FS meeting

12/3/2013

 

Approval of the minutes

Special order of the day – nominations for Faculty Senate President

Gabriel Lugo – nominated, and elected unanimously.

 

Chancellor Miller report

 

Good afternoon – Happy Thanksgiving holiday. Got out of town, hoe you all relaxed a little. Thank you for all you are doing. Received some information about what your colleagues did at the last BOT meeting. BOT very impressed with approach, collegiality, care and commitment to students. We will continue to do this in the future as we will have more new members. Commencement – please try to come. I know it is a huge commitment of time, students always tell us they appreciate this.

 

Last BOT – long workshop on the finances of the university – budget, how we manage cash, UNIV fund accounting and regular businesses. Trying to make the impression that our money is not fungible like a business. We have debt – Moody’s review of our debt, very positive. I would encourage you in your college to have Charlie come do this workshop – good information in there on the enrollment model and how we are having to work that to manage the University’s budget. Will show the complicated budgeting we have to do and understanding from the board. The Board then took up fee increases. They approved the 12% increase for out of state. We believe this will hurt our enrollment. A damaging move by the legislature. We think this will be very damaging to us but we had to do it. We were able to reduce the debt fee and an athletic fee increase. Board also approved the sighting of 3 restroom facilities along the intramural facilities and near the soccer facility and an all weather surface. Next a track and field resurfacing. Using the overage from the rec center to pay for this. Have a happy holiday if we don’t see you. Thanks again for all you are doing for our students.

 

Provost Battles report

 

Good afternoon. Short announcements of topics that I think will be of interest. Associate VC and Dean of Undergraduate Studies – interviewed two candidates. The successful candidate is Dr. Posey.

 

Announced the search committee and position vacancy Associate Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School. This is a national search – not to say we aren’t looking for nominations of individuals within our own community – please advance those nominations. Ken Titelbaum, Steve Fontana, Randy Cottrell, Susan Hermonson, Mahnaz Moellem, Allizon Taylor, Paul Townend, Andrea Bordela, Karl Risneck, Panda Powell, Brian Victor, Katia Huru (grad school), Jennifer Combs from HR. Screening begins on January 6, 2013.

 

She has thoughts about RTP but will be engaging with the Deans and Chairs.

 

Assessment –

Painful duty to inform you that there are a lot of things coming down from General Administration – strategic directions plan. One of them has to do with assessment. Last time we met we approved a resolution to support a resolution on system wide competencies – Critical Thinking and Written Communication. We are fighting to oppose BOG reducing GS curriculum to a system wide core. We will get some kind of testing but we will try to make it as faculty. Not clear how it will work and be used.

 

E-learning initiative – if you want to improve e-learning faculty have to be ready – training for faculty, support system for the faculty is prepared to handle the load. JR just wants to add – this is another initiative – departments controlling who teaches these courses. The faculty have to meet the standards that we set and there will probably be a system wide set of competencies that faculty have to demonstrate that they can do. Across the board higher DWIF rates in e-learning courses than in face-to-face courses. We need to be concerned who gets blamed for this – there had been talk of a 17th University e-learning North Carolina. We have to ensure that the courses that have our name on have the credentials. Research about the students and if they are ready and how we will figure that out. Looking – can they navigate the system. Wayne State – decided not to go in that direction because the students are not able…

 

Communications committee in Faculty Assembly. Attempting to convince people that the way to assess is the way we assess. Instead of having to do expensive pilot projects, etc., what we really need to do is educate administrators that what we do we do well. BOT meeting was good – we were able to show them the quality of the education we have.

 

RTP:

 

Committee Reports – Nathan Gove – Academic Standards

 

2013-12-MO01 – Academic Standards – GPA plus ratio of attempted to completed hours in any determination of academic standing. We have added SAP to academic standing. Using the Financial Aid 67% ratio (required by Title 4). Holding everyone to a 2.0 for consistency. The only way the student could be dismissed is for GPA reasons. No dismissal because of the ratio.

 

Retention chart will impact approximately 30 a year – 135 on academic probation to 170 on academic probation. No information on how many will be impacted by the ratio.

 

-Motion passes – no clicker vote.

 

2013-12-MO02 WE designation – 16 credits gives the students more flexibility – the important piece is that these are course withdrawals that are not for extenuating circumstances. Now that there will be different types of withdrawals there has to be a system in place for the registrar to keep track. New grade WE course withdrawal for extenuating circumstances. Keep those separate from the regular W’s and keep these separate from the other W’s.

 

Discussion: how will extenuating circumstances be defined and who is responsible – these already exist – death, family, illness – College Deans will make those decisions as they do now.

 

By having WE on the transcript would put the student in a situation down the road that would look at the transcript and impact the privacy of the student. There is a concern – in the mind of the registrar only way to do it.

PL: will there be a period of time where the student will be grandfathered in?

 

WE – why not take away the 0 grade point average. Wherever we explain the grades there is a negative connotation.

 

Vote: passes.

 

MO 2013-12-MO3 – Charlie Hardy – been bringing the community health program in line with the national movement and the certifying body. Opened the door for undergraduate preparation in public health. Last year changed the degree to public health. We see this as a growth area to add programs with epidemiology. Preparing the undergraduate to assume a position in public health. Our attempt here is to clean up the curriculum so that we can move into the accreditation process. We hope to be among the first wave to be accredited at the undergraduate level. UNCW

Vote: unanimous.

 

 

MO2013-12-MO4  SGA resolution to maintain the current campus conduct system

-passes (one opposed – the same guy who is voting no on everything today).

 

Sue Combs – Faculty Athletic Representative – Faculty Athletic Council

All the same ideas from when Tom Barth was on the FAC and when Bill Bolduc was the FAR. Want the faculty to help with the athletes. This fall 22 student athletes in honors college – 3.122 gpa (all athletes). Over 5,000 service hours. Highest gpa – women’s soccer 3.59. Successful season.

 

Save the date 12/15 basketball game – 4 tickets for 3 cans of food. Appreciate your time. If you have any questions, especially next semester we are planning to reach out to departments to see how we can help you support student athletes.

 

Budget Committee Report – Lori Messinger

-committee been meeting e-mail.

-committee approved the fee changes 

-Budget Council (new name) – we are looking at the reports around shared services. We are reviewing those work group reports and reporting to the Budget committee. Those reports have not been released to anyone except but the Budget committee. Wants the faculty to know they are calling for greater inclusiveness.

 

Straw polls on RTP

-we intend to have a lot of campus discussions about shared services. Very preliminary docus for internal uses we assure you we will be back to you for a thorough vetting.

 

-as you start to look at this process. The awarding of tenure is delegated to the BOT by the BOG. Documents will have to be approved by these boards. In both cases there is great suspicion of tenure. We will have to look through these documents through the lens of these bodies. We may push back on things we believe in as intellectuals but we may also push back on language before we have to take it to these boards. We have been arguing to these boards that the process is rigorous but we don’t believe we could get the current document through the BOT/BOG.

 

WE are engaged in an educational campaign. 

He thinks they buy the research, teaching and service and they understand the universities and the proportions of those and they understand the value of research and scholarship. They want the service more quantified. But they want it to be more rigorous. Certainly I support tenure and we’ve argued strongly for it. Please don’t misunderstand I am not saying I do not value tenure but we have to get these approved by the board. We don’t want to have this discussion when the cases come up. Last time we had a case come up. How do BOT people evaluate the tenure process – they have to be assured that the tenure process is rigorous.

 

1)     External review question on Ext review required for Full

-would only review research?

-what is the role of this review in the evaluation of the document?

-what is the role of the reviewer selection? What schools can they come from – need a reviewer who understands the role of the application in his/her position at our university. We have very specific instructions for  how they would be selected in the handbook itself.

 

·         Agree                    14

·         Neutral                 03       

·         Disagree               19

·         Undecided            08

 

2)     External review optional for associate.

-this will be held against me or not?

·         Agree                    28

·         Neutral                 01       

·         Disagree               19

·         Undecided            02

 

3)     Senior members are defined as all tenured professors

·         Agree                    16

·         Neutral                 02       

·         Disagree               30

·         Undecided            02

 

4)     There will be only three levels of review for each candidate before the application is reviewed by the Committee on RTP (CRTP).

·         Agree                    29

·         Neutral                 05       

·         Disagree               12

·         Undecided            02

 

5)     Each department must develop explicit criteria for RTP that are shared with faculty at the time of initial hire…approved by the department’s faculty.

·         Agree                    40

·         Neutral                 00       

·         Disagree               04

·         Undecided            01

 

Meeting adjourned at 4:00 pm.

Respectfully submitted: Senate Secretary