Faculty Senate meeting

Meeting 2014-02

Tuesday February 18, 2014

1.      Call to order. 52 present

2.      Executive session to consider honorary degree nomination. Senators only

a.       Confidential materials for honorary degree nomination.

b.      The nomination passes by 2/3rds. Will move forward.

3.      Approval of January 14,  2014 minutes

4.      Individual Reports

a.       Chancellor Miller.

·   Thanks to all UNCW staff who lead during emergency status.

·   UNCW mission statement update

o   Sent to President Ross the letter from BOT, Steering Committee re: request to go back to the BOT mission approved in April.

o   Give a hearing to the PSY and MCS Ph.D. programs.

o   At BOG meeting our argument will be simple, please hear our conversation about these programs. Will continue to make the argument to the BOG.

o   Strategized with PSY faculty on how to organize our approach if we get the opportunity.

o   Did get permission to move forward to plan the MFA in Film Studies.

o   Steering looked over the letter BOT had written and sent a note including their support.

·   Chancellor sent a memo with a re-organization of the CREST campus.

o   Some of you were involved in an informal group of faculty working on organizational structures.

o   Goal was to bring the CRO closer to and increase his authority to organize CREST. Second to overlay the same admin structure with regard to facilities (that we have on campus).

o   Attempt is to be more efficient.

o   Memo was sent to all the chairs but President Lugo will post on the Faculty Senate meeting.

·   Thursday at the BOG meeting we are going to make a request to have approved a for-profit foundation for our research foundation. The way this works is the RF is an auxiliary part of the U. Has entered into a limited partnership with the Univ. They are raising capital now. We are providing in kind support. This gives us a revenue interest if they ever create a business and sell it. We need a way to park that money that allows the money to be generated by the corporation, preserve our NP status and have the corporation gift us the money.

·   In the biennial budget there is 800,000 cut to UNCW in the second year. We have also been asked to plan for a 2% reduction after that. We are planning for a much larger cut than 800,000. BOG materials are here: https://www.northcarolina.edu/bog/index.php?mode=browse_premeeting&code=bog&mid=4505

·   end Chancellor report

b.      President of the Senate Lugo.

·   Faculty Assembly update: Faculty Assembly meeting cancelled due to weather

·   Two issues upcoming. BOG has appointed a committee to review PTR on all campuses. Committee is entirely comprised of administrators with the exception of current FA president Catherine Rigsby. Going to move final authority on PTR approval from Chairs to somewhere higher up.

·   GEC still working – CAA is going to be officially updated. The signature of this agreement/final version likely before the end of this semester. The structure (30 universal) similar to what we used to call Basic Studies and then the second 30 hours are more geared to making progress to graduation.

o   What is the relationship between the CAA and our new US?

There is little relationship between the CAA and our new US curriculum. Students who complete AA or AS will be deemed to have fulfilled the lower division requirements of the US curriculum (waived).

·   There will be rollout sessions where various members of the transfer articulation committee will be available to take feedback – ask questions; provide feedback.

·   E-learning initiative – continues to move forward. But nothing new since last time.

·   Policy 400.3.4 – evaluation compliance. We have to achieve compliance by end of semester. Another item is IDEA – people need to know what part of the IDEA report will be sent forward as part of RTP.

o   Review of ru

5.     Motions from committees


  Committee Reports

a.      [Motion 2014-02-M01]  The University Curriculum Committee offers the following motion: Delete the American Studies minor offered in CAS (no student or faculty interest in the minor for some time offers the following motion.

·   UCC SharePoint site

·   CAF


Motion carries – universal approval – voice vote


b.      [Motion 2014-02-M02]  The University Studies Advisory Committee offers the following motion: That the US courses included in the attached list be added to the catalogue.

·   USAC motion

Motion carries – universal approval – voice vote


c.       [Motion 2014-02-M03]  The Steering committee offers the following motion: 
To amend Chapter IV.H, Section 2.a  of the Faculty Handbook on evaluation of faculty as follows (Note underscored sentences are inserted for compliance with UNC policy 400.3.4 on monitoring teaching workloads)

·   Delete from section 2.a
The chairperson's evaluation draws from peer evaluations, student evaluations, and subjective assessments—each to varying degrees across departments.

·   Insert a new section 2.b Chairperson Evaluation of Faculty
To ensure consistency, each tenure and tenure-track faculty member will provide a report of his/her professional activities each year for review by the Chairperson. This annual report will address the three major areas of teaching, scholarship/research/artistic activities, and service. The evaluation of faculty by the chair draws from peer evaluations of teaching, scholarship/research/artistic activities, and service; student evaluations of teaching; and each faculty member’s summary of his/her professional work for the academic year. This evaluation will consider each of the three areas separately, as well as all aspects combined.


MO1 (Clicker vote) 50 yes; 2 no


d.      [Motion 2014-02-M04] The Steering committee offers the following motion: To amend Chapter IV.H, Section 4 of the faculty handbook to as follows
         b. Analysis and reporting

i. All analysis shall be completed by the IDEA Center, and reports returned in a timely manner through the appropriate administrative channels to the faculty member.
ii. Every personnel action recommendation for reappointment, promotion, tenure, or post-tenure review should contain all raw sub-scores, adjusted sub-scores and composite scores from IDEA reports from the most recent two two-and-a half years.* All RTP recommendations shall include a qualitative interpretation of student evaluation results by the department chairperson, and may include—at the individual's discretion—the individual's own qualitative interpretation. All statistical calculations and quantitative analysis processed by anyone other than the IDEA Center (which is discouraged) must be clearly identified as such.

MO4 – the only aspect of the motion on the floor is the part about what we are going to report for RTP. The remainder of the motion we will address later. The motion is to develop reporting mechanisms only. None of the additional edits are part of this motion (they are just additional information because this is still being worked on).

c. Guidelines for appropriate use of student evaluation results

 i. Data from individual faculty gathered through the use of student evaluations shall be treated with confidentiality. The data  may, however, be legitimately used by anyone directly involved with evaluation for the purpose of reappointment, promotion, tenure, post-tenure review, or annual departmental review.  Release of the data to anyone else is prohibited without the written permission of the faculty member. Because numerous studies have indicated that both peer and student evaluations are necessary for the equitable evaluation of teaching effectiveness, it is strongly suggested that peer and student evaluations be given similar emphasis in personnel recommendations. No single score from any instrument (e.g, IDEA or SPOTS) will be reported or used to evaluate effectiveness of instruction. Raw sub-scores, adjusted sub-scores, and the composite score will be reported for the IDEA instrument.


Vote:  48: 4 motion passes.
Second part of the paragraph – handling separately:


*Some reports may also require (or include) courses evaluated by the previous SPOT student evaluation instrument.  For Until two two-and-a half years from the fall 2013 implementation of IDEA, a summary, in a standard format, of the individual's SPOT results for Q16 (at least) must be combined with the IDEA reports, to cover the most recent two two-and-a half years

Discussion on whether two years is enough.
Motion to send back to committee.
Motion to send back approved.


e.       [Motion 2014-02-M05] Steering places the rest of the revisions as proposed by the ad-hoc RTP committee on the floor starting in the following order:

·   Ch. IV. A (Policies on Academic Freedom & Tenure)

o   Article IV.b (Probationary Service – Recommendations 8, 34, 35, 16, 27)
Discussion on definition of senior members.
Time runs out.

10.  Adjournment – 4pm