • James Reeves: If after a chair writes a recommendation, and the senior faculty, the option of writing the narrative should be there if the candidate feels that their story has not been told.  So we might want to say there is an opportunity for the candidate to do that if they feel they are not well represented.
    • Can I suggest that we refer this to committee? And allow people to submit their narratives this year, if they have done so?
    • Buttino: I think it is too late to submit a narrative after the letters have been written and sent off.  I think we should change the prescribed format to allow for more flexibility.
    • Noland: Where did this come from?
  • President McKinney: There have been a number of inconsistencies that have brought this about.
    • Galbraith: A little more serious than that – because some candidates have been told that Academic Affairs would not accept their applications without the narrative.
    • Posey: I move that we refer this to committee to review on the basis of these discussions whether we should have a separate letter and then bring it back to Senate -- maybe the RTP Committee?
    • Didn’t we already do that?
    • Galbraith: I would recommend that this be a separate committee as RTP is autonomous and doesn’t make policy – we review the packets. I’m not sure this is the right place to make policy decisions.
    • Kathleen Berkeley: This came about from a joint committee under Provost Cavenaugh and the Steering Committee. If this is a clean up, perhaps we should follow the previous process to make sure that we are following established procedure.
    • Posey, Motion from the floor [Motion 10-01-06]: I move that we refer this to the Steering Committee to decide the right course of action.
      • [Motion 10-01-06] seconded and approved.
  • President McKinney: The second issue is about what to do this year for people going up.
    • Pullum: Provost, is it true that Academic Affairs would not take applications without a separate letter?
    • Provost Barlow: We will take our action from you all. And in answer to Herman's question, if it is interpretation and clarification, it would not have to go to the Board of Governors.
    • Jackson: My recollection is that this is part of the format document and not the document.  The Board of Governors does not have to approve the format document.  It’s an internal working document, approved by the Provost and the Chancellor after Faculty Senate.
    • Reeves, Motion from the floor [Motion 10-01-07]: I move that the RTP Committee be instructed to accept applications in both forms for this academic year.
      • [Motion 10-01-07] seconded.
      • Discussion:
        • Would that bring up any challenges from a candidate who either did the letter or didn’t do the letter and didn’t get the result they wanted?
        • Gurganus: I might suggest that there be another committee that be instructed and that would be the Hearings Committee. One of the bases a candidate can appeal is materials procedure irregularity.  I am not saying what the issue is to be, but if we are going to instruct the RTP Committee, include the Hearings Committee because they are also responsible for this.
        • Noland: Somehow from last year to this, we have changed who we are.  I wish people would quit sending out directives unless it goes through the bodies that have the purview to do that.
        • Provost Barlow: Did you have irregularities last year?
        • Galbraith: No, this only happened after all the decisions had already been made last year.
        • I’m concerned that this didn’t get to your committee last year because we were instructed to do this then, too.
        • Provost Barlow: So you did have this last year but it wasn’t a factor?
        • Gabriel Lugo: Why did the Center for Teaching Excellence give these workshops?  Where did the "three pages" comes from?
        • All the guidelines and formatting came from the Center for Teaching Excellence.
        • Christopher Gould: That is incorrect; this came about from a memo sent out by Provost Chapman.  The guidelines came from the School of Education.  They came out not as prescripted but as a guideline.  It is not true that the Center for Faculty Leadership or the Center for Teaching Excellence imposed these guidelines.
        • Are we talking about this semester or academic year?
  • [Motion 10-01-07] approved.
• Digital RPT document.
  • Galbraith: Digital Measures -- one of the advantages of being Chair of the RTP Committee is that we hear things somewhat authoritatively -- RTP documents, we have heard, starting next year, must come through Digital Measures.
  • Vice Provost McFarland: Absolutely not true.  The request was could we create a custom form in Digital Measures that would spit out in a Word document all the necessary data for RTP?.
  • President McKinney: I just heard about this from other campuses so was bringing it as something for us to consider.
• Policy on donors who want “strings” attached to donations.
  • We will have a report on this later in the year.
• Send new senators names to Liza Palmer.
  • Department chairs, please send your new senators' names to Liza Palmer (palmerl AT uncw.edu).

3. Associate Vice Chancellor for Advancement Marla Rice Evans

• PPT Presentation.
• Regarding the strings-attached donations, we are with you as far as having less strings as they make it hard to make the donor’s wishes accommodated.
• 35% of the faculty support UNCW; typically it is 28% at other public campuses.
• We want to reach approximately 75% of our goal before we go public.
• Questions?
• You skipped over the public phase – what will that look like?
• That’s when we know what our final goal is and we will hit the road with the Chancellor and the Provost – it’s when we try to get the remainder of our gifts.  Marketing and Communications will have a website that rolls out.
• Buttino: Can you explain what the Faculty Excellence funds mean?
• They’re not really funds – ours is not very different from other campuses.  So the schools and the different departments decide what scholarships they need.  It’s just categories so we know how to decide what we need to raise money for – it’s like buckets.  Now we all know, at the end of the campaign, not everything that we wanted will be funded.  This is a guide through this very complex process – in the end, you can’t talk a donor into funding what you want.  You try to guide them to support what resonates with them.
• Shannon Silva: Before you get to the public phase, what percentage would we be at?
• 75% would be the best for us.  72% or 73% would work, too.
• Cook:  I want to tell you how much we appreciate what you guys in your office do.  A lot of it is invisible – the telethons, working with donors – I just wanted to let you know that we appreciate it.
• You are so nice – thank you.  We are working on communicating better – this is your campaign, so if you have any ideas please share them with us.

Committee reports

1. The Faculty Senate Steering Committee makes the following motions, amending the Bylaws (insertions and deletions):

• [Motion 10-01-01] Basic Studies Committee

Duties: To review existing and proposed content of Basic Studies curriculum and catalog copy.  To coordinate efforts to refine Basic Studies offerings to promote the academic mission of the university.  To work with academic units to ensure that Basic Studies courses are offered on a reasonable and regular basis.

Membership: Nine faculty members, including at least four from the College of Arts and Sciences and at least one from each of the professional schools, and two other from the faculty at large.  Term of membership shall be three years with staggered term so that one-third of the committee terms expire in a given year.  A member may serve a second consecutive term.  At the initial Fall meeting the Committee shall elect a vice-chair who will normally assume the role of chair in the following year.  The chief academic officer, the Dean of the University College, and a representative from the library faculty, and the Early College Liaison shall be ex-officio non-voting members.   

• Any questions?
• [Motion 10-01-01] approved.

• [Motion 10-01-02] University Curriculum Committee

Duties. To review all proposals for the following: the establishment, dissolution, division, or consolidation of academic departments or other degree-granting entities; the establishment or dissolution of academic degrees, including majors, minors, and certificate programs; the revision of academic degrees when these revisions directly affect any academic unit outside of the revising department's school or college; policies for maximum and minimum hours required for majors, minors, and certificates; total number of hours required for graduation; basic studies requirements; university-wide competency requirements; course prefixes; any curricular conflicts between schools and/or colleges; and other general curricular policies which have total university impact. The committee shall submit all such proposals, along with the committee's recommendations, to the Senate for consideration. [Revised January 2001; January 2005. See previous duties.]
[A description of the process of curricular change is found in the Faculty Handbook.]

Membership. Nine faculty members, including at least four from the College of Arts and Sciences and at least one from each of the professional schools, and two others from the faculty at large. Term of membership shall be three years with staggered terms so that one-third of the committee terms expire in a given year. A member may serve a second consecutive term. At the initial Fall meeting the Committee shall elect a vice-chair who will normally assume the role of chair in the following year. The chief academic officer, the Director Dean of the University College, and a representative from the library faculty, and the deans of the professional schools and college (or their delegates) shall be ex-officio non-voting members. [revised April, 2001. See previous membership.]

• Any discussion?
• [Motion 10-01-02] approved.

Old business

• No old business.

New business

• Budget and Convention Travel for Assistant Professors.
  • I received several emails from assistant professors, worried about not being able to travel to conventions and how this will affect their progress to tenure.
  • It is my understanding that funds have been released to the departments.
    • Charles Maimone: There is still an approval process – the chair and dean must approve.
  • What we are informally doing in our department is privileging travel for junior faculty – senior faculty are taking a break from travel in favor of our junior colleagues.
    • Cook: Academic Affairs put out a call for requests for help with travel for assistant professors.  The deadline was September 1st and we were told we would hear back in mid-September. Is that still the case? 
    • Provost Barlow: Yes – we received them all and are working through them right now.

Announcements

• No announcements.

Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 3:28pm.