Senate Minutes

Feb. 17, 2015

EB 162

President Lugo presiding

Call to order:  2:07

Quorum confirmed


Minutes for 1/20 and 2/3 � approved with no corrections.


I.                    President�s Report: 

a.       Today�s report will focus on a Faculty Assembly update.  Some current problems were communicated at the last Senate Meeting.  Almost 400 votes were collected from UNCW on the resolution regarding Tom Ross.  The outcome of our vote was sent to BOG, with Ross cc�d.  Ten other campuses have done the same.  There has been no response or confirmation of receipt as of yet.  The FA is working on strategies to bring more pressure to bear � our voices need to be heard.  The FA is also at compiling a comprehensive list of detrimental actions that have transpired over the past 3 years that impact our daily lives.  The list will be discussed at the next FA meeting, and steps for moving forward will be decided.  FA authority lies only in our ability to come together and voice our opinion.

b.      Points made during discussion from the floor:

                                                               i.      Other universities are also acting with intensity.  We need to restore confidence in education in NC.  The dialog must remain professional, but we need to help the BOG understand that by damaging education, the state is being damaged.

                                                             ii.      The only role of the FA is to advise the President, and to advise campuses of issues.  Individual campuses can then take action, which is where the leverage lies.  We can communicate with our own administrator and our BOT, where the FA cannot.  It may be important to go to Chapel Hill for discussion.

                                                            iii.      We need to make our case in terms of damaging the state and damaging the students.  No one will care about damaging the faculty.  UNC students are also organizing.

c.       Faculty and staff retention continues to be an important focus at UNCW.   Rosalynn Martin, our new HR Direction was introduced.  She looks forward to working with faculty, especially on issues of retention.  Lugo has presented Martin with a document on retention problems, including names of individuals who have left UNCW.  We need to restore the policies and environment that promote retention and hiring of faculty and staff.  Our new Diversity Officer will be starting in April.

d.      Lugo encouraged 100% response from the Senate to the COACHE survey.  Our responses are particularly important to providing an accurate picture of faculty workload.  Currently, GA relies primarily on data from the Delaware Study, which has many flaws and gives incorrect information on what faculty actually do.  GA realizes this and wants better information, which the COACHE instrument can help to provide.  The survey has been updated, and now includes a section on shared governance � what is working and what is not.  It takes about 40 min. to complete.


II.                  Chancellor�s report:

a.        Congratulations to Gabriel and Senates across the state on speaking up about Tom Ross.  Important transitions are in progress right now, made more frightening because we don�t know the real agenda that is driving the changes.  Centers are coming under attack, which will heighten concerns about the agenda.  The Chancellor has written an op-ed to circulate.  He feels it is the duty of Chancellors to speak up.

b.      Marilyn Scheerer will be our interim provost � she brings great talent to the office, and will be getting engaged this spring.  The Chancellor is working with Provost Battles to help ensure a smooth transition for Scherer. 

c.       Work with the Task Forces on budget and on engagement is ongoing.  The task force reports will be provided to the 5 finalists for the Chancellor position. 

d.      Our campus will be going through great changes over the next few months, and there are lots of anxieties on campus as a result.  The Chancellor is committed to developing a transition plan, so that everyone will know what�s going to happen and when.  We should expect notification about the next Chancellor in mid-April, which will begin the official transition.  There will be opportunities for faculty and staff to get involved and to get to know the new Chancellor as soon as possible.  Uncertainties about the roles of President, Chancellor, Provost, and Deans in two units will have many employees nervous about what�s happening.  Chancellor Sederburg understands that times are trying and he is working to help with that transition.

e.      The Search Committee has narrowed the list of Chancellor candidates to 10 finalists, and plans to narrow the list to 5 or 6 individuals to bring to campus in March.  The candidates will meet with selected individuals during their visit.  The BOT will recommend the top 3 candidates to Ross, who will make the decision, but even that is a bit unclear as the BOG wants to be more involved.  We should know the outcome of the search by mid-April.

f.        In response to a Senator comment that the Governor of WI has attempted to change the state constitution to define the universities mission as job training, Sederburg noted that governors have 3 resources for advancing their states � natural resources from the land, strategies for decreasing costs of labor & business, and the intellectual basis of the state.  Pursing a well-educated population has been the most successful strategy.  The core strength of the state cannot be dismantled. 

g.       Points of discussion from the floor:

                                                               i.      President Lugo noted that while Ross is expected to make the decision on the Chancellor search, the BOG is currently trying to rewrite the policies by which new Presidents are chosen, such that the entire process could be decided by 3 individuals (given the current odd phrasing).  If the BOG ignores the strong input against this change, we expect serious push back from the faculty.

                                                             ii.      The faculty members to meet with the Chancellor candidates have not yet been determined.  The Search Committee will make the decisions, and it is hoped that at least the Senate Steering Committee would be involved.  The faculty will be sworn to secrecy.

                                                            iii.      We  will have no way of knowing if the BOG respects the Chancellor recommendation made by Ross, nor will we know how many BOG members will be working with Ross in making the recommendation.  Chancellor Sederburg noted that, if the Search Committee does their job, all 3 names forwarded to Ross should be individuals acceptable to the campus.  Ross needs to have some flexibility in deciding, as each candidate will have different strengths and weaknesses.  The Committee is generally pleased with the pool of candidates.


III.                Committee Reports:


a.       From the University Curriculum Committee:

                                                               i.      Motion 2015-02-MO1  � to adopt COML as a prefix (Communication Studies Laboratory) for the catalogue.  The question was called.  Votes were 47 in favor; 0 against.  The motion passed.

b.      From the Academic Standards Committee:

                                                               i.      Motion 2015-02-MO2:  Regarding out-of-state instructional opportunities.  Our vote will be postponed to the next meeting, but an explanation was provided by Nathan Grove.   The issue involves students earning credit for internships or other courses while living in other states; these arrangements require prior authorization from the other state.  The problem is that this authorization is not always being checked prior to enrolling students in such coursework.   One motivation for the authorization seems to involve wanting to place limits on what can be done by for-profit institutions.  A complication for any UNCW policy is that some departments offer courses that are similar to internships (e.g., practicums), but which are not formally designated as internships.  These may be implicated too, if students are living and working in another state.

                                                             ii.      Points from discussion by the floor:

1.       The specific requirements and processes for authorization vary widely by state, and can involve fees up to $10,000.

2.       The authorizations are required for other states in the US, but experiences abroad are not impacted.

3.       The policy would hold for any course for credit where the student lives in a different state, so this would include DIS credits too, if the student lives and works in a different state.  If we don�t have permission, we can�t offer course credit in that state for a significant period of time.  Significant is undefined, but if the student is living elsewhere, it�s best to be safe and make sure that the opportunity is apprpoved.

4.       Cecil Willis reiterated that we must be authorized to offer credit in other states, for any type of course.  Failing to do so could result in consequences for the student and for UNCW.  It is critical to check to make sure authorization (which takes some time to complete) is in place before enrolling students in such arrangements.  Our distance-ed website provides a listing of states for which we have authorization to offer courses and internships.  Every attempt is made to keep the website updated, but please consult with External Programs, who can verify authorizations.

5.       We should consider adding �within the US� to the motion, for clarity.

6.       External Programs will try to help with the process if authorization isn�t already in place, but this takes time and isn�t always practical.

7.       The Provost noted that this is a national issue, not specific to UNCW, and that it is not discretionary.  We cannot proceed with course credit unless authorization is in place.   There are a handful of states where we just cannot go, but not many.

8.       The appropriateness of the course of study is not being judged here � the issue is relevant authorizations from the other state.  Faculty should be in touch with External Programs as soon as the need for a student�s placement out of state is known.

9.       The current wording of the motion is too broad; it seems to be inclusive of courses with a time-limited field component, in addition to those with term-length placements.

10.   Motion � to send MO 2015-02-  back to the Committee, with the request that an open forum be planned for further discussion of the issues.  The question was called, and the votes were 41 in favor, 4 against.  The motion was sent back to the Committee.


c.       From the Steering Committee:  Further consideration of the proposed PTR policies (2015-02-MO3). 

                                                               i.      The final document from the PTR Committee was presented.  If approved by the Senate, the document will be forwarded to AA, and then to the BOT.  This is not the time for wordsmithing; we will concentrate on the main polices.  Committee Chairs Charlie Hardy and James Hunt were invited to come forward to answer any questions.  Appreciation was expressed for the Committee�s hard work.

                                                             ii.      Summary of discussion from the floor:

1.       Unlike the RPT policies, the proposed policies for PTR do not include direct faculty input into the process, except that a faculty PRT review committee writes a recommendation to the department chair.  A motion was made to amend the language such that the advisory recommendation generated by the faculty review committee becomes part of the candidate�s package.  The intent is to have the faculty recommendation go forward, along with the Chair�s summary letter.  On page 5, the phrase �nonadvisory� could be replaced with �including faculty advisory recommendations.�  (A request to leave this decision up to the candidate was not supported as a friendly amendment.)  The question was called.  Votes were 42 in favor, 6 against.  The motion to amend the wording was passed.

2.       Department policies allowing the candidate to select some members of the review committee would no longer be possible.  This was specified by the GA requirements.

3.       The proposed policy does not specify that the Chair�s summary recommendation will be shared with the faculty review committee.  Some felt this to be important, even when the recommendations are in agreement.  Legal counsel verified that even though the letter is part of the candidate�s personnel file, and thus confidential, an oral report of the Chair�s overall decision is OK.  It was noted further that the candidate can always choose to share information from their own file.  A motion was made to amend the document, to include the requirement that the Chair will inform the faculty PTR advisory committee of her/his recommendation.  The question was called:  votes were 43 in favor, 5 against.  The motion to include the requirement passed.

4.       With the faculty advisory recommendation now included as part of the candidate�s package, clarification is needed that the faculty comments will be shared with the candidate.  It was noted that as part of the personnel file, the candidate always has access to the information.  A motion was made to include the requirement that the reviewer�s report be shared with the candidate at the time the chair�s letter goes forward.  The question was called; votes were 43 in favor, 5 against.  The motion to include the requirement passed.

5.       Consideration of allowing the candidate to choose whether to include the advisory recommendation was ruled out of order.

6.       A vote on the entire PTR document is now on the floor.  Our policies must be submitted to GA by May 29, but must first be approved by our BOT at their April 16/17 meeting, at the latest, and they will need access to the document prior to the meeting.  Submitting PRT to the BOT prior to submitting our revised RPT may be useful in showing that our ongoing reviews are substantive.  The question was called; votes were 43 in favor, 4 against.  The PRT document is approved by the Senate.




1.       Please support the UNCW Staff Senate food drive.  Donation should be made at the Bookstore by Feb. 27.

2.       As of today, there is a 26% completion rate for the COACHE survey.  Another follow-up link will be sent.  Please respond!



Motion to adjourn:  3:30