Tuesday, 15 January 2008
2:00 p.m., EB 162
Meeting 2008-05

Meeting called to order at 2:03pm.

Roll call

Absent:

Departmental senators:  Barth (Public and International Affairs), Cox (Creative Writing), Cutting (Environmental Studies), Elikai (Accountancy & Business Law), Hall (Social Work), Huber (Elementary, Middle, and Literacy Education), Huntsman (Geography and Geology), Lammers (Mathematics & Statistics), Lugo (Mathematics & Statistics), McCartney (Biology & Marine Biology), McKinney (Communication Studies), Moore (University College), Roney (Elementary, Middle, and Literacy Education), Salwen (Music), Seidman (History), Wray (Information Systems and Operations Management).

Committee chairs:  Brenner (Student Affairs), Gerard (University Advancement), Patterson (Information Technology), Walker (Admissions).

Approval of the December 2007 minutes

• December 2007 minutes were approved.
• If you are not receiving the minutes, via the faculty all distribution list, please let someone know --the beginning of the semester would be a good time to do so.

Individual reports

1.  Chancellor DePaolo

• Happy New Year to everyone.
• I just learned some good news that I wanted to share with you all: Molly Corbett Broad has been named the next president of the American Council on Education (ACE).
• A lot or you have called and written about no longer being able to use state funds for student travel – when that directive came down, we scrambled to find more funds to make this possible.  David McKoy of the State Budget Office came out with a clarification about this, which is more confusing than ever.  GA helped to clarify – we are now allowed to use state funds for educational student travel.  Employee students can travel in the course of their job duties; non-employee students, traveling for educational purposes, will be reimbursed from the general fund as are other state employees.  But we need to be very careful that these funds are used for educational purposes or the state will take it away again.
• Question:  Has there been an infraction?
• Not here at UNCW.
• I just got back from a Board of Governors' meeting at the NC School of the Arts.
• It is clear what is on Bowles’ mind.
• K-12 education – the state wants higher education to play a more important role in this area.
• UNC Tomorrow – the final report has just come out from the commission.  We received two hard copies – it is available electronically on the UNC Tomorrow website (please see:  http://www.nctomorrow.org/).  We have been asked to come up with a response team.  Faculty Assembly is asking for strong faculty representation (Mark Spaulding: at least 50%).  If you are interested in serving on this team, please let me know.
• I want to let us know things before they hit the media.  SGA has been working very hard towards establishing a shuttle to downtown.  A recommendation has been made that we not support this.  The students have called the media to attend the SGA meeting about this.  I feel very strongly about communication on campus – I want UNCW to be allowed to solve its own problems and not have them played out in the media.
  • Question:  Haven’t the students the right to impose a fee on the students to pay for this bus? Do you have a line-item veto to overrule this?
    • It’s not a matter of money – it’s about calling in the media.
  • Introduced Pat Leonard, Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs.
    • Pat Leonard:  they tried to get outside money to support this and they considered a user charge.
  • Question:  What is the predominant reason against this?
    • Pat Leonard:  SGA did an excellent job with their proposal – they did their homework.  WAVE transit will not agree to the shuttle until UNCW signs off of it.  If we did, we become liable for any incidents.  What we would then have is a bus that will drop students from their on-campus housing to off-campus – this is a safety issue.  From a philosophical standpoint, we embrace harm-reduction methods.  85% of our students tell us they don’t drink and drive.  We already have a taxi discount service in place.  Establishing a shuttle is sending the wrong message.
  • Chancellor:  our research into other schools, too, fed into our decision about this.
• Ceded the floor to the Provost.
• UNC Tomorrow is something we all need to pay attention to.
• Responsibility and accountability for campus communications:  primarily email.  The accountability for email is a concern.  We need to be accurate with what we communicate – particularly with broadcast messages.  We would welcome discussions in departments or here in Senate to talk about the idea of accountability.
• Question:  I need a specific example of what you are talking about.  My colleague has started a listserv that is exchanging a lot of different information.  So are you talking about that issue?  Or people with authority sending emails?  The right to be wrong is an academic freedom issue.
• I am asking you to check sources, verify information, and be correct with the information you share, before sending messages out.
• Question:  Do you have an example?
• There was one incident over the holidays.  The message had some inaccuracies in it and went to a large group of people – it caused a lot of problems for people.
• Beginning in February, a new survey instrument will replace FSSE. The HERI (Higher Education Research Institute) survey will replace FSSE.  HERI will provide information on job satisfaction, workload, job duties, etc. Please take it seriously and provide the responses that the survey is asking for.  This will help with SACS – it will give us more datasets to help with SACS.
• Question:  What’s its relationship with FSSE?  How can we shift to it after three years of FSSE?
• Introduced Lisa Castellino, Assistant Vice Chancellor.
• Lisa Castellino:  it’s not a replacement for FSSE.  Basically, this spring is an off year for NSSE and FSSE.  FSSE wasn’t going out to the entire population, only to a sample.  We have an opportunity to test HERI this year to see if it will help in future.
• Question:  We get so many surveys that say they will only take 5-10 minutes but they take 30-35.  Why?
• Lisa works on this to make sure there is accuracy in surveys and that we are not being over-surveyed.  You’re right – I have experienced this, too.

2.  President of the Senate Spaulding

• There are two discussions going on in Steering Committee at the moment.
  • Regarding support for the Senate, Steering Committee, and President, we benchmarked other institutions.  The Provost has been generous.  We have an administrative assistant who is just starting now.  We have space – so we will be sending out a call for all Senate records out there.  We are close to getting a summer stipend for the President.  We are also looking at a course reduction for the semester after the President's term ends.
  • The Senate President is often asked to supply names of faculty volunteers for different service opportunities.  At present, we do not have a good method for getting that information from the President to the faculty.  We are working on a method that will help get more faculty involved in the types of projects they are interested in.  We’re wrestling with that.
  • Any questions?
• Departmental Name Verifications for Elections.  (More information from Elections Officer in Word)
• We are updating the accuracy of the voting divisions to reflect departmental name changes.  If your department is not accurately represented in this document, please let us know.
• Introduced Gene Tagliarini, Elections Officer.
  • Gene Tagliarini:  this is relevant for the autonomous committee selections coming up.  Certain committees stipulate certain numbers from specific divisions.  Thanks to Steve Drew and Carol Ellis for their help with this.
• Question:  Provost:  is there any rebalancing of the divisions that needs to happen?
• Mark Spaulding:  Division I has 163; Division II has 137; Division III has 167; Division IV has 148.  So they aren’t that far off

Old business

1.  Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice submits the following revised motion, as amended by Steering Committee with additions (underscored) and deletions (struck through):

• [Motion 08-02-06]  In an effort to expand faculty participation in the Commencement Ceremonies at Trask Coliseum as a celebration of student and faculty achievement, to make it a more meaningful event for all participants, and,

Whereas, we believe the current Commencement without the conferral of either an honorary degree and or speaker limits the celebration as an intellectual milestone, and,

Whereas, we believe that Commencement ceremonies are opportunities to honor students’ achievement as well as faculty involvement in that achievement, and,

Whereas, we believe that Commencement is a celebration of our collective intellectual accomplishment,

We resolve the following:

1. the Trask Commencement Ceremony should restore the conferral of honorary degrees when appropriate, and invite a suitable speaker the degree recipient to give a brief graduation speech
2. that reading students' names individually be celebrated at the Departmental ceremonies where they will be greeted by the professors who guided their educational pursuits
3. that reading students' names be discontinued at the Trask Commencement Ceremony

With faculty senate endorsement of this resolution, we intend to take this conversation to the appropriate bodies for continued consideration, especially Student Government Association.

• The floor is open for discussion:
  • I speak in favor of this.  I simply agree that if this is implemented there would be a lot more faculty participation in Commencement.  And remember, this is not something that will happen simply because we approve it.  This just means we can start the conversation with other government bodies on campus.  It expresses the sense of the faculty that this is pretty much what we already believe based on how many of us attend Commencement.
  • The whole purpose of this motion is to make Commencement more meaningful for the students.
• Any objections?  Hearing none, let's vote.
• [Motion 08-02-06] carried.
• Mark Spaulding:  the Senate now owns [Motion 08-02-06] – we passed it.  Do we have volunteers to talk to SGA?  Will the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice do it?
  • Senators for Sociology and Criminal Justice:  yes.
• Question:  We have a SGA representative in attendance today – do they wish to speak to this?
  • Megan Jelley, SGA Chief of Staff:  I feel better, hearing these comments today.  Some of us were worried about [Motion 08-02-06] being all about the faculty.
• Question:  I assume [Motion 08-02-06] is only referring to undergraduates and not graduate students?
  • Mark Spaulding:  let’s start the conversation with SGA and then move forward with GSA after.

Committee reports

1. University Curriculum Committee submits the following motion:

• [Motion 08-05-25] That the Senate approve the following recommendations:
  • Approve THR 165 Script Analysis for providing Computer Competency.  (More information from THR in Word)
  • Approve THR 487 Senior Seminar: Design and Technology as Oral Communication Intensive.  (More information from THR in Word)
  • Approve THR 355 Directing I as Oral Communication Intensive.  (More information from THR in Word)
  • Approve Program Change in Theatre – Total number of hours for graduation – (Major: from 48 hours to 43 hours; Minor from 18 hours to 19 hours).  (More information from THR in Word)
  • Approve Intent to Plan – B.S. in Oceanography  (Proposal from Department of Geography & Geology).  (More information from GGY in Word)
  • Approve – Change prefix of all classes from CRJ (Criminal Justice) to CRM (Criminology).  (More information from CRJ in Word)
  • Approve – Change in number of hours required for the CRJ major from 42 to 39 credit hours.  (More information from CRJ in Word)
  • Approve – Dropping  CRJ 110 (CRM 110): Issues in Criminal Justice as Oral Communication Intensive.  (More information from CRJ in Word)
  • Approve – Designation of CRJ 495 (CRM 495): Senior Seminar as Oral Communication Intensive.  (More information from CRJ in Word)
  • Approve - Increasing number of hours for the B.A. in Math to accommodate the Applied Learning requirement (would require 1-3 additional hours in Option 1 – from 45 to 46-48).  (More information from MAT in Word:  Link 1, Link 2, Link 3)
  • Approve PAR 225: Women and Religion for Basic Studies – Humanities/Philosophy and Religion.  (More information from PAR in Word)
    • Do we have any problems with voting on [Motion 08-05-25] as one?
      • Tim Black, Senator from Physics & Physical Oceanography:  the Physics & Physical Oceanography Department has a problem with the Oceanography intent to plan from the Geography & Geology Department.
      • Mark Spaulding:  Let’s vote on [Motion 08-05-25] as amended (with the Oceanography intent to plan item taken out).
    • [Motion 08-05-25] as amended carried.
    • Now we can discuss the Oceanography intent to plan item as [Motion 08-05-28].
      • Tim Black :  this is the first we have heard of this.  We have been trying to beef up our recruitment in this area – having a minor in Geography and Geology would affect our enrollment.
      • Richard Laws, Chair of Geography & Geology: we discussed this with the chairs of the sciences for about two years.  It has gone through a lot of vetting.  We are only asking permission to plan.  The planning committee should include members from other departments.  The attachment has a suggested interdisciplinary curriculum – if Physics & Physical Oceanography wants to be involved in that, that’s great.  But if you think this is a worthwhile degree program to have on campus, then vote yes regardless of where it is housed or who controls it.  Vote no, if not.
      • Tim Black :  I think there needs to be a consensus before this proceeds as to where this degree is housed.  This impacts our future direction.  This is a sensitive issue.  I would be interested to know what Fred or John or Curt thinks.
      • Richard Laws:  there weren’t any objections from there.
      • Carol Pilgrim, Associate Dean, College of Arts & Sciences:  I can speak to the spirit of why CAS approved this.  We have a lot of Oceanography experts on campus – this degree program would be a wonderful opportunity for students and faculty.
      • Question:  Has anyone thought to create a Department of Oceanography?
        • Richard Laws:  I don’t think that is an option as there is a Department of Physics & Physical Oceanography.
      • Tim Black :  yes there are a lot of ways to approach the ocean.  The ocean as a biological system is Marine Biology.  The ocean as a physical system is Physics.  I am sorry to say this in Senate because it sounds like I am mad at Geography & Geology.  I would have said this in a departmental faculty meeting if it had been brought to our attention there.  I just don’t see how we can feel good about this being handed off to another department.  I think it needs to be discussed in DeLoach Hall before being brought to Senate.
      • Richard Laws:  the ocean also has a chemical system and a geological system.  This degree program will be interdisciplinary in nature.  I am sorry this wasn’t brought to your department.  This has been discussed for two years.  If Curt didn’t bring it to you, I’m sorry.
      • Tim Black:  I think it would be better for all to let us discuss it amongst ourselves first and then let us decide whether we endorse it.
      • Sue Combs, Chair of the University Curriculum Committee:  we supported this wholeheartedly because it was an intent to plan.
      • Question:  Does the intent to plan planning committee be required to include those departments?
        • Mark Spaulding: yes – it says right there in the intent to plan document.
        • Richard Laws:  yes – they will be invited to be involved.
      • Question:  Is there a signature from Physics & Physical Oceanography on the UCC forms?
        • Sue Combs: no – we get paperwork from CAS.
      • Question:  Is there a signature on the CAS paperwork?
        • Carol Pilgrim:  the intent to plan is a GA document – it does not require signatures.
      • All in favor of [Motion 08-05-28] Approve Intent to Plan – B.S. in Oceanography  (Proposal from Department of Geography & Geology)?
    • [Motion 08-05-28] carried.

2.  Academic Standards Committee submits the following motion:

• [Motion 08-05-26] That the Senate approve the proposed posthumous degree policy.  (More information from ASC in PDF)
  • Does the Chair of the ASC wish to say a few words?
  • Russ Herman, Chair of ASC:  this summer I was approached a couple of times about creating this policy.  Over about 20 years, two have been awarded.  We looked at what was happening at other schools.  We discussed it – changed things, added things, deleted things.  This is currently only for undergraduates.
    • I think this is an excellent idea – I had to educate myself about this issue and look at what is happening at other schools.  But I think there is a problem with the wording of it.  We are at war now – we might have students coming back with brain injuries or students going to hospice.  Why limit it to posthumous?  Why wait until they are dead to award them this if we know they are going to die, if this is about compassion?  I am not moving this – although, I would like us to see if there are other circumstances that can be considered.  I am not sure that this needs to be in the catalogue.  And if it needs to be, let’s consider some other scenarios.
    • I think it should be in the catalogue – I think we should continue the discussion after this.  We are a community – we have to take care of each other.  This could have some impact on advancement and recruiting.
    • My best friend in college died during the second semester of her junior year.  Her degree was awarded – it helped the healing for her family and friends.  It was important for us to hear her name called out at graduation.
    • I think this is an important issue – but I would be against extending this beyond people who have died.  A degree is an award and a credential.
    • I will point out that the document says that the permanent record would note that it is a posthumous degree – so not a credential as I understand it.  I am saying that this doesn’t clarify anything – once we publish it it will open up more questions.
    • I am in favor of awarding degrees posthumously.  My question to ASC is why do we need to publish it in the undergraduate catalogue?  Is there some other place we could put it?
      • Russ Herman:  the catalogue is the chief source of information – people looking for information about this will go there.  If the Senate wants to vote down that aspect of it, that can happen.
    • Question:  Right now, the Chancellor can do this?.
      • Chancellor:  yes – I get these requests periodically.  I always turn them over to the Provost.
    • I think it is a bit ridiculous – do we prevent someone who has only 15 and not the needed 20 credits from graduating according to this policy?  If we are going to codify it, let’s not paint ourselves into a corner – let’s call it an exceptional circumstances policy.
    • I notice that no one is proposing any amendments to [Motion 08-05-26] so we are probably focusing on the posthumous degree.
  • Mark Spaulding:  yes – quite right.  Unless someone wants to propose an amendment we should be debating [Motion 08-05-26] as written.
  • [Motion 08-05-26] carried.

3. The Honor Code Task Force offers the following motion:

• [Motion 08-05-27] Whereas, concerns about the adequacy and efficacy of the UNCW Honor Code have been expressed by members of the UNCW academic community; and

  Whereas, Provost Hosier, in consultation with Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Leonard, Faculty Senate President Spaulding, SGA president Thorpe, and GSA president Mason, has appointed a student-faculty Honor Code Task Force to examine our current policies on academic honesty, to consult widely with the academic community, and to propose any recommendations to the academic community; and

  Whereas, the Honor Code Task Force has met and produced a preliminary report; and

  Whereas, the Honor Code Task Force believes that any establishment, consideration, or revision of an honor code must be broadly participatory, involving all affected campus constituencies; and

  Whereas, the Honor Code Task Force is seeking a mandate for its mission from all of those constituencies; therefore,

  Be it resolved, that the Faculty Senate expresses its support for the mission of the Honor Code Task Force, with the understanding that the Task Force will report to the Faculty Senate in the course of its deliberations and will submit any recommendations and proposals to the Faculty Senate for approval.

  • Introduced Chairs of the Honor Code Task Force:  Adrienne Strain (SGA), Richard Veit (English), and Mike Walker (third Co-chair, not present).
    • Richard Veit: the existing policy is not an honor code per se but a policy on cheating.  Provost Hosier appointed a task force (consisting of students, faculty, and administration) to look at this.  We have met and looked at the research and at what other universities are doing.  What we found is that any honor code handed down from on high doesn’t work.  So we aimed to be broadly participatory – we are seeking a mandate from Faculty Senate, SGA, and GSA. 
      • Richard Veit presented the Honor Task Code preliminary report (please see:  http://people.uncw.edu/veit/hctf/reports/preliminary_report.html); the Honor Task Force recommends establishing a modified honor code at UNCW.
    • Adrienne Strain:  we need to develop the text of the honor code.  We need to make it a part of our culture.  We need to start from the bottom up – start with the students and ask them to devise some sort of reinforcement or commitment to the honor code.  We talked about the idea of a slogan in every classroom and lab, for instance.  The statement will always be there as a reminder to the students and faculty.  All faculty would be asked to read the honor code and discuss it on the first days of classes.  This naturally leads to holding students accountable when they don’t live up to the honor code.  We want to host open fora – SGA likes this format.  We want to be inclusive with this initiative and involve SGA, GSA, faculty, and administration, etc.
    • Mark Spaulding:  should we limit our discussions to the “be it resolved” section of [Motion 08-05-27]?
      • From the floor:  Yes – let’s limit ourselves.
    • Mark Spaulding:  there seems to be consensus on this. 
  • [Motion 08-05-27] carried.

New business

• No new business.

Announcements

• No announcements.

Adjournment

Meeting adjourned at 3:40pm.