Agenda for Faculty Senate Meeting
January 17, 2012
2:00 p.m. EB 162
Meeting 2012-01


Meeting called to order 2:04 p.m.

·         Chairman, Secretary, and Quorum were present. Roll sign-in (paper)

·         Absent: Albergo, Cathy; Bailey, Craig J.; Brown, Jeffrey; Burgh, Teddy; Fonville, Chris; Galizio, Mark; Graham, Edward; Hanson, Randall; Hickman, Joe; Higgins, Heidi; Hudson, Nicholas; Johnson, Mariana; Murrel, Samuel; Nice, Scott; Patterson, Laurie; Taggart, John.

December 13, 2011 minutes approved

Individual Reports

A.      President of the Senate Lugo.

1. Faculty Assembly updates.

i.        Meeting Jan 20. Tuition increases

·         Pope Center will be present.

·         Senate President will insert agenda and Pope Center report in SharePoint.

·         Will also insert letter from former BOG that opposes tuition increases.

·         We’re at a very delicate stage.  Need to communicate faculty’s position to our Faculty Assembly delegate.

·         Please articulate your goals via SharePoint.

·         If funding increases don’t go through, funding for University Studies and QEP will be at threat.

·         Arguments need to be based in numbers, not anecdotes.

ii.      Academics First. UNCW position

·         Question:  Do we have any data regarding access to courses and time to graduation?

2. Follow up on Senate committee structure. Two motions today:

·         Based on review of previous work done.  Need to eliminate unnecessary and/or unproductive committees and revive pertinent ones.

B.  SACS reports (Martin Posey)

·         Thanks to SACS Compliance Steering Committee

·         Posey explained review process and timeline.

o   Begin in-house review process in February

o   Some areas are more highly scrutinized:

§  Assessment

§  Faculty Credential

·         Final SACS report due 10 September, 2012, no extensions.

·         Question:  How is this SACS process different from last one, e.g., “Must Statements” coming from individual departments and sections?

·         Now focus on showing how institution as a whole complies.  Tailored to institution

·         Two pieces of SACS:

o   Documentation and compliance

o   QEP:  This is bottom-up.

·         Can you fail QEP and be in compliance?

·         Theoretically yes, practically no.  However, it is extremely rare to fail QEP, as so much feedback is provided.

·         What if funding for QEP is denied by BOG?

·         Must tailor QEP to financial resources available.

  C. Committee Reports

·         The University Curriculum Committee offers the following motion:
[Motion 2012-01-M01]: Supporting materials and full proposal  (On SharePoint)

1. A change to pre-requisites (BIO 246-no longer required),

2. Five course deletions (NSG 250, NSG 325, CLR 305, CLR/L 450, and CLR 498);

3. Four new course additions (CLR 325, CLR 350, CLR 498-I, and CLR 498-II);

4. Three credit hour changes (increasing by one credit hour each of CLR 420, CLR 430, and CLR 450)

5. A name change for CLR 440 (Pharmacoeconomics renamed to Bioanalytics)

[Motion 2012-01-M01passes without dissent]

·         The Faculty Welfare Committee offers the following motion:
[Motion 2012-01-M02] Faculty compensation for thesis/DIS
That all departments within CAS and the professional schools at UNCW create formal, written policies to recognize and systematically reward faculty for their cumulative participation in these significant teaching activities.

o   Why isn’t working with graduate students included?

o   We were using benchmarks and policies provided by CAS.   Our motion was based on CAS policies.

o   Aim is to provide models for rewarding additional work.  No one, universal model suggested, but rather a uniform policy within each department.

[Motion 2012-01-M02 passes without dissent]

·         The Steering committee offers the following motions:
[Motion 2012-01-M03]: Curricular Change. Duties of the UCC and USAC
To align the bylaws description of the duties of UCC and USAC with  the Curricular Change policy in the Faculty Handbook

[Motion 2012-01-M03 passes with greater than 2/3 of voting senators]


·         [Motion 2012-01-M04]: Consolidation of IT and Library committees

o   These committees haven’t made consolidations

o   On behalf of the library, motion to refer back to committee.

o   Library does think it is a win-win idea, but we’d like to see some reworking of the language to address a number of issues.

[Motion 2012-01-M04.  Referred to Steering Committee for reworking.]

·         [Motion 2012-01-M05]  On Academics First
       Whereas, Faculty members of UNCW are sensitive to the increasing need of UNC wide guidelines that  promote student’s Satisfactory Academic Progress (SAP) as outlined in Academics First;
      Whereas, Faculty members of UNCW are aware of the connection between student financial aid and accountability on  SAP; and
      Whereas, Faculty members of UNCW recognize that student academic and economic profiles differ considerably across UNC campuses;
      Resolved, That individual campuses continue to set their own policies on drops , withdrawals, course repeats, maximum course loads, GPA , probation, and all other such policies related to SAP, if necessary,  under reasonable limits and criteria set by General Administration.

o   Raymond Burt given the floor:  Hope to clear up some misunderstandings.

o   This is faculty-driven.

o   For example, reasoning behind course repeat policies.

o   Attempt at improving dialogue among UNC institutions, not at imposing unification across campuses.

o   Barlow:  There is a disconnect, e.g., suggestion that there should be a common calendar does seem to be a top-down process.  Could you clear this up?

o   Burt:  Some proposals are tied to GA, but other aspects of academic policy is indeed faculty-driven.

o   Senator:  Appropriate to separate faculty-driven aspects from GA initiatives.

o   Motion to refer back to Steering Committee

o   Senator:  Academics First is coming from Faculty Assembly.  Discussion should be carried out at Faculty Assembly first, then UNCW should respond.

o   Senator:  There does appear to be many useful proposals, so we should refer this back to Steering Committee

[Motion 2012-01-M05 referred back to Steering Committee]

Old Business

·         What is status of RPT report generated last year?

·         Report has not been presented to Senate.

·         Steering Committee has discussed creating ad hoc committee to continue work done by previous committee on RPT.

New Business.  None reported.


·         New Faculty Assembly Delegates elected:Colleen Reilly and Laurie Patterson

Adjournment.  Meeting adjourned at 3:17.