Minutes for Faculty Senate Meeting
April 17, 2012
2:00 p.m. EB 162
Meeting 2012-04

Meeting called to order at 2:00 p.m.

Chairman, Secretary, and Quorum were present.

Attendance: 2012 04 Faculty Senate Attendance

March 20, 2012 minutes approved

Individual Reports

Chancellor Miller.

i.         Thanks again for all your hard work. 

ii.         BOG report:  Faculty Workload

o   Suzanne Ortega did a fabulous job educating the BOG regarding everything that the faculty actually do: research, teaching, and service.

o   More timely reporting of workload

o   More specific regarding research and service, re: workloads and reductions

o   Report on performance funding

o   Move from growth- to performance-based model.

o   Appears to be a good model for UNCW

o   Senate Bill 575: Give supervision over SPA employees to BOG

o   This is something that the community colleges already do.

o   Please refer to BOG policy.  I don't believe that it hurts staff's rights.

o   Reminders about Installation events, and encouragement to participate in Commencement.

President of the Senate Lugo.

i.         Faculty Assembly update

o   Academics First Highlights of workgroup discussion on April 26 (Yield to R. Burt).

  Background initiative that came out of Faculty Assembly

o   Changes in two general areas: 1. general minimum admission requirements; 2. academic policies developed by faculty on individual campuses.

o   Committee tasked with forming general guidelines that focused on admission requirements and that would then be customized by the individual campuses.

o   Next phase focuses on academic policies

o   Survey of Provosts conducted shows general agreement regarding point #1, and a wide range on point #2.

o   Process will be gradual, and there should be plenty of time for campuses to respond to any possible impositions from above.

o   Question from Provost Barlow:  Now that the champion, Sandy Gravett, is leaving her post, are there others looking to champion Academics First?

o   Response:  Yes, many in General Administration.

o   Why is this seen as beneficial?

o   Public perception is that the UNC system is capricious.

o   Attempt to establish baseline for comparative purposes regarding retention rates.   

  Students can repeat a course they passed with D only once.

  Both courses count as attempted hours in GPA

  Students can repeat a course with an F until they pass

  Faculty should be involved in "intervention contracts"

  Grade replacement not permitted

  W's limited to three allowed until the last day of classes

o   Performance-based model:

  Seven items prescribed by GA

  Three to be negotiated. Provost working with a committee.

  One critique: the performance-based models don't measure quality of education, but rather focus on quantitative methods.

  Hope items addressing quality can be included as one or more of the three items to be negotiated.

ii.          Ad-Hoc RTP committee formed

o   Tasked with providing a report with actionable items by March-April 2013

iii.          Special order of the day: SACS update (Lugo yields to Posey)

o   Key timeline points: QEP proposal due January 2013.  Onsite review 19-21 March 2013.

Committee Reports

i.               The University Studies committee offers the following motion
[Motion 2012-04-M01]:

o   Recommendations for Explorations Beyond the Classroom and Thematic Transdisciplinary Clusters, and catalogue copy to finalize phase II implementation of US (this motion follows up on Senate motion 2011-09-M05).


o   Motion from CSB for a waiver from Thematic Transdiscplinary Clusters for Cameron students who enroll in a second option within the school.

o   Motion from CSC for a waiver from Thematic Transdisciplinary Clusters for majors who opt for the Digital Arts or Business Concentration.

o   Motion from WSE for a waiver from Thematic Transdisciplinary Clusters for students who major in Early Childhood Education, Elementary Education, or Middle Grades Education, and for those who pursue licensure in Secondary Education.

[Motion 2012-04-M01 passes

ii.               The Steering Committee offers the following motions:

o   [Motion 2012-04-M02 Committee on Student Matters
To replace the committees on Admissions, Student Affairs, Financial Aid and Bookstore.

      [Motion 2012-04-M02  passes without dissent 

o   [Motion 2012-04-M03 QEP
That the Faculty Senate endorse the proposed Quality Enhancement Plan titled "eTeal: experiencing Transformative education through applied learning."

  (Proposed amendment)

           [Motion 2012-04-M03 withdrawn]

o   New motion introduced: [Motion 2012-04-MO4]:

The Faculty Senate endorses a QEP centered on Applied Learning with an emphasis on instructor-centered development opportunities.


o   Discussion: 

o   Kim Cook: 

  Original intent was to gain support for concept of applied learning, not for the wording of the plan itself.

  Final plan won't be submitted to SACS until January 2013.

o   Other discussion:

  Where is additional money going?

  For director, for faculty opportunities.

  Much feedback is tied to how can we streamline process, e.g., student travel.

  Issue is that UNCW is amazingly innovative in terms of applied learning.  Focus needs to be on improving applied learning as a two-way street, so that the people who are doing the best work in applied learning.

  Wording of document seems top-down.  Hope focus is on faculty, not administrative concerns.

  So much emphasis on training faculty when major issue is that money could be better spent on applied learning already being done.

  Speaking to motion actually on the floor, we need to remember that SACS mandates that we have a QEP.

             [Motion 2012-04-MO4 passed by a vote of 27 in favor, 17 against]

iii.            Report from the IT committee (Pemberton)

o   Use of online SPOTS

o   Next generation library system

o   More consistent policy regarding borrowing

o   Scholarly communication issues, Copyright issues.

o   Please complete survey on Randall Library

o   Blackboard is going to change format, but content should be maintained.


iv.            Report from the Evaluation Committee (Ashe)

o   Pilot of Idea Center instrument has been implemented.

o   Data acquisition process for SPOT being reexamined.

v.              Report from the Handbook Committee (Lugo)

o   Revisions still in process.

o   Goal is to have the Handbook as a single pdf document.

vi.            Report from the Research Committee (Evers)

o   Work done on Cahill and Scholar Award

Old Business.  None noted.

New Business.  None noted.

Good of the order (Open forum)

o   QEP

  I hope we don't have a second set of assessment on faculty who are already doing applied learning.

  Main concern.  What does instructor-centered mean with regard to centralized administration vs. individual needs and expertise of departments?

o   Two Faculty Senate Forums to be seeded in Faculty Senate Sharepoint site:



o   What's status of proficiency profile?

  Participation was high, thanks to online method of administration of survey.

  Learning Council invited to communicate with Faculty Senate.  Issue drawn to attention of Steering Committee.

o   Concern raised regarding ensuring student participation in online evaluation methods.

  Evaluation Committee is investigating appropriate strategies.

  Yes, we want to improve numbers, but also make sure process is carried out correctly.

o   What are the guiding principles regarding control over class seats?

  Newly formed Committee on Student Matters could address this.

o   Plans for next academic year:

  Continued work on consolidation and efficacy of university committees on Advancement

Announcements.  None.

Meeting adjourned at 3:20.