Appalachian State University
Faculty Senate Minutes
October 9, 2006 (Approved)
The Faculty Senate meeting was called to order by Chair Marking at 3:20 pm in the William Strickland Conference Room in I.G. Greer on Monday, October 9, 2006. Senator Tiller was not in attendance.
I. Announcements:
A. A group photograph of the 2006-2007 Faculty Senate was taken on Sanford Mall by Mr. Mike Rominger, ASU’s photographer.
B. Chair Marking welcomed senators, noting that Senator Ramey and Senator Evans were attending their first Faculty Senate meeting, and asked visitors to introduce themselves. Visitors were Dr. Dave Haney (Academic Affairs), Dr. Tim Burwell (Academic Affairs), Dr. Bobby Sharp (Institutional Research), Mr. Len Johnson (Human Resources), Mr. Barry Sauls (Parking and Traffic), Mr. Patrick Beville (Design and Construction), Dr. Howie Neufeld (Biology), Ms. Lillian Hogan (The Appalachian), and Ms. Mang Chang (Student Government Association representative).
C. Mr. Len Johnson provided information and a flyer about the upcoming faculty and staff appreciation day on November 4, 2006 for the ASU vs. Citadel football game. Mr. Johnson also provided information and a handout concerning Retirement Planning Workshops scheduled for October 6, 12, and 27, 2006 for employees and spouses. He reminded the Faculty Senate that enrollment for NC Flex is available online through November 3, 2006 and that it is necessary to re-enroll every year.
II. Visitors Reports:
A. Dr. Dave Haney, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, updated the Faculty Senate concerning the Faculty Evaluation and Development Task Force. He stated that the task force is a joint effort between the Faculty Senate and Council of Chairs. The Provost created this task force last year which is composed of five subcommittees focusing on criterion standards, evaluation processes, tools and procedures, and development issues in academic affairs and support services. A general survey has been distributed campus-wide soliciting faculty concerns for a October 16, 2006 deadline. The task force will submit recommendations to the Provost, tentatively, during the spring 2007 semester. Dr. Haney acknowledged that he was asked to chair this task force when he was the chair of the English Department. He is aware that there might be objections to him chairing this taskforce in his current capacity as Associate Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs. Senator Ramsey asked for clarification regarding the creation of this task force in light of the fact that there are established university committees and existing structures, such as Faculty Senate and AP&P committee, that could have been asked to perform the same function as this task force. Dr. Haney responded that a task force has a specific task to perform with a specified ending point. Dr. Aeschleman stated that he did not think it was fair to ask Faculty Senators to participate on one of these five subcommittees since that was not within the parameters of their involvement as senators and areas of expertise. Chair Marking noted that she is a member of the taskforce and she is interested in receiving input from faculty.
III. Minutes:
A. Chair Marking asked for a motion to approve September 11, 2006 Faculty Senate minutes. Senator Butts moved and Senator Ramsey seconded. Motion was passed. (See Vote #1).
IV. Provost’s Report:
A. Dr. Aeschleman thanked senators who attended the Strategic Planning open forum held on October 6, 2006. Material presented can be found on Institutional Research, Assessment & Planning’s website at www.appstate.edu/www_docs/depart/irp/irapmenu_pl.html.
B. In response to Senator Smith’s question, posed during the September 11, 2006 Faculty Senate meeting, why lecturers did not receive a salary increase, Dr. Aeschleman commented that there were no national benchmarks for comparing lecturers’ salaries. He added that he reviewed lecturers’ salaries within the UNC system and concluded that lecturers are well-compensated at ASU.
C. Dr. Aeschleman reported that the Board of Trustees approved most of the changes to the Faculty Handbook. They were: Chapter 3--academic freedom is afforded to all members of the faculty; composition of departmental personnel committees--when action involves the department chair, the DPC will elect a member of their body to chair the committee and the department chair is recused; method for electing EOA (Equal Opportunity Associate)--must be from the DPC not just from the department; slight change in the location of the Guidelines for EOA Affirmative Action Plans; clarification that when a search committee is appointed by the chair then the committee reports to the chair and when the search committee is appointed by the DPC then it reports to the DPC; name change from nominating committee to departmental chair search committee; language was changed to broaden our commitment to diversity; and clarification that departmental chair search committees make recommendations to the deans and not the Provost and that the recommendation would carry tenure within the department. Dr. Aeschleman stated that one item was tabled. The Academic Affairs subcommittee noted that the language concerning faculty absences due to observance of religious holidays was stated as “should be accommodated” was different from the language stated in the general attendance policy for students that states “faculty members are encouraged to make reasonable accommodations for students” who are absence due to observance of religious holidays. The language for Section 5.2 in the Faculty Handbook was tabled and referred back to the Faculty Handbook Committee and the language for Section 5.3.1.1 concerning student absences was approved. The changes are as follows:
3.3.2 Appalachian State University will not penalize or discipline members of the faculty because of the exercise of academic freedom in the lawful pursuit of their respective areas of scholarly and professional interest and responsibility. All members of the faculty, whether tenured, untenured, or non-tenure track, have the protection of academic freedom.
4.1.2.2 The departmental chair shall serve as the non-voting chair of the departmental personnel committee and shall preside at all meetings. The chair shall establish called meetings when two or more committee members make written request for a meeting of the DPC. When the personnel action being considered involves the departmental chair, the DPC will elect for that action a chair from among its tenured members.
4.1.2.3 Every department's faculty shall elect the departmental personnel committee using the procedures in Robert's Rules of Order as currently revised, and determine the length of terms on the DPC. In departments with an adequate number of faculty, no faculty member may serve more than three consecutive years on a DPC. Persons who hold academic rank within a department, whether or not their salaries are from state-appropriated funds, shall be eligible for the committee. At the beginning of every fall semester, all departments will elect from among the tenured faculty of their DPC an Equal Opportunity Associate. This person will represent the University’s Office of Compliance Programs in all departmental personnel affairs.
4.1.4.1.12 Guidelines concerning the roles and responsibilities of the Equal Opportunity Associate (EOA) are specified in the EPA Affirmative Action Plan.
4.1.4.2.1 Search committees that recommend to the departmental chair are established by the department or by the departmental chair with departmental approval. Search committees that recommend to the DPC are established by the DPC, with departmental approval.
4.2.4.2.2 All meetings of search committees shall be held on campus. Every member of an academic department must be notified in writing of all meetings and agenda items of the search committee. The announcement should clearly state the time and place of the meeting and it should become a part of the department’s permanent records. All department members who so desire may present their views before the committee.
4.2.4.2.3 The minutes of the search committee should record all persons in attendance at the meeting and all members absent. A record should be kept of each personnel action considered; however, this should not include individual comments. The written record should state that the search committee formally considered the personnel action. The minutes should show the vote (the number of affirmative and negative votes) on each action, but not the votes of individual members of the committee.
4.2.4.2.4 All minutes of search committee action must be approved and, if necessary, modified by a majority of the assembled committee. Such action will normally take place at the next meeting of the committee except that, following the last meeting of the committee in a given academic year, the recorder shall be responsible for gaining the approval of the minutes from the voting members of the committee.
4.2.4.2.5 A permanent file of all minutes of the search committee shall be maintained in each department office. In addition, the paper ballots for each vote should be kept in sealed, labeled and dated envelopes. Nothing in these guidelines shall violate the confidentiality of the search committee minutes. All motions must be phrased in the affirmative.
4.2.4.2.6 Guidelines concerning the roles and responsibilities of the Equal Opportunity Associate (EOA) are specified in the EPA Affirmative Action Plan.
4.5.4.1 Constitution of the Departmental Chair Search Committee
4.5.4.1.1 The departmental chair search committee shall consist of:
4.5.4.2 Charge to the Departmental Chair Search Committee
Prior to the selection of the committee, the dean will meet with the department and charge it. In this meeting, the dean will emphasize consideration of the University’s commitment to diversity when electing representatives to the committee.
4.5.4.3.1 At the first organizational meeting, a chair will be elected by the members of the departmental chair search committee.
4.5.4.3.5 When a departmental chair search committee has identified and voted to recommend candidates to the dean, the committee will recommend that an appointment with tenure should be made.
5.3.1.1 It is the policy of Appalachian State University that class attendance is an important part of a student's educational experience. Students are expected to attend every meeting of their classes, and are responsible for class attendance. Regardless of what reasons there may be for absence, students are held accountable for academic activities, and faculty may require special work or tests to make up for the missed class or classes. In addition, faculty members are encouraged to make reasonable accommodations for students requesting to miss class due to the observance of religious holidays.
Faculty, at their discretion, may include class attendance as a criterion in determining a student's final grade in the course. On the first day of class, faculty must inform students of their class attendance policy and the effect of that policy on their final grade; both policies must be clearly stated in the class syllabus. A student who does not attend a class during one of its first two meetings may, at the discretion of the academic department, lose her or his seat in that class. Further, if a class meets only one time per week - e.g., a laboratory or an evening class - the student must attend the FIRST meeting of that class or risk losing her or his seat.
D. Dr. Aeschleman discussed the context surrounding the development of a Tenure-Track Job Advertisement template. (See Appendix A). Dr. Tim Burwell reviewed job advertisements that had been published in newspapers at the request of the Provost and discerned that there were significant errors of omission and co-mission. This situation was brought to the attention of the Deans’ Council. A job advertisement template, not a boiler plate template, was developed to include language that faculty may be expected to be involved in distance education or some form of online instruction. The Deans’ Council recommended that this language should be a default item in all faculty job advertisements. The template is currently in draft form and will include a cover memorandum stating that departments are not obligated to use this exact wording but must include these items: department where position is located; nature of the position; proposed or range of rank; desired qualifications; potential duties; date of appointment; outside classroom teaching includes scholarship or creative endeavors, university service, advising, online instruction or instruction at off-campus sites, and curriculum development; description of the department and university (or appropriate website links); specific contents of applications; initial date of review of applications; person to whom application materials should be submitted; and the statement that ASU is an Equal Opportunity Employer and women and minorities are encouraged to apply. Dr. Aeschleman noted that the Department of Labor’s regulations concerning international hires requires print advertisements to be published.
Discussion related to the job advertisement template included: a job advertisement is not a job description, one size fits all job ads are not appropriate, certain departments will not have distance education, prospective candidates might be deterred from applying or accepting an offer of employment if distance education is a job requirement, cost of advertising is expensive, recommendation to consolidate departmental job advertisements to reduce duplication of information, unique circumstances of each discipline warrants different descriptive statements pertaining to the vacancy, distance education connotes a community college atmosphere, include website links to official job descriptions, truth in advertising, department chair or dean should inform candidates during interview process that distance education might be part of their job responsibilities, placement of job description within the job advertisement, if online or distance education is part of the faculty members responsibilities it must be included in the advertisement, suggestion to hire faculty specifically to teach off-campus, off-campus faculty might feel they are not part of the ASU faculty, and a suggestion to include in the job advertisement that faculty who teach off-campus receive stipends. Dr. Haney noted that half of ASU’s graduate students are taught off-campus.
V. Committee Reports (Committee Chair’s name is in caps.)
A. Academic Policies (HUELSMAN, Butts, Mamlin, Smith, Williams)
No Report
B. Agenda Committee (MARKING, Arnold, Harris, Marland)
No Report
C. Budget Committee (STRAZICICH, Marland, McBride, Scherlen))
No Report
D. Campus Planning Committee (TILLER, Arnold, Kaenzig, Ramey)
No Report
E. Committee on Committees (LAMBERT, Horton, Malloy, McGuire, Mines)
Senator Lambert moved to approve the following representatives on University Committees and Councils. Motion passed. (See Vote #2).
University Bookstore Committee, Senator Scherlen
Information Technology Advisory Council, Senator Malloy
Non-Tenure Track Faculty Committee, Senator Evans
College of Business representative for Core Curriculum Committee, Dr. Ivan Roten (Finance)
F. Faculty Handbook Committee (MARKING, Moore, Arnold, Gates, Marland)
No Report
G. Faculty Welfare and Morale Committee (FELKEL, Ehnenn, Harris, McKinney)
Senator Felkel moved to approve the following three Dean Evaluations Reading Committees. Motion passed. (See Vote #3).
College of Education:
Michael Jacobson, Chair C&I, jacobsnmg@appstate.edu (COE)
Jane Nowacek, faculty member LRE, nowacekej@appstate.edu (COE)
Mike Evans, SENATOR, Dept. of Management, evansmr@appstate.edu (COB)
Michael Krenn, Chair History, krennml@appstate.edu (A&S)
School of Music:Cathy McKinney, program coordinator, mckinnych@appstate.edu (SOM)
Karen Robertson, faculty member, robrtsnkl@appstate.edu (SOM)
Nancy Mamlin, SENATOR, LRE, mamlinnl@appstate.edu (COE)
Laura Ives, Chair Dept. of Art, iveslb@appstate.edu (FAA)
College of Fine and Applied Arts:
Ray Miller, Chair Dept. of Theatre and Dance, millerrf@appstate.edu (FAA)
Janice Pope, faculty member, Dept. of Communication, popejt@appstate.edu (FAA)
Eric Marland, SENATOR, Mathematics, marlandes@appstate.edu (A&S)
Unal Boya, Chair, Dept. of Marketing, boyauo@appstate.edu (COB)
H. Welfare of Students Committee (RAMSEY, Carpenter, Davison)
No Report
I. Ad Hoc Committee on the Role of the Faculty Senate (ARNOLD, Gates, Lambert, McBride, Rardin, Scherlen) (See Appendix B).
Senator Arnold presented the nine proposals from the Ad Hoc Committee on the Role of the Faculty Senate. The Ad Hoc committee was formed last year to look at the broad issues related to the Faculty Senate which included difficulty in getting faculty to run for Senate seats, attitude toward the Faculty Senate, and perceptions that senators are able to serve life-time terms. Senator McBride recommended that the proposals be presented as motions and voted on or amended. Several Senators recommended that the proposals be discussed at this meeting and voted on next month in order to allow sufficient time for consideration and input from their constituents. Chair Marking noted that some proposals have already been implemented. Discussions related to Proposal #1 and Proposal #2 included concerns about prospective senators from smaller departments might be overburden with senate responsibilities, what would happen if a department did not nominate two candidates, including language that would allow smaller departments to team up and have one senate representative, having approximately 68 potential nominees on the ballot to consider and vote on seems excessive, who is considered a member of a department/unit—part-time, full-time, non-tenure, tenure track faculty, having an entirely new faculty senate every three years is a recipe for eviscerating the power of the senate, concerns regarding continuity and campus culture, forcing faculty from every department to be involved in faculty senate might not be an efficient and effective method for gaining increased participation, questions regarding the need for faculty senate and what function does the faculty senate serve—does it serve only faculty who are involved in the senate, suggestion that administrators recruit faculty members to run for senate seats, including the option of having alternate senators to ensure departmental representation, concerns regarding whether the faculty senate is a recommending body or a decision-making entity, and questions regarding whether each senator is a representative of and reports to their own department or the university at-large.
Discussions related to Proposal #3 included objections to having a completely new slate of senators and elections every three years and the inherent difficulty in having a completely new slate of senators every three years who may not be familiar with previous senate business. Discussions related to Proposal #4 included statements concerning the huge time commitment that is involved for members of the senate executive board, what would happen if there were not two nominees on the ballot for each executive board seat, and individuals feeling uncomfortable running against incumbent executive board members. Chair Marking noted that Proposal #5 and #7 have already been implemented. There was no discussion regarding Proposal #6 and Proposal #9. Discussions related to Proposal #8 included objections to disbanding the Welfare of Students Committee because it serves as the pipeline into faculty senate for students and has been very productive in the past.
VI. Unfinished Business
A. Senator Malloy asked for an update on the status of the online Faculty Handbook. Chair Marking noted that all items that have been approved by the Faculty Senate and Provost have to be approved by the Board of Trustees. Dr. Haney suggested resurrecting the practice of Faculty Senate sending a memorandum to the Provost indicating motions and resolutions that need his approval and including on the Faculty Senate website dates items were passed by the Faculty Senate, approved by the Provost, and approved by the Board of Trustees. He noted that updating the Faculty Handbook .pdf files is labor-intensive. Changes to the Faculty Handbook that have not yet been included on the online version are available as separate items on the website.
VII. New Business
A. Senator Scherlen introduced Motion FS06-07/10-01 that no additional parking fees be charged to faculty and staff for the new Library Parking Deck. (See Appendix C).
Mr. Barry Sauls provided a handout entitled “Key Points for Faculty Senate Discussion.” He discussed each point on the handout. (See Appendix D). Questions and discussion raised by the Faculty Senate included what happens with parking spaces that do not get sold to faculty and staff, there seems to be a shift toward providing students with ample parking rather than faculty and staff, suggestion that a nominal fee of $1 be added to the cost of sporting and cultural events that would be earmarked as revenue for the Department of Parking and Traffic, a question concerning the cost of parking ticket collection vs. the cost of personnel, employees were told that the new library parking deck would provide replacement parking for faculty and staff at no additional charge, whether parking decks are considered premium spots, advantages and disadvantages of charging different fees for different parking decks for students, staff, and faculty, and making faculty and staff parking available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Mr. Sauls stated that there is high student demand for parking in the Rivers Street and Library parking decks, that he does not have the authority to make the decision to add a nominal fee into the cost of tickets for sporting or cultural events, perhaps President Bowles can secure additional funding for UNC system, the cost of one parking space in a deck is approximately $15,000, and the parking operation is completely self supporting with no state funding and is required to generate 10% above operating costs and debt service. Mr. Beville added that the cost of maintaining a parking deck is considerably higher than surface parking. He added that it was never stated that there would be no additional fees charged to faculty and staff for using the Library parking deck.
A senator called the question. Motion passed. (See Vote #4). Senator Scherlen moved and Senator Kaenzig seconded Motion FS06-07/10-01 that no additional fee beyond the regular annual surface parking fee be charged to faculty and staff for parking in the parking deck adjacent to the Belk Library and Information Commons. Motion failed. Hand count indicated a tie. Chair Marking voted “no” to break the tie. (See Vote #5).
Senator Strazicich asked who pays for clean-up after tailgating parties and Mr. Sauls replied that to the best of his knowledge the physical plant does.
Chair Marking asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Motion passed. (See Vote #6). The meeting was adjourned at 6:14 pm.
Appalachian State University
FACULTY PRESENT AND VOTING SHEET for October 9, 2006
Y = Yes N = No A = Abstain
SENATORS |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
Arnold, Chip |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
Butts, Jeff |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
Carpenter, Ellen |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
Davison, Beth |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
A |
Y |
Ehnenn, Jill |
A |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
Evans, Mike |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
Felkel, Brian |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
Harris, Tim |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Horton, Julie |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
Huelsman, Tim |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
Kaenzig, Rebecca |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Lambert, Monica |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
A |
Y |
Malloy, Mark |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Mamlin, Nancy |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
Marland, Eric |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
McBride, Jeff |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
McKinney, Harold |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Mines, Diane |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
A |
Y |
Ramey, Michael |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Ramsey, Colin |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
A |
Y |
Scherlen, Allan |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Smith, Steve |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
Strazicich, Mark |
Y |
Y |
Y |
Y |
N |
Y |
Tiller, Jeff |
E |
X |
C |
U |
S |
ED |
Williams, Betsey |
Y |
Y |
Y |
|
|
|
Vote #1: To approve the September 11, 2006 Faculty Senate minutes.
Vote #2: To approve faculty representatives to serve on University Committees and Councils.
Vote #3: To approve three Dean Evaluations Reading Committees.
Vote #4: To call the question.
Vote #5: To approve the Motion FS06-07/10-01 that no additional fees be charged for faculty and staff in the parking deck adjacent to the Belk Library and Information Commons.
Vote #6: To adjourn the meeting.
Appendix A Draft
Template for Tenure-Track Job Description
The (Department/Area) at Appalachian State University invites applications for a tenure-track nine-month faculty position at the rank of (preferred rank(s)) beginning August 2006. Qualifications for this position include: (list of qualification information). Candidates are expected to provide instruction in (listing courses/areas of instruction). Instructional duties will include student advisement and curriculum development and may include on-line instruction and/or instruction at off-campus sites. In addition to instructional duties, faculty members are expected to maintain an active program of scholarship as well as participate in service activities.
(Insert description of the department including a brief description of programs, number of faculty members, and number of majors and graduate students)
Appalachian State University is a member institution of the sixteen-campus University of North Carolina System. Located in Boone, North Carolina, the University has approximately 14,500 students and has been ranked by US News and World Report as one of the top 15 among southern regional universities since the rankings first appeared in 1986. Additional information about the (Department name), the University, and the surrounding area is located at: (Web site)
Applicants must send a completed application consisting of (fill in list of application components). Completed applications should be sent to (fill in address information) . The initial application review will begin (date) and will continue until the position is filled. Appalachian State University is an Equal Opportunity Employer. Women and minorities are strongly encouraged to apply.
Appendix B Ad Hoc Committee on the Role of the Faculty Senate Proposals
Proposal 1: The Faculty Senate shall consist of one member from each of the departments/units that make up the university. For purposes of election, each department/unit shall nominate 2 candidates, selected by faculty vote as prescribed in the Faculty Handbook. These names will be placed on a ballot, listed under the appropriate department/unit. The university faculty at large shall then vote for 1 candidate from each pair nominated. The candidate with a simple majority shall be elected for a 3-year term. Elections shall therefore take place every three years. Newly elected senators shall be seated during the last meeting of each third academic year.
Rationale: The motion provides for more complete representation, greater involvement of faculty in university governance, and an identifiable place of residence for each senator. Although department/unit faculty will make the initial nominations, the elected senators will be chosen by the university faculty. Thus, each department/unit will be represented by a voice on the Senate, but each senator will also represent the faculty as a whole.
Proposal 2: The transition to the larger Faculty Senate shall proceed as follows: In Spring Semester of 2007, positions being vacated shall be filled by 2-year “at large” positions; in the Spring Semester of 2008, positions being vacated shall be filled by 1-year “at large” positions; and in the Spring Semester of 2009, all positions shall be filled according to the procedure of the new Faculty Senate.
Rationale: This method of transition will respect the tenure of senators recently elected to 3-year terms.
Proposal 3: Faculty senators shall not serve consecutive 3-year terms. At the end of every 3-year cycle, a completely new slate of senators shall take office.
Rationale: The motion prevents career membership on the Senate and encourages a wider representation. A new Senate every 3 years also brings new ideas and approaches to the business of representing the faculty.
Proposal 4: At the last meeting of each academic year, the Senate shall elect the executive officers for the following year, chosen from a minimum of two names for each position nominated from the floor. Candidates must give permission before their names are placed in nomination. Officers may be re-elected each year for the duration of their tenure on the Senate.
Rationale: The motion provides for the possibility for new leadership on a yearly basis but also recognizes that the Senate might wish to work under the same officers for more than one year.
Proposal 5: The Chancellor of the University shall meet with the Faculty Senate at its first and last sessions of the academic year. At the first meeting, the Chancellor shall review administrative plans and goals for the upcoming year. At the last meeting, the Chancellor shall review administrative accomplishments and on-going initiatives.
Rationale: The Chancellor should share with the Senate her/his plans at the beginning of the year so that the Senate will be more aware of and engaged in the business of the university. The last meeting should provide an opportunity for the Senate and Administration to discuss and evaluate the direction of the university.
Proposal 6: The Faculty Senate Executive Committee, consisting of the elected officers and the committee chairs, shall meet with the Provost at least once during each semester to discuss mutual concerns.
Rationale: Although it is important for the Provost and the Chair of the Senate to work together, it is also important that the Provost regularly hear a variety of voices from the Faculty Senate.
Proposal 7: The Agenda Committee shall be defined as the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and shall meet at least once prior to each regularly scheduled Senate meeting to formulate and approve (by a vote of the members in attendance) the agenda for each upcoming Senate meeting.
Rationale: The agenda should be set by group consensus rather than by the Chair alone.
Proposal 8: The Faculty Senate shall disband the Welfare of Students Committee.
Rationale: The Welfare of Students Committee can be seen as both paternalistic and redundant. The Student Government Association provides students with a strong voice on campus. Any concerns that involve both faculty and students can be brought to the appropriate Senate committees on an official basis.
Proposal 9: The secretary position allotted to the Faculty Senate shall be made a full-time position.
Rationale: The Faculty Senate Office should be open and available to faculty at all times during the regular work week. A full-time position also recognizes that faculty governance is important and respected by the university.
Appendix C
Motion 06-07/10-01
Resolved, That no additional fee beyond the regular annual surface parking fee be charged to faculty and staff for parking in the parking deck adjacent to the Belk Library & Information Commons
Whereas,
the expressed intent of building the parking deck adjacent to the Belk Library & Information Commons was to replace what were formerly faculty and staff parking spaces lost because of the new library construction,
and Whereas,
the parking deck adjacent to the Belk Library & Information Commons does not need to generate income to pay for its construction as it was entirely paid for by state appropriations through the 2000 bond referendum,
and Whereas,
excessive traffic flow into and out of the parking deck can be managed by means other than imposing additional fees on faculty and staff who park in the deck,
And Whereas,
the cost of maintenance of the deck can be defrayed by financial means other than imposing an additional charge on faculty and staff for parking in the deck,
Therefore, the Faculty Senate resolves that no additional fee beyond the annual surface parking fee be charged to faculty and staff for parking in the parking deck adjacent to the Belk Library & Information Commons.
Appendix D KEY POINTS FOR FACULTY SENATE DISCUSSION
Presented By Mr. Barry Sauls, Department of Parking and Traffic
FINANCIAL NOTES
1. Parking operation is completely self supporting, with no state funding.
2. Parking operation lost approximately $ 350,000/year as a result of the unfavorable N.C. Supreme Court ruling on parking fines.
3. Parking operation is required to generate 10% above operating costs and debt service, or we violate our bond agreement on the Rivers Street Deck.
4. Parking operation has deferred maintenance needs of at least $ 3,000,000, and these funds will have to be borrowed.
5. The Rivers Street Parking Deck does not sustain itself. The overall parking operation must supplement the debt with approximately $ 200,000/year.
6. Loss of South parking lot to construction cost the parking operation $ 100,000 this year.
7. Parking operation seeks only to defray costs, and provide for necessary maintenance. It is in no way viewed as a “for profit” operation.
FAIRNESS OF FEE PROPOSAL