Approval of October minutes was moved, seconded, and passed with no objections.

Faculty Senate Minutes Nov. 8, 2016 President Meinhold presiding Meeting called to order: 2:05 Approval of October minutes was moved, seconded, and passed with no objections. Reports: I. Report from Cathy Barlow on transition to electronic RPT submissions. a. Implementation plans have been designed to help ensure that the transition will be as easy as possible. The main point is that materials will be loaded as a pdf. Training sessions will be held on the 28 th, 29 th, and 30 th. Steve will send out an email on this. CTE will be offering training workshops it s all straightforward with no surprises. Any questions should go to Cathy. Jarrett Piner from IT is helping. Sharepoint will be the platform for submitting materials. Only the candidate and the people approving the candidate s materials will be able to see the candidate s documentation. Candidates can use either the form on the site, or the form that is already available, which would then need to be downloaded. b. Questions from the floor: What about the rest of the materials? Will each section be attached separately, or should the entire document be downloaded? Response - Either way will work. The training is not required it s just there for those who feel that it would be helpful. We ll be building the FAQs as we go. The system will allow you to add multiple attachments. For books, you add the table of contents and title page. If the book is electronic, you can attach that too. You can add whatever you would normally include. Our guidelines say that books are not normally submitted. Question - Is there a cap on size this will be important for the arts disciplines (could be 30 gigabytes as for a film; those are pretty intense). Response - You can also post a link to your book, artwork or film. Question: You re talking about the dossier, rather than the supporting documentation, right? Normally we go to shelves to pull the physical products. Response: The documentation is what we ve been talking about. Everything will be electronic. We ve been mandated to do this, and we re a semester behind. The faculty did the mandating. If a faculty member in your unit or if you have a concern about how to make sure that any particular individual will see something, let us know we ll figure out how to handle this. President Meinhold - This must not be a stumbling block to anyone s RPT, but we must get it done. Email or call, whatever you need to do. II. III. Diana Ashe introduced visitors from the International Islamic University of Islamabad, who will be visiting classes and holding panel discussions over the next weeks through the 29 th. Today, they are getting a look at our system of shared governance. Chancellor s report: a. Thank you very much. A team of us, including George Schell and Awani Volety, is just back from a visit to China. We covered Beijing and Shanghai, saw at least 4-5,000 students, and met with folks from many different countries. We had a great visit with several universities while we were there too, including Shanghai International University, and Fudan University, which is ranked highly in the world for their executive

MBA programs. Relationships with these universities would be good for us for several reasons they are ranked very highly, and there would be great opportunities for our students to go visit and to have more of their students come here. Connections were also made with the Marine Science Institute in Qingdao that is very prestigious and about 10 times our size. We hope to develop strong relationships, expand our 3+2 programs, look at 1-1.5 year masters programs, and expand our graduate training programs. Multiple universities and key professors would like to do programs together. We visited lots of students too, and learned that about 50,000 Chinese students are coming to the US for high school, which is something that we re thinking about too. b. I complement our team of faculty for getting a masters in data science approved by GA it s likely we ll have that approved this year. We re also working on business analytics, which will probably be good for 2018. We re starting an executive MBA on-line right now; we re trying to get a cohort from the medical center. c. Questions from the floor: I realize it s early in our relationships, but what are we after in pursuing these Chinese universities? Response - Expanding our study abroad program. These are great opportunities that could be destination opportunities. We re also trying to attract more students here, and they will be students of quality. We re looking in to more dorms. Not all of these schools will be feeder schools because they don t need us, but our 3+2 programs are of value. A third goal is exchange of professors, joint research and collaborations. Those are the 3 vectors. Question: I asked last month about the enrollment projections for next year. Now that you ve had the relevant meetings, what are we looking at? Response - 2, 250 freshmen, (50 more than this year). For transfers, we re going to 1700. For grad programs, we re at 1830 this year and will probably add another 100 or so for next year. We also see more as we go forward. Next year we ll have the psychology Ph.D. program. We re working with Bio and Marine Bio GA doesn t want to see programs that aren t graduating students. It will be important for us to be productive or we ll lose the programs. d. The Deans are all involved in recruiting new faculty; this must be done quickly while emphasizing quality. We need to get as many as we can, as quickly as possible. IV. Provost s Report: a. I have just two items, in the interest of time. The first is an example of how the provost s office interacts with the senate steering, and thus with you. Recently we talked about how associate deans are sometimes making decisions that should be made by faculty (e.g., giving priority registration to veterans). So this morning a group of us met and discussed what to do about that. We agreed this morning to define what the associate deans group does, and to facilitate interaction with Academic Standards. b. A second issue involves the review of academic degree productivity. This occurs every two years, initiated by GA, who reviews all programs on all campuses. We hope to have the data out on this review by the end of November, and we will have to respond by describing plans to increase recruitment or programs could be closed. This issue became pertinent recently because there was some thinking that the Chancellor and I were not supportive of the Ph.D. in Marine Bio. That s not true at all. No one is planning to do anything about that program. I don t think it will show up on the report, but if it does, we ll start discussions about next steps. V. President s Report:

a. I m delighted to report, in the spirit of shared governance, that the chancellor and I worked together and agreed to have two faculty members appointed to each strategic plan committee. Also, there will be a regular summit to review the strategic plan implementation and monitoring. Thanks to the Chancellor for that. b. I give a presentation to the BOT every time they meet. This time I emphasized the importance of the library to the faculty, and that library expansion is the #1 priority for our students. The library is over capacity. Faculty are 100% behind the students. c. The Senate information that s available online is completely up to date. Committees are meeting. Soon you ll get a survey from the Faculty Welfare Committee, so please respond to that. d. In December, we ll be voting to elect President of the Faculty Senate for 2017/18 as the special order of the day. VI. VII. Faculty Assembly report Gabriel Lugo: a. The Faculty Assembly met on Oct 21 with only one item on the agenda, to look at the UNC system Strategic Plan. We broke into committees, one for each of the five themes, to give faculty input on each. The goal is to produce a new document including our input. There is concern about the current emphasis on economic impact so we included community engagement as an important element of our impact. In terms of student success, the BOG is not much in touch with competencies. FA wants to make sure that competencies are tied to the curriculum, and that we have metrics and assessments to measure these things, and that these issues are best left in the faculty purview. We can report to them what we do. We want to maintain the SP goals, but allow them to accommodate individual institutions. The new document is being reviewed to send to the BOG before their meeting in January, which is when they will be finalizing the Plan. There are fora on each of the campuses to get faculty input. b. Chancellor there is a survey that I urge all faculty to complete, to comment on the themes. The BOG is eager for your ideas. Our performance so far is relatively low, and we should do a lot better. The survey takes only about 15 minutes. c. Lugo faculty input is crucial. In addition to the surveys, people reading them would benefit from hearing points of view from groups (e.g., depts.). Any feedback of that type will be more effective and more likely to be read. Committee reports: we have five motions to consider today a. University Curriculum Committee Motions Nora Reber (Chair) 1. Motion 2016-11-MO1 - Change name of Department of Environmental Studies. The UCC recommends the name of the Department of Environmental Studies be changed to the Department of Environmental Sciences. a. The program has emphasized sciences heavily, and they d like this to be reflected in their department name. (There were some difficulties in navigating to the materials.) Questions: Will the name change alter the CIP code? Response no. Question: How does environmental science differ from earth & ocean sciences? Response - environmental sciences is a more interdisciplinary curriculum; it includes the other sciences, but typically from a societal context. There is lots of crosspollination across the departments.

There are different technologies across the depts., but they share a lot. The name change is like to position graduates better for getting jobs. b. The question was called and passed by voice vote. 2. Motion 2016 11-MO2: language added to the definition of a minor. The UCC recommends adding the language below to the definition of a minor: A minor program may be exempted from the maximum credit hour limitations because of licensure or accreditation mandates. a. We have such language for a major. When faced with a minor that had licensure issues, the most congruent approach seemed to be to add the same language from our policies for majors to our policies regarding minors. The change was also considered by the Academic Standards Committee, which was also in favor. It seems particularly valuable in the context of the minor to be considered in the next motion. A more general concern involves the distinction between minors and majors. Some of our majors are 36 hours, which isn t that different from the proposed minor at 29 hours. b. The question was called and votes taken with clickers. There were 46 responses: 87% in favor, 7% against, 7% abstention. The motion passed. 3. Motion 2016-11-MO3: Establish the Integrated STEM with Teaching Licensure minor. The UCC recommends the establishment of an interdisciplinary minor in Integrated STEM with Teaching Licensure. a. This would be a joint program across two colleges. Students would earn a BS degree and teacher licensure simultaneously. The proposal was reviewed by curriculum committees of both colleges. It comes to 29 hours, not so much less that some of our majors, but definitively less than any other licensure program. b. Question - what s the thought about the impact of this on the MAT program in Watson? Response This minor is geared for students with a bachelor s degree in STEM who then do another year for licensure. It shouldn t be that impactful because it involves only the bachelor s degree. Students almost have to start this program in their freshman year to complete the program. The MAT program is a different credential. The concerns did come up in discussions around this, but we are so short on teachers in STEM right now any way we can get more STEM teachers out there will be a benefit. c. The question was called and votes taken with clickers. There were 47 responses; 94% for, 4% against, 2% abstentions. The motion passed. b. Academic Standards Committee Nathan Grove (Chair):

a. Motion 2016-11-MO4 changes in catalogue language about policies for attending 1 st day of class. b. The proposal makes some minor changes to a longstanding policy at UNCW, which a number of faculty aren t aware of. Students can be dropped from a class if they don t attend on the first day, haven t contacted the instructor within 24 hours, and the class is full (keeping other students from adding). Previously, requests for exceptions/appeals went to the relevant associate dean. Getting back into the class may not be an option if other students have already added, and the department chair should have more info about that possibility than the associate dean. Thus, the first change involves the person who would consider the appeal. The second change is to put the relevant language in the catalogue section on class attendance, and not just in the section on Cancellation of Registration Policy. The third change is to remove the mention of Dean of Students, because this is exclusively an academic issue. c. Questions: How have students been made aware of this policy in the past? Response the faculty member emails the Registrar s Office if a student is to be dropped, and an email is then sent to the student. A problem in the past is that sometimes the Registrar s Office is slammed at the start of the term. Usually the notification happens within minutes, and students are instructed to contact the instructor. Question: But are students informed about this policy prior to the semester beginning? Response - Before this point, the student may not know if they don t read the policies ignorance doesn t excuse you. But, it s often brought up at Orientation, and it has been added to the top of the Registration page in SeaNet, so it s communicated in that way as well. Instructor is not required to drop the student, it s a choice. Comment I ve never known this is a policy, and so I m not sure the students know. Comment I have two concerns: chairs teach classes. I would like to see an uninvolved source for the appeal. Also the Dean of Students may have access to info about extenuating circumstances. I think we re closing in on something that s probably good, but I have concerns. Have you thought about adding something like that in? Response - No. Comment - students have great media connections about registration issues. I teach a capstone, so this is important. Those of us who use it use it humanely, but there are students on waitlists. They deserve a right to add the course too. I always contact students first. Any response from the DOS? Pat Leonard if we were aware of issues, we would call the relevant associate dean. It s always the faculty decision. d. The question was called and vote taken with via clickers. There were 46 responses 87% in favor, 9% against, 4% abstentions. The motion passed. c. Motions from the Department of Communication Studies: a. Motions can come from any unit, department or Senator. Motions go first to Steering. We often give feedback to the mover of the motion. This one was discussed by Steering and endorsed by Steering. b. Motion 2016-11-005. Committee jurisdiction over oral competency requirement. Motion designed to firmly plant responsibility for the oral competency requirement in USAC. The floor is opened for Senators to speak in favor of or against the motion. c. Comments: I m not sure that USAC is a better steward of this competency than UCC. Response both committees have discussed this issue, and agreed that this requirement is an odd orphan. It s the only competency still under the

responsibility of the UCC. We thought the Senate should consider this rather than the UCC making a decision to move it to USAC, to keep everything consistent. The UCC has no particular position on this, but wanted to know the Senate s thinking. Comment there are no SLO s for this competency. We re afraid that when SACs comes back, we may have trouble with that, and we wanted to send it on to USAC to consider SLO s for all of our competencies. Doing so should be relevant to the direction that the Comm Dept is considering. Question: There was a recent decision that no one course can satisfy more than two competencies. Response USAC would need to consider this and then report back to the Senate for decisions, especially regarding impact on our current requirements. This motion does not change anything about the current requirements. This motion does not establish oral competency as a new competency in University Studies. d. The question was called and vote taken with clickers. There were 40 votes: 88 % approved; 8 % against; 5% abstentions. The motion passed. d. Motion 2016-11-06: Request that the USAC examine the oral competency requirement and issue a report no later than May, 2017. a. Comments: I have two concerns this is very vague. What exactly are we asking USAC to do? Second, it seems as if, with all the changes we made to US last year, USAC already has a lot to do (re-review, etc.). Can the committee actually take this on? President s response I think the committee would appreciate moving the deadline forward to give them some breathing room. I think the department would be agreeable, as long as discussions and decisions can progress in a timely manner, in time for meeting catalogue deadlines for the next year. (Please encourage all depts. to get the paperwork in for courses to be reconsidered and reviewed for University Studies. If not we may have to consider delaying changes). b. Motion to delay the report due date to Oct, 2017. Seconded. This would maintain a deadline, but a later one. Question is there any one from the USAC who could speak to this? Paul Townend I ve spoken to Jennifer and Beverly I think that delaying the report to next fall is good. I also second Steve s remarks about the recertification of courses for US. The report from USAC last spring did recommend that oral communication be considered. The question was called and a voice vote taken on the deadline change: the amendment was approved. c. On the original motion: Comment regarding the vague request, are we asking for a report on current requirements, or are we asking that they will also be making specific recommendations? Response we re expecting the committee to use their judgement there. I m relieved at the vagueness of the request. We re not trying to micromanage this leaves it up to the committee to see where it goes. d. The question on the motion was called and voice vote taken. The motion was approved. Announcements: none. Meeting adjourned: 3:38