| Tuesday, 9 October 2001 |
2:30 p.m. |
Dobo 134 |
President Noland called the meeting to order at 2:30 p.m.
Absent: Barker (Library), Buttino (Advan. Cmt), Clark (Business), Dodd (Finan.Aid Cmte.), Earney (Acct.), Errante (Admissions Cmte.), Grindlay (Earth Sci), Hines (St. Affairs Cmte.), Hunt (Mgt.), Lundeen (Bio), McLaurin (Math), Narayan (Comp.Sci.), Roscher (Acct.), Sigler (Econ.), Sizemore (Eval. Cmte.), Tyndall (ITSD), Weber (Communications), Wilson (P&R)
The September minutes were approved.
The Senate voted on an Honorary Degree Nomination.
1. Chancellor Leutze
- Thanked the Faculty for its continuing efforts to accommodate students needs in the present crisis, and for their concerns for foreign students and support for free discussion.
- Noted that Faculty could encourage students who might be experiencing unusual stress to seek help at the Counseling Center.
- Reiterated the point that some members of the General Assembly do not understand the concept of tenure, and that it is important to have a Post-Tenure Review Policy, in order to protect the system of tenure.
- Said that he would like to see the media "lower the temperature" on the topic of terrorism; the University is a very unlikely target, but we do have heightened security on campus.
2. President of the Senate Noland
- Also expressed his thanks to UNCW and to the UNC system for its support of academic freedom and freedom of expression.
3. Faculty Assembly delegate Richard Veit
- Reported that UNC system enrollment has increased 7000+ students this year, a gain of 4.3%; this is as if the system added one whole new campus.
- One effect of this unsustainable level of growth has been the addition of part-time faculty; the Assembly will have a report on non-tenure track faculty at the next meeting.
- Reported on the State Budget, noting that although the UNC system had to endure over $50 million in cuts, there were no reductions in EPA teaching funds, and the State Legislature had the courage to raise over $1 billion in revenue (1 Republican voting yes), which prevented massive, damaging cuts to the University.
4. Faculty Welfare Cmte Chair Byington and Human Resources Dir. Sam Connally
- Reported good news: the University has found a new life-insurance underwriter; that university-paid insurance will continue; rates for employee-paid insurance have been significantly reduced; and there is now an open-enrollment period for faculty interested in more life insurance at excellent rates; see http://www.uncwil.edu/univ_planning/messages.htm.
5. SACS Self-Study Director Spackman
- Noted there have been only 40 responses to the Self-Study posted on the web; if faculty read it, but have no comment, please add "no comment," so it will be recorded that they have visited the site.
- Reminded the Senate of the Hearing on the Self-Study, Thursday, Oct 18, 3:30-5 p.m. at Dobo 134.
- Explained that in the next phase of the SACS process, especially the site visit, the focus will be on department and committee chairs, deans, etc., and urged all faculty to read the Introduction and Summary of the SACS report.
Committee Reports
1. Senator Richard Veit, chair of the Senate Ad-Hoc Committee on Post-Tenure Review, addressed the committee on their motion to modify the PTR policy (Motion 02-2-3). He noted that the purpose of Post-Tenure Review is not to re-evaluate a tenure decision, but is a five-year review, similar to the annual reviews; it is expected that the overwhelming majority of faculty will be found "satisfactory," rather than "exemplary" or "deficient;" and that UNCW's policy, along with others in the UNC system, may have helped to prevent a widespread movement in state legislatures to end tenure: Mary Burgen, Executive Secretary of the AAUP, told him "Post-Tenure Review saved tenure." In response to question, Veit said that 2-3% of faculty across the UNC system, 4% of faculty at UNCW had thus far been found "deficient" (the difference not being statistically significant).
There were several questions raised about the motion to add the option of a hearings procedure in the case of a disputed finding of "deficient." Among the questions and his responses:
- Why does the proposed policy have two options, mediation through the Faculty Professional Relations Committee and a Hearings Panel? Mediation has to be agreed to on both sides; this failing, the policy turns to a more formal procedure.
- What would be done if a department had an internal appeals procedure for findings of deficiency? This had not been discussed (apparently only one department has one), but the committee might, on further discussion, want to recommend that all internal appeals proceedings be completed, before appeal to the university hearing panel.
- Are some units out of line with the university PTR policy? Discrepancies had been found. Some schools, e.g. Nursing, are moving quickly to make their guidelines congruent.
- Is there a conflict between the proposed policy and the duties of the FPRC as described in Section 607 of the Code? There is no explicit conflict, but questions have been raised about the proposal which the committee could taken under advisement in its discussion, if the motion were postponed.
The Senate then passed a motion (02-2-4) to postpone the vote on motion 02-2-3 (concerning PTR policy) until the November meeting.
None.
New Business
None.
Announcements
None.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
