Faculty Senate Meeting
October 04, 2011
2:00 p.m. EB 162
1. Meeting called to order at 2:00 p.m.
a. Chairman, Secretary, and Quorum were present. Roll sign-in (Electronically)
� Absent: Brubaker, Jennifer (COM), Dennison, Darwin (HAHS), Fonvielle, Chris (HIS), Kieber, Robert (CHM), Miller, Derrick (FLL), Moody, Amy (ECSE), Ousley, Denise (ITFSE), Richardson, Sue (FST).
2. September 23, 2011 minutes approved
3. Individual Reports
a. Chancellor Miller (2:02-2:15)
� Presentation of Dare to Soar
o Discussion of:
o University Planning Space
o Great framework. No major changes, but room for innovation
o Innovation tied to improving measurable outcomes
o Planning-Innovation paired
� Importance of environment
� Creation of new business model
o More faculty input
o Cost allocation
o Department involvement
o Innovation Space
� Restructure CITI Committee
� University Innovation Council and University Budget Committee better coordinated
o Budget Timeline
o Make up of University Budget Committee
o Restructured CITI Committee
o Make up of University Innovation Council
o Questions (2:15-2:25):
o Senator: Relationship between Faculty Senate Budget Committee and University Budget Committee?
o Chancellor: Not sure what the role of Faculty Senate Budget Committee is.
o Senator: What do you mean by business model at the departmental level?
o Chancellor: Calculate cost to deliver program.
o Need to think about how we afford a program, not just question of it being a good idea.
o Senator: How do we define the product?
� Creating fiscal environment that supports academic product that doesn�t follow standard business models
� Current model is not sustainable
o Senator: How do we evaluate benefit of faculty having more time, e.g., to do research and teach?
o Chancellor: Need to understand finances at department level to create incentives that reward that department, not punish it.
� New plans without funding ideas unlikely to be approved
� Georgia Tech Innovation
o President Lugo: I will insert seed in Senate Forum to further discussion.
b. President of the Senate Lugo. (2:25-2:40)
� Academics First and Faculty Assembly
o Raymond Burt (2:27-2:33)
o How to best coordinate amongst the 16 campuses
o Call for feedback on Academics First on Faculty Senate SharePoint site. Updated list.
o Senator: President Ross�s portrait of situation was very dark. Less support for higher education by state legislature.
o Need to rethink our education with public regarding why it�s important to support the university
4. Special Order of the day: SACS: Gabriel Lugo for Martin Posey. (2:33-2:40) Vice President Turrisi presiding
a. [Motion 2011-10-M01]: Credit Hours Policy � to be added to the Academic Affairs Policy site and linked from the Registrar�s
o Senator: Standardize traditional definitions and other instructional modes of delivery?
o Turrisi: Yes.
o Senator: 15-week definition consistent if we take into account final exams?
o Turrisi: Yes.
o Senator: How are lab hours considered?
o Evers: Call the question
� Motion passed unanimously
5. Committee Reports (2:41-3:12)
a. The University Studies Committee offers the following motions: (From 2011-09 meeting)
� [Motion 2011-09-M03]: University Studies - Phase II motions
o Motion [2011-09-M03] approved with majority
That the USAC present to the Faculty Senate the proposed catalogue copy for Explorations Beyond the Classroom and Thematic Transdisciplinary Clusters during the November 2011 meeting and then present for the Senate�s approval the specific experiences/courses that will populate those components in the spring.
o Explorations Beyond the Classroom and Thematic Transdisciplinary Clusters. (2011)
o Senator: Implementing both clusters and EBC seems rather daunting. I�d like to see clusters postponed a year.
o Senator: I agree. Question of planning
o Senator: I move that the implementation of the clusters be postponed until AY 2013-2014. Seconded.
o Senator: A point in favor of not postponing is avoiding advising problems with different students in different years.
o Vote on motion to postpone: Ayes 22 Nays: Greater than 22. Motion fails.
o Motion [2011-09-M05] approved with majority
Report of the University Curriculum Committee � PHY/GAG Merger
o 2011-09-30 UCC Minutes
o GAG White Paper
o PHY - Statement
� Senator: Move Motion 2011-10-M02 to consideration here.
o Seconded and Approved.
[Motion 2011-10-M02] � Joint Motion from PHY/GAG
In view of unanimous opposition by the faculties in the Department of Geography and Geology and the Department of Physics and Physical Oceanography, and whereas these Departments have submitted written statements opposing the proposed merger and outlining the serious problems with the proposed merger (see posted documents on senate web page), we move that the UNCW Faculty Senate recommend to the University Administration that the Department of Geography and Geology and the Department of Physics and Physical Oceanography not be merged.
� How process dealt with directly tied to questions of faculty governance. Either the university values faculty governance or it doesn�t.
� Supposition that administrative structure is independent of educational delivery. GAG and Physics and Physical Oceanography disagree
� Faculty should have a say in the organization.
� Only given a directive to merge.
o Senator: Don�t agree with motion in that it doesn�t act to address need to review departments.
� On the other hand, this will cause many problems for the two departments.
� Question of vertical vs. horizontal budget cuts. I support vertical cuts.
� Is such a motion done in the best interests of the University?
� We do need a process to vet such issues
� Can�t support motion, but yes the procedural issue.
� The public needs to realize any cuts at this point will hurt academic experience.
� The university needs to follow procedures.
� As an alternative, why not Task GAG and Physics and Physical Oceanography with alternative cost-saving measures?
o Senator: We�ve already suffered significant cuts
o Senator: UCC report based on these issues
o Senator: As member of UCC I noticed that no statement was made.
o Senator: What are the implications of passing the motion?
o Lugo: The will of the senate will be passed on to the pertinent administrators.
o Motion 2011-10-M02 passes with vocal majority
c. Report of the Budget Committee. Maimone (3:03-3:12)
� 2011_10_CFO Report
o Highlight: Hypothetical tuition increase of $1,404 per student needed to recover what was lost in appropriations.
o Student: Faculty ratio has increased as a result of cuts.
o Senator: Any talk of raising the limit of out-of-state students in the case of UNCW?
o Maimone: I�m in favor of averaging across the 16 campuses. This would help us since we bump up against the 18% cap versus institutions such as UNC-Pembroke which hover around 2-3%.
o Senator: Could be more creative with how cap is handled.
6. Old Business (3:12-3:13)
The Honors College offers the following motion (Kate Bruce available for
[Motion 2011-09-M04]: Honors Scholars College Motion.
� Honors College Proposal � December 2010
o Motion [2011-09-M04] approved unanimously
7. New Business
a. [Motion 2011-10-M03] � Motion from Steering Committee: Faculty Governance. (3:13-3:22)
o Senator: How would the issue have been resolved in light of the resolution?
o Senator: Timing, not the key component. Question of following existing procedures, e.g. UCC reviewing the reports of GAG and Physics and Physical Oceanography.
o Chancellor: First of all, I strongly support this kind of review. However, the authority to delete programs rests with President of the system. The initial wording of the resolution is inconsistent with Board of Governor policy.
o Motion 2011-10-M03 approved unanimously
b. [Motion 2011-10-M04] � SPOT motion from Pam Evers. (3:22-3:43)
o Senator: What do we do if Q 16 taken out, RTP?
o President Lugo: Should be summary of all questions 1 through16. This is not current practice.
o Senator: This is not about actual learning, but rather perception of teaching.
o Galbraith (Management, Chair of Ad-hoc Committee on SPOTs):
o Summary of Ad-Hoc committee�s findings
o Senator: I�m strongly against this motion.
o Timing conflicts with dealings with outside vendors
o There are major conflicts in the literature regarding student evaluations.
o Removing Q 16 would not be consistent with peer institutional practices.
o Q 16 does have value as a tool.
o Senator: My department is against its removal. Only Q 16 is not a good practice, but doesn�t mean it should be removed
o Galbraith: Global questions are problematic due to influence of recency effect, which is easy to manipulate, e.g., �fudging� the administration of evaluations.
o Senator: There are ways to address the issue of manipulating
o Use of only Q 16 is not best practice
o Senator: Problem with administration and manipulation of delivery of SPOTs
o Galbraith: Studies showing validity of global question based on very controlled environment. Recent studies argue that mid- and high-level classes and global question are not positively correlated.
o Senator: Question not of throwing out SPOTs, but making evaluation comprehensive
o Senator: Q1-15 often gives contradictory information to Q16.
o Senator: Need to go to Evaluation Committee and do this systematically.
o Senator: There are plenty of counter examples that show global questions do have value.
o Senator: The Evaluation committee should handle this.
o Senator: Call the question
� Motion 2011-10-M05 fails (majority dissenting)
c. Vietnam Program � Bruce McKinney (3:43-3:46)
� If interested, contact Bruce McKinney or Denise Dipuccio
� No announcements
� Meeting adjourned at 3:47