Faculty Senate Minutes
Oct. 7, 2014
President Lugo presiding
Call to Order: 2:05
Minutes from previous two meetings approved with no changes
I. Individual Reports
a. Chancellor Sederburg provided his report in writing, as he was unable to be present.
b. President Lugo provided updates on several issues:
� The Chancellor Search Committee held a six-hour meeting on Oct. 2, and received their charge from President Ross. The main item on the agenda was selection of a hiring firm. Baker was selected; the group has been involved in several other searches within the UNC system, and seems a good choice. President Lugo continues to promote the request for the final three candidates to hold open fora for the campus community, but there are pressures to have a closed search. The compromise may be a hybrid. Past-president of the Senate, Bruce McKinney, noted that candidate materials were not made available ahead of time to those faculty who were allowed to meet with candidates, and he encouraged action ahead of time to prevent this from happening again.
� President Lugo asked the Senate to consider allowing a change in the order of the agenda for today�s meeting, to allow the �Good of the Order� discussion and listening session for members of the Chancellor Search Committee to be held as the final agenda item. This opportunity for discussion is of importance because it seems there will be few opportunities for faculty input in the search process. No objections were heard to changing the agenda order.
� President Lugo made a call for candidates for the next Senate President. Lugo has served for four years, the maximum allowed. By his view, faculty who love teaching should consider this role, as it provides the opportunity to have many others listen to you. The next president will likely overlap with the next SACS 5-year review, which is a strong route to learning how our university and our systems work.
� President Lugo and the Steering Committee have met with all of the Senate committees and communicated charges for the upcoming year. Many thanks to CTE and Chancellor Sederburg for the lunch meeting, which was a positive experience that allowed for significant connections.
As update on RPT and PTR, special Senate sessions are being held
to consider AA requested revisions to the RPT document recently approved by the
Senate. Great care is needed. Once the Senate completes deliberations on the
revisions, the document will go back to AA. The Committee on PTR is working
hard right now too. We have to meet compliance, and the committee is currently
determining where we are and aren�t out of compliance. The committee work is in
response to mandates from the BOG.
The latest report of the PTR committee and other relevant documents are posted at the senate SharePoint site.
II. Committee Reports
a. The Faculty Welfare Committee offers MO1, regarding policies for promotion to Senior Lecturer. The motion was reviewed by the committee chair, and the question was called. There were 49 votes in favor, and 6 votes against. MO1 passed.
b. The USAC offered MO2, approving new additions to University Studies. Thanks to Cara Cilano and Martin Posey, who continue to work hard behind the scenes with University Studies. All documents will be posted on the SharePoint site. The question was called. There were 57 votes in favor, and 0 votes against. MO2 passed.
c. The Steering Committee offers MO3 and MO4.
� MO3 presents a draft list of characteristics the faculty wish to have highlighted in selection of the new Chancellor. If approved, President Lugo will send the list to either the Co-Chairs of the Search Committee or to Mark Lanier for distribution. The Staff Senate will probably be crafting their own set of sought-after characteristics, as will other groups. It is the hope that the faculty voice will be heard, and that these characteristics will be included as part of the Leadership Statement that serves as part of the position description. The question was called. There were 59 votes in favor, 0 votes against. MO3 passed.
� MO4 (Passed by steering by a vote of 6-1) presents a call for reaffirmation by the Provost on the critical importance of shared governance to successful university functioning. The floor was opened for discussion.
1. Summary of main discussion points by Senators, or as noted:
o UNCW has become great only through shared governance. The motion really says just that and reiterates the characteristics we just approved for inclusion in the Chancellor statement. We want to go back to the formula that has been so successful for us. That�s the purpose of the motion.
o Shared governance can mean different things to different people, which we may want to consider as well. Faculty Assembly is also discussing this issue.
o The meaning of shared governance for UNCW has been defined in our shared governance documents.
o The motion is a positive step forward for us. It asks us to reaffirm our commitment, and that�s across the table.
o What will this motion change?
o It�s like a married couple reaffirming their vows. There is a sense that we�ve moved away from shared governance, and this reaffirms that we will return.
o As a point of information, Faculty Assembly has asked President Ross to reaffirm shared governance, and he gave a special response.
o Faculty have some legitimate concerns about problems that have occurred, but it�s not clear that these all fall under the umbrella of shared governance. It�s not clear that we know what we mean by shared governance.
o Shared governance is a way of doing things; it�s a process, a commitment, an attitude. It can�t be defined a priori for every circumstance. Faculty documents, the Code, UNCW governance documents, Faculty Assembly statements, SACS � there are lots of guidelines. What we�re really asking for is that the Provost, representing Academic Affairs, will work with the faculty as the best way to move forward.
o How can the Provost ensure that someone makes this all happen? It�s not just one person.
o We could ask the Provost to make sure that faculty, staff, and students have the opportunity to participate.
o Why does this all fall on the Provost? The implications of the previous bullets are not good.
o We don�t have a permanent Chancellor, and it�s at that level where the things we want to happen need to happen. The Provost may not be uniquely responsible, but she is a representative. It would be good to hear from all senior administrators that we all hold to shared governance. There is the sense that there are forces abroad that would really like to undo this, so it�s useful to reaffirm.
o Why not include the Board of Trustees?
o The large decisions that affect faculty and the university come out of AA, not the BOT, and the Provost is the Chief Academic Officer, so it�s appropriate for her to make a statement about faculty participating substantively, which hasn�t happened in the past three years. We were not included, but were ready to be. It�s not like the faculty said we wouldn�t participate in shared governance.
o Perhaps we should ask for Academic Affairs in general rather than the Provost in particular. We could replace Provost by Administrators. This proposed change was seconded.
o In discussion of the amendment, it was pointed out that accepting the change would mean that no one was being asked to take action. With the original wording, the request goes directly to the desk of the Provost � it has a destination. The question on the amendment was called. There were 13 votes in favor of the amendment, 44 votes against. The amendment fails and the original wording remains.
o The tone of the motion feels negative. Removing �Whereas� statements 4 and 5 would sound friendlier. The proposed amendment was seconded.
o In discussion of the amendment, it was noted that there has been extraordinary frustration over the past 2-3 years that faculty input has been disregarded. The motion just states the truth. If the tone is negative, it�s because that�s what we�ve been feeling. The motion states what we believe happened. In order to make a juxtaposition with what we want to see going forward, the whereas statements need to stay.
o The principles of shared governance have been disregarded in past years, and the academic core has been damaged.
o Is there anyone in the administration willing to stand up and say they are committed?
o From Provost Battles - I�ve had a hard time sitting here because through my career I�ve been committed to it. Do I embrace shared governance? I can answer directly yes. I can�t speak to everything that�s happened over the past 3 years, but I do embrace shared governance.
o Does someone in administration agree that shared governance did not happen in the past years?
o From Provost Battles - We�ve tried our best.
o A suggestion was made to vote separately on removing Whereas statements #4 and #5, as there might be differing levels of approval. There were no objections to separating the vote.
o The question was called on the amendment to remove Whereas statement #4 from the motion. There were 28 votes in favor, and 27 votes against. Statement #4 is stricken from the motion.
o The question was called on the amendment to remove Whereas statement #5 from the motion. There were 17 votes in favor, and 39 votes against. Whereas statement #5 remains as part of the motion.
2. The question was called on MO4 (with amendments as noted). There were 49 votes in favor, and 9 votes against. Amended MO4 passes.
d. The Academic Standards Committee offers MO5 and MO6.
� MO5 presents a revision to the Student Honor Code that originated from the Dean of Students Office. The changes are intended to clear up wording, based on issues in cases from last year. The changes focus on the statute of limitations for charges of academic dishonesty and the need to include all procedures relevant to academic dishonesty in one document. The question was called following some clarifications. There were 51 votes in favor, and 5 votes against. MO5 passes.
� MO6 involves some needed clarification following from the restructuring of University College. UC provides an important voice and insights relevant to the issues that come before the Academic Standards, and so should be represented on the Committee. Clarification was added that the Director of UC would be a non-voting ex-officio member of Academic Standards. The question was called. There were 54 votes in favor, and 1 vote against. MO6 passes.
III. Announcements � Dylan Shelton and Mary Carney, students working with Dr. Brubaker, invited Senators to encourage their students to participate in upcoming events promoting the 2014 Transportation Bond. The bond will support infra-structure , round-abouts, and beautification projects in Wilmington. Events to students from participating will include civic engagement and fun(!). There will be a run and walk, games, prizes, and food.
IV. For the Good of the Order � Senators are invited to address the group on issues related to the upcoming Chancellor Search. The discussion is intended to help inform faculty members of the Search Committee about faculty concerns and wishes.
a. Summary of main discussion points by Senators:
� We should emphasize the importance of the Chancellor participating in public events held by departments. We need a frank assessment of the relation between athletics and the privileged position athletes seem to be given on an academic level.
� The Search Committee should attend to whether an applicant has been turned down multiple times by other schools. Not allowing faculty to have access to candidate materials was a problem the last time.
� We want a Chancellor who wants to be involved in the campus internally � not just someone focused on relating to the outside world. We don�t want a Chancellor whose resume and pitch relates only to external interests.
� We had a Chancellor intent on creating a legacy, but it was his legacy, rather than ours. We need to move forward along the paths that we have created, and it should be our legacy that gets communicated (in keeping with the resolutions that we passed today).
� We need at least part of the process to be open. We should be very concerned about bringing in anyone who is unwilling to let their colleagues know that they are looking. Having an open process sets someone up for success
� An open search would give faculty buy-in. Past searches here have been more open (e.g., forums, talks). This helps faculty buy in to the agenda for the Chancellor.
� Candidates should be able to tell us what is it about UNCW that attracted them to apply here. We need to know if the person wants to come to UNCW because of what UNCW does.
� We need to be as open as possible. We don�t get the best candidates with secret searches. We get people who operate secretly. We�re proud of what we do here and those things don�t always happen at other places. It�s due to the fact that we work across the table when needed. We need someone who realizes our values, because that�s what got us where we are today.
� Our next Chancellor should care about students.
� From President Lugo � There is strong pressure from BOG and GA that we conduct a closed search, or at best a hybrid search, where candidates are brought in at the very end to meet with select faculty. How many would like to have last 3 candidates/finalists visit with all on campus? Search firms agree that search should be private. The question was called. There were 50 votes in favor of finalists visiting with the campus community, and 0 votes against. President Lugo will make this point as strongly as possible, to present as the voice of the faculty. Success can�t be guaranteed, but he will make the argument.
� From Mark Lanier � There is a continuum of styles of searches, from completely open to completely closed, to various hybrids. Leutze�s search was closed until the end, with the finalists made public. Rosemary�s search was closed throughout, but at the end she was brought to campus as were other candidates to meet with specific faculty groups.
� There was faculty input. Faculty reps met with Chancellor DePaolo away from campus, and were asked for input and representation.
� From Mark Lanier � An open search means that the names are out there from the start � not just the final candidates. This causes candidates to lose confidence at their home institutions. We�re probably looking at some variant of a hybrid rather than totally open or totally closed.
� No confidentiality agreements were required in Chancellor DePaolo�s search.
� From Mark Lanier � The last search was also in the middle. Four candidates came to campus to meet with various groups. On a continuum, Leutze�s was most open.
� In a lot of searches, contacts go to the home institutions of each finalist to get information �on the ground.� Has that ever been done here? It should be done here � to show due diligence, to see how individual is perceived on their home campus.
� From Mark Lanier - I�m not speaking on behalf of the search committee, and there was discussion among the Search Committee on a number of these issues, to be decided later. It will be the Search Committee who will have those conversations, and they will probably come down somewhere in the middle.
� We often hear that credibility will be destroyed. Are there data on this point? Do data support the conclusion?
� A good Chancellor should inspire us to do a better job, despite the fact that we already do a good job.
� Characteristics that make a good principle and are probably relevant here include: someone who is consistently visible, who seeks feedback from all stakeholders, repairs community between AA and faculty, cares about issues that families care about, cares about their students, and s/he must know the tenor of current faculty and students.
� For the first time since I�ve been here, I�m in the situation where I cannot call up the provost and chancellor and get a meeting. That�s always been the case here until now. Departments have sometimes avoided really bad hires only by making contacts beyond the list of references. That part of the search must be open or we could get someone who is inappropriate. As many chairs should be involved as possible, because they know what is going on. We need someone whose MO is talking to people.
� We want someone to join in our culture, inspire it and embrace it, to be present with us as we celebrate our gains, walk the walk with us, and understand the mission of this university. The Chancellor should be someone who espouses our best values rather than telling us what our values are, a team player.
� What has not been said is just as important as what has been said. No one has mentioned wanting someone focused on making money, generating finances, all about the business.
� An important quality in the Chancellor is intellectual alertness, aliveness. We want someone who misses their discipline; we want them to feel like their office is a cage.
� We shoulder all the risk if the search is closed. If a candidate wants the job, s/he should be willing to take on risk too.
Motion to adjourn � 3:52