Faculty Senate	Minutes	Senate home | Comments
Tuesday, 12 October 2004   See Agenda   Meeting 2005-02

Roll call

Absent: Bennett (HAHS), Clark (Cameron School), Dworkin (Psychology), Howell (Economics & Finance), Hungerford (Psychology), Messer (Creative Writing), Rosen (Information Systems), Toth (Sociology & Criminal Justice), Weber (Communication Studies)

Approval of minutes

September minutes were approved.

Individual reports

1. Chancellor Rosemary DePaolo reported, including the following:
• Faculty parking: The Senate recommended that parking be free to faculty and staff. Cost, however, would exceed $285,000 annually. She hopes we can afford this in the future, but we are not in a position to do so currently.
• Committees: We have a very large number of committees reporting to the Senate, the Chancellor, and the Provost. She is seeking Senate input into streamlining committee structure.
• Faculty welfare: A staff committee made excellent recommendations on non-salary-related welfare items. It would be very helpful if the Faculty Welfare Committee would make similar proposals and recommendations.
• Equity funding for UNCW: We are the most poorly funded UNC campus (1.4 standard deviation below the average). Bob Warwick and Hannah Gage (Board of Governors members from Wilmington) have worked tirelessly lobbying the Board to correct the inequity. The Board will vote in November on a proposal that no campus be more than 1 standard deviation below average. If adopted by the Board and, subsequently, by the General Assembly, UNCW will have $7 million annually added to our base budget. This "would be a tremendous gain for this tightly strapped campus."
   
2. President Daniel Noland informed the Senate that the November meeting will take place in DeLoach 212.
    
3. Faculty Assembly delegate Richard Veit reported, including the following:
   • President Broad sees much reason to be pleased with the budget. Although our base budget was cut 1.47% (some cuts one-time, others permanent), our enrollment growth was fully funded, financial aid support was increased, money for Distinguished Professorship was increased (UNCW got three endowed professorships), and we got a 2.5% pool for faculty salaries—with the result that our funding actually increased by 7.9%. This compares with major cuts in other states; e.g., a 7.9% cut in South Carolina.
      
4. Director of University Planning Kenneth Spackman reported, including the following:
   • Strategic Planning
     • The Strategic Plan is intended to be adapted to new conditions. For example, we recently added a new goal on campus safety (in response to the recent deaths) and a new objective on increased financial aid to make our education affordable.
     • The document is also intended for use rather than ostentation. Already it has resulted in changes to the budget to support objectives. Faced with multiple worthy but competing requests for funding, the administration will give priority to those that best support our strategic plan.
   • Master planning: Two consulting firms have been hired to plan growth for the next 15 years (land use, building needs and design, etc.), and their study will be guided by our strategic priorities. For example, our faculty-student ratio of 18.9 is second worst in UNC. Also we are dead last in UNC in the number of small classes. Our goal of "intimate learning experiences" will likely dictate a plan to lower the ratio and to increase the number of smaller classes.
   • Nessie and Fessie: Two national surveys were administered to students (National Survey of Student Engagement) and to faculty (Faculty Survey of Student Engagement). Results are voluminous but telling, and presentations are being made to various units. An open session for faculty is being scheduled.

Committee reports

1. The following motion by the Steering Committee carried, after a successful amendment to move Film Studies from Division III to Division I [Motion 2005-02-03: amend Bylaws to revise voting divisions; carried]:

   That section 14 of Election procedures for autonomous faculty committees, an appendix to the Faculty Senate Bylaws, be revised to reflect current university departments and to provide equality of representation [deletions, additions]:

   14. Voting divisions

   Departments are assigned to one of four voting divisions as follows:

   • Division I: Art & Theatre, Creative Writing, English, Film Studies, Foreign Languages & Literatures, History, Music, Philosophy & Religion
   • Division II: Biological Sciences, Chemistry & Biochemistry, Computer Science, Earth Sciences, Environmental Studies, Mathematical Sciences Mathematics & Statistics, Physics & Physical Oceanography
   • Division III: Anthropology, Communication Studies, Health/Physical Education & Recreation Health & Applied Human Sciences, Library, Political Science, Psychology, Randall Library, Social Work, Sociology & Anthropology Criminal Justice
   • Division IV: Cameron Schools of Business (Accountancy & Business Law, Economics & Finance, Information Systems & Operations Management, Management & Marketing, Production & Decision Sciences), Watson School of Education (Curricular Studies, Specialty Studies), School of Nursing

2. Committee of the whole

   The Senate went into a committee of the whole to discuss the following recommendation by the 2002 ad hoc committee to review RTP policy:

   Departmental [RTP] guidelines must include a provision for external review that is consistent across the university. External review is required when a faulty member requests promotion to the rank of professor; external review is optional and is the choice of the faculty member in all other reappointment, tenure, and promotion decisions. Five letters are required for recommendations to the rank of professor and three letters for all other decisions [see: Appendix 4 for guidelines for external review and Appendix 5 for sample letter].

   Professor Lu Huntley acted as secretary during discussion and provided the following notes:

   Main points that emerged from the discussion include the following:

   • Clarity is needed regarding what is being evaluated (research only or teaching and service as well).
   • Should external review be part of UNCW's RTP policy or should each department incorporate external review as part of its RTP policy?
   • Expenses in time and money are involved in external review.
   • Does this shift responsibility regarding promotion to outsiders?
   • What qualifications must a reviewer have?
   • External review can bring out positive points about a candidate that may not be recognized. External reviewers can assist in helping those professors with areas of expertise that may not be well understood as this provides a type of protection for those in fields not well known (i.e., literary theory, rhetoric).
   • Affirmative Action laws need to be examined.
   • Should external reviewers who are co-authors be permitted?
   • A summary from the Physics Department indicates objection to the whole idea of uniform standard, question about the number of letters and making these optional, and disciplinary implications for the sciences was addressed.
   • A statement was made that a flow chart be made of the discussion as Senate members are dealing with the issue of external review at a conceptual level, and there is dissonance due to the history and culture of this university and disciplinary differences.
   • Basic questions were brought forth regarding the purpose of external review and the original intent of the recommendation. The rationale provided is as follows: external review is “to empower people.” This provides another avenue for information, but it is not meant to be negative or punitive. Twenty schools similar to UNCW were checked, and the number of letters vary at different institutions.
   • Clarification is needed regarding at what level external review is necessary.
   • A point was made that the concept of a generalist in a field differs from narrow, specific expertise as in the case of education generalist.
   • Generally, the discussion today suggests that different departments and disciplines vary in their ways of thinking about external review. Internal dissonance among the whole faculty senate body suggests more discussion is needed on the topic of external review and the recommendation by the 2002 ad hoc committee to review RTP policy.

New business: none

Adjournment

Minutes by Richard Veit, Senate Secretary