Faculty Senate Meeting Minutes Dec. 11, 2018 EB 162 President Meinhold presiding. Meeting called to order: 2:02 Good afternoon. Please make sure you have a clicker if you are a voting senator, and that you ve checked in. If you are substituting, please make clear who you are subbing for. Thanks for being here. We have a lot to do today, so I ll jump right in. A motion to approve the minutes from November was seconded and passed with no additions or corrections. I. Special order of the day: Election of a new President of the Senate for the 2019/20 academic year. We are required to do so today by our policies. Anyone can be nominated, if you have already sought out their agreement. The floor is open for nominations. a. Nathan Grove (CHM) is nominated; he is willing to serve. Motion to close the nominations was made, seconded, and all were in favor. b. Senator Grove was asked to say a few words. Nathan I sent an email to all Senators. I want to work on communication to pull faculty, students, and staff together and build on and strengthen our work with the Chancellor and Provost that President Meinhold has already started. I ve served in a number of capacities at this university. It s an honor and I recognize the weight that goes with this position. I will do everything I can to represent the interests of the faculty. c. A motion to elect by acclimation was seconded and passed. There was much applause. II. Chancellor s Report: a. Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon. That s exciting! I want to thank each and every one of you. This is my first time to be with you since Florence thanks for everything you ve done to help our students. It s been a monumental effort. Our students have had it tough too and have shown a lot of resilience. We ll be able to graduate a lot of students this weekend. b. Lots of work has been going on since Florence. I know a number of you are inconvenienced by the portable buildings coming in for labs, and it s tough on parking. We re building 60,000 feet of back-up, swing space. We ll be replicating the labs from Dobo. We need that anyway, to diversify. We re developing a plan for fixing Dobo, including improvements to the roof; the same holds for Cameron and Leutze. The State gave us $27.2 million for repairs, and about $10.5 million for enrollment growth from last year and for the summer. So far, we have only received the enrollment growth monies for on-line in the summer, but the rest will come, and they will start paying for actual rather than for forecast enrollment growth. In total, UNCW will get the largest of any of the universities for growth. We ve received a lot of money for a 3-month period. Most of the repairs will be paid by insurance, with some from FEMA.
c. Last week one of our graduates gave $10 million to start a new school. I have about $100 million in asks also underway. The BOT defines $10 million for naming a school, $15 million for a college, and I hope to have a few more coming. Our donor is a great guy and a great family, very devoted to the university the donation is for professorships and scholarships, and for fixing up the building. d. Our retention rate for fall-spring is at 97% - better than the last 2 years, despite the storm. We re concerned about next year. Applications were down, but are now up from last year by 12%, which is fantastic given the circumstances. Underlying it all is your efforts. e. Questions for the Chancellor? At one point, there was some discussion about the GA coming back after elections to consider appropriations. Chancellor they ve already done a lot, but there is more to consider. We already got a lot. I sensed that pushing on the $13 million that s left was less important than focusing on the library. We got $5.5 million for the library last year - I m working on the rest. Harry Smith will be here next week, and he wants to support us. I m working with him still and with others in the House and the Senate. We re trying to work with all the powers to get the library funding. I think we have a good chance more than a 50% chance. There will be lots of claims on the monies that are left. There is one school ahead of us. Thank you. f. President Meinhold I d like to acknowledge and congratulate the Chancellor for that big donation. This is an important source of funds for us as opposed to state appropriations. III. IV. The Provost can t be here today. Rich Ogle is here and has agreed to forego his report, but can answer questions. There were none from the floor. Faculty Assembly Report Derrick Miller. a. FA met on Nov 30 and covered 7 topics including transition in the President s office, faculty salaries, system-wide on-line education, results of the employment survey, minimum admission requirements, summer school funding, and Silent Sam. On Dec. 3, UNC released their report, and BOG will be meeting on the 14 th. FA decided to wait on the BOT report before reacting, with the goal of supporting the UNC CH faculty, and the plan to bring ideas back to our own campuses for further discussion. FA hopes to develop a position paper on monuments across the system. b. The UNC CH report wants to move Silent Sam off-campus, but they are bound by a law to prevent such a thing and so are bound to keep it on campus - probably in a museum of history that has yet to be built. Currently, David Green, FA President, is talking with Harry Green to ensure that they re hearing from all constituents, and will take all perspectives into account. V. President s Report: a. I don t have a report, but there has also been considerable discussion among Senate presidents about what to do. The issues aren t going away, and the Faculty Council is working to make a statement about keeping Silent Sam on campus. We may be asked to make a statement of our own or in support of theirs. There is nothing wrong with moving the monument off-campus. b. We failed to get the Oceanography document uploaded, but I have it now and will display it so that everyone can take a look, and we can then consider the motion involving it fully informed. Cem Canel The motion involves changes in the number of
required hours, adding 2 new courses and removing one. The proposed change would be a decrease in hours from 60-63 hours to 59-63. Meinhold the proposal comes from the department, the CAS CC, and the UCC. There were no other questions. VI. Committee Reports: a. UCC i. I will be asking for your permission to consider these motions in groups. Also, there is one minor change: Motion 16 is being removed because there was some confusion between the department and the CAS CC about what was needed. Also, Motion 19 (to establish a minor in data science) does not include documentation on student learning outcomes, which is a requirement, so this one will be removed from consideration as well. Because the motion involves an interdisciplinary minor, it doesn t fall within the umbrella of existing SLO s for a given major. Discussion on this issue: Mark Lammers the SLOs are in the syllabi and have been approved by the UCC. Senator Freeze the email in question was through Kemille Moore from about a year ago. Michele Scatton- Tessier I facilitate the college CC; it is not the requirement to have SLOs in each syllabus. It was discussed in the UCC. After input from Paul Townend and others, the minor was approved. Question are there SLOs for the minor? Michele Scatton-Tessier we could bring this back to the CAS CC to reconsider. Paul Townend regarding whether or not an interdisciplinary minor is required to have SLOs, I suspect not, but I could find out and report back. Meinhold would acting on this motion in January interfere with your progress? Mark Lammers I don t think so, but I don t understand why this standard is being applied now. Meinhold there is an email from Kemille indicating that the minor would need such SLOs. Can anyone confirm this? Scatton-Tessier we re currently reviewing the SLOs for all minors, so I can ensure that we ll be reporting back on this to all chairs and the Senate. Meinhold then I won t be removing this one. ii. Motions MO2 M18: I ask for unanimous consent to consider all UCC motions from M02 to M18 as a group. M16 has been removed. No concerns were voiced. A voice vote was called and the package of motions carried. iii. Motion 2018-12-M01 - to delete the Postcolonial Minor. Any comments in favor or against. Voice vote called, motion carries. iv. Motion 2018-12-M19 - to create minor in data science. Comments? Guinn this is an interdiscipliniary minor. We re very excited about it it s intended for students who are not majors in CSC or MAT/STT. Lugo My understanding is that this program was discussed by the department and has the strong recommendation from the Math department as a whole. A voice vote called and the motion carried. v. Motion 2018-12-M20 - to create a 4+1 MS in CSC: Guinn I can answer any questions. This would allow our undergraduates to start taking graduate courses early; they would double-count courses for the BS and MS degrees, making for an easy transition. The proposal is modeled largely on the ENG 4+1 program. Canal this doesn t change any of the requirements for the MS degree, and it doesn t mean that students will automatically be accepted into the grad program. I think the proposal is a great idea. Freeze I have a
question on the total number of hours for the combined degree and what SACS requires. Guinn the grad program is 36 hours, and those will still be met. The undergraduate degree requires 124 hours; 12 of those would come from the grad hours. Townend any new programs must pass through UCC, and there are SACS guidelines on the amount of overlap allowed, so we take a look at that. Guinn students apply to the grad program in their senior year, just as other students would. Volety there is lots of support from the college. A voice vote was called, and the motion carried. vi. Motion 2018-12-21 - approval to plan a BS in Work Force Education and Development: from Watson. Durrington this degree would provide for adult education with the work force and military, a growing need. I can answer any questions about it. Meinhold there have been various efforts to give academic credit for military service, especially for university studies. I believe there will need to be some untangling with this proposal for US; Watson College is aware of this. A voice vote was called and the motion carried. b. USAC i. I ask for unanimous consent to waive the requirement for previous posting these 3 motions from USAC were just received. There were no objections. ii. Motions 2018-12-M23, M24, and M25 to recertify, add, and remove a course respectively. McQuire we re trying to get through about 80 courses that USAC is still reviewing so that we can have a normal review year. A voice vote was called for each motion individually; all three motions carried. VII. Old Business establish the category of Practice-Track faculty: Clinical & Practice Faculty a. We considered this proposal first back in April. It was tabled until our October meeting, but we did not meet then given the post-florence distraction. We now need a motion to remove this motion from the table. So moved, and seconded; the motion to remove from table carried. b. Now we can consider the motion for debate, but there s another wrinkle. I received a substitute motion from the individuals who submitted the original motion, which was forwarded to all of you. We could recognize a motion to replace the original motion with the substitute. So moved, seconded but this was unnecessary given that the motion came from a dept. c. Discussion of the revised motion. The change from the original involved voting rights of the new faculty status. The substitution proposed including these faculty in the count for faculty representation. The original version counted these faculty like research faculty, who are not included in the count for senate representation. The motion is to adopt new handbook language. This new language would be added to the Handbook. We need to discuss and vote on whether to accept the substitute. i. I don t like giving potentially short-term appointments a faculty status. Meinhold we could debate the substitute motion and then recommend changes to its language. ii. Are lecturers included in the count? Yes lecturers at.9 or higher are included. Wouldn t they be considered temporary too? Yes, but research faculty are.9 or higher too, so that s not an all-or-none issue. Does anyone want to continue with the original motion? Any in support of the substitute motion? A voice vote
was called on the substitute motion; the motion carried. We ll debate the substitution motion as the motion on the floor. d. Yesterday we received a motion from Music to amend language in the motion we re considering. Is there a second to debate the motion to amend? The amendment was summarized by faculty from Music fundamentally we are opposed to creating untenured full-time faculty positions. Doing so endangers academic freedom. Still, we recognize the desire to establish such a position from some colleges, and understand how useful these positions can be. In creative and performing arts, we worry about the trend to replace tenure-track faculty, who carry traditional responsibilities for scholarship and creation of new knowledge, with non-tenured faculty. This practice can endanger freedom to discuss certain types of issues as well, and thus academic freedom again. Meinhold these positions are made at the department or school level with the approval of a dean. e. Discussion of motion to amend: i. What is the process being referred to here? Meinhold my understanding is that this would allow colleges the discretion to create their own policies. This is something a bit different in that it yields the authority to establish the nuts and bolts for selection and promotion to the college/school level. A future Senate could conceivably remove the category if there were problems. ii. CHHS faculty this proposal was driven by faculty and was going on long before the college was created. We have desperate need for this position and the sorts of expertise that these individuals can bring. This language helps to clarify exactly what we want, so the amendment seems friendly. iii. Why restrict to senior faculty rather than all faculty? Music this is a point we d be flexible on. We were focusing on individuals with more history and expertise as the voting base, but we could be open to changing this. Meinhold one option would be to say full-time faculty. iv. I m in favor of the previous motion. I m not sure what this adds by going to department level. I need clarification on how this language adds enough to merit the amendment. v. I move that senior be replaced with voting eligible? That could be inclusive of lecturers. Meinhold - if we re going to amend, we should use language that is consistent with the handbook. We could say faculty or full-time faculty. There are really only 3 choices senior, senior + tenure-track, or full-time faculty. Many want something other than senior. vi. I move that the department s full-time faculty be inserted here. Any objections to this substitution? There were none. This wording would include individuals with the new designation, once it s passed. vii. The amendment to the newly revised motion would thus read as follows: Annual review of practice-track faculty will be conducted by the supervisor and chair or director. Practice-track faculty may be considered for promotion following a timetable and policies to be consistent with that followed by the department/school, college, and university for tenure-track faculty. All requests to implement practice-track faculty must originate from the corresponding academic department and must carry with it the endorsement of a majority of that department s full-time faculty (by vote). If successful, that department will establish policies and procedures to guide the process and have these approved
by the faculty, dean, and Office of the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. viii. My concern is that this undermines the authority of the department as a unit. I have problems letting lecturers vote and with handing decisions over to administration. Including full-time faculty is a problem because that includes everyone. ix. This language helps to make it clear that having these positions is up to the department. This seems a good compromise. A voice vote was called on the amendment from the Music Dept. Would it be possible to say academic department/school? Meinhold yes, it would be appropriate but this language will be reviewed by the Handbook Committee and AA. They ll make any changes needed for consistency. Voice vote called the amendment carried. f. Now we re back to debating whether to add the language as amended to the Handbook, creating this new category of faculty. i. I m in favor. This is critical to sustaining our programs. We need both tenuretrack faculty and clinical-track faculty. I ve not touched a patient in years, so we really do need both. It s for the good of the student. We re the only school in the UNC system that doesn t have this. Why is that? Lugo This idea has come up at the FA level, which is system wide. It s fairly common for institutions that have large clinical branches. It s common where there are clinical needs. ii. From Clinical Research- our college was founded to serve the needs of the community. We ve seen a tremendous increase in the population of our area and we need this tool to better train our students. Other schools may not need this, which is fine, but we need this in SE NC. Why be the only school in the system that doesn t have this tool? iii. Would this time be appropriate to ask for clarification? I m wondering about the titles of each level by rank. Current wording indicates that the terminal degree must be a doctoral degree. Is it the case that the terminal degree must be the doctorate. Response depends on the field. In some areas, the terminal degree is a MS/MA. Meinhold it s not meant to be exclusive to Ph.D. Other appropriate terminal degrees may be relevant, depending on the discipline/specialty. iv. In the rationale document, it indicates that practice-track will be considered special faculty status. Could that be codified, that practice-track be considered special faculty? Meinhold was that your intention? Hardy we intended that, but we just used the language for research faculty. Ogle I think they re sticking with the way that the system uses the language of special faculty. Meinhold does this satisfy the issue? Again, AA will be reviewing this language. Anyone wishing to speak against the motion? Or change the motion we re considering? v. I m still concerned about the voting and the rights to serve as Senators. Meinhold there are lots of different interpretations of voting rights and how faculty are counted. It s difficult for me to say how these positions will be treated by schools and departments. That said, any position of.9 or greater would be included for purposes of Senate representation, and would be eligible to serve as a Senator. To make this different would require a motion to change this.
vi. So a department with lots of these faculty and few tenure-track could overpower departments with only tenure-track. Meinhold conceivably yes. vii. There is other language in the handbook, which says that they would not be included. Meinhold the new language says differently. The intent of the substitute motion is to grant Senate representation. Lugo the definition of voting faculty is in the first line of the covenant. It specifies full-time faculty as.9 faculty. The wording was changed with the Affordable Care Act, to accommodate those teaching 3 courses as full time. If we re going to make any changes, it would have to include changes to this item #1. viii. The question was called, and passed by voice vote, moving us immediately to a vote on the amended motion. Votes were taken by clicker to approve the addition of the new practice-track faculty status and the corresponding language for the Handbook. The vote was 56 in favor, with 9 votes against. VIII. New business: a. A motion was made by Senator Freeze to form an ad hoc committee to review existing campus policies and make recommendations on university guidelines governing rights of non-tenure faculty in personnel and curricular decisions. b. Ogle - the Provost asked me last year to form a committee on exactly this issue concerning treatment of lecturers, since there is considerable variety across campus. This was delayed due to the storm, but we re forming the committee now, and would work hand-in-hand with whatever the Senate decides to do. We ll be surveying both ourselves, our sister institutions, and our peers (as per our SACS report), to see how others deal with these full-time faculty members. We will try to understand the variability and practices. Meinhold will this effort include open forums? Yes surveys, open forums. Our time line is to complete our study by June 30. There will be administrators on the committee; the final report writing will take place by the end of the academic year. c. Discussion of the motion: i. Freeze this is a timely issue given the announcement of the Provost in April about concerns over this issue. Our hope was that this review would help to create greater inclusion. ii. This motion says April 19. Meinhold April is the last meeting of the Senate in the academic year. Our group could report in April, and this could be considered by the AA committee. These are 2 different efforts. iii. This seems somewhat redundant, if AA is doing the same thing. Also, is this a department resolution, or is it coming from individual senators? Freeze it s not from the department just the co-signers (Freeze and Feng). I m not sure if the AA committee would be the same as ours. iv. There is a rationale for having a Senate committee in addition to one from AA. The timelines are different. v. I have the same concern about overlap of effort. Meinhold would you be interested in making a motion to postpone the motion to a certain date say in our January meeting, pending the appointment of the AA committee members? So moved. vi. Could we get input from Ogle about the composition of the committee? Meinhold that s the point. Ogle at this point 11 of 15 committee members
are faculty. Meinhold we can ask AA for the exact composition. Ogle will do. vii. A voice vote was called to postpone consideration of the motion in January; the motion carried. Meeting adjourned: 4:00