APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY SENATE MINUTES (approved)
3:22 p.m. on April 19, 2004, Chair Gates convened the Faculty Senate meeting
in the University Conference Room (224 I. G. Greer Hall).
I. ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Chair Gates welcomed visitors and asked that they introduce themselves.
(See voting sheet for visitors’ names.)
B. Chair Announcements –
1.) Election Results-
According to Gates, the Faculty Senate elections had been successfully completed.
There were numerous write-in campaigns that filled several of seats. The 2004
election ballot returns had increased, compared to the 2003 returns. Gates
noted that newly elected Senator Kathy McKinney from the School of Music would
be unable to fulfill her service to the Senate for the upcoming year due to
class scheduling conflicts. Bill Jones would serve as her replacement 2004-05
.
2.) Senate resignation/replacement- Senator Del Pliego (FLL) had to resign
due to class scheduling conflicts. Gates noted that an imediate replacement
was needed to fill the one-year vacancy in order to keep the Faculty Senate
fully staffed. He endorsed the appointment of Senator Moore. Even though Senator
Moore had already fulfilled his maximum two three-year terms of service on
the Senate, Gates pointed out that Moore remained eligible to serve as an
appointee.
3.) Chancellor Advisory Committee- Faculty governance was the key topic of
discussion at the last CAC meeting, according to Gates. He recommended and
hoped that senators would concentrate on faculty governance issues in the
upcoming academic year. “In a nutshell we [Gates and the other members
at the CAC meeting] decided that a ‘top-down/bottom-up’ approach
was required – both at the same time. To work closely with the Deans
who will then hopefully work closely with department chairs, to recognize
the importance of the Senate and encourage service on the Senate [as well
as] other faculty governance committees.” It was also brought to the
CAC’s attention that a better job of reaching out to faculty was needed.
4.) Faculty Senate reception Monday, April 26th, 4 - 6 p.m. – As a welcoming
for new senators and a thanking for retiring senators, Gates invited everyone
to attend the Faculty Senate’s upcoming reception held at the Integon
Room at the Broyhill Inn.
5.) Wine & Cheese reception for new faculty August 17, 2004, 4 p.m. –
Gates encouraged senators to show support and attend the reception to welcome
new faculty to Appalachian. The event was being hosted by the Hubbard Center
and co-sponsored the Faculty Senate. He noted that the reception would take
place at the Turchin Center.
II. VISITORS –
1.) Kendal McDevitt – SPARC (Study to prevent alcohol-related consequences)
-
McDevitt briefly informed senators about the SPARC study and talked about
strategies currently in the works regarding alcohol prevention on campus.
She handed out a flyer about SPARC and invited senators to meet with her for
more information and feedback.
2.) Report by Dr. Ward on the Revised Medical Leave Policy-
Dr. Ward reported that the Medical Leave Policy had been “re-visited,
mostly at the request of the OP.” Most revisions were minimal, according
to Ward. He noted that some of the members involved on the task force were:
Senator Martha Marking; Dave Haney, Chair of the English Department; Mary
Riechle, University Librarian; and Mark Estepp, Dean of the College of Fine
and Applied Arts. Dr. Ward pointed out a couple of the major changes in the
revised policy; 1.) The words,“domestic partners” were now included
on the list of eligible caregivers under the policy; 2.) Three quarter-time
faculty who are employed at least half-time at Appalachian for a minimum of
one-year were now eligible to receive benefits. There was a brief discussion,
mostly about Appalachian’s definition of “domestic partners”
under the policy. Senator Hall wanted only the word “partner” listed
and to delete the word “domestic”. Dr. Ward pointed out that the
Deans Council had chosen not to define “domestic partners” yet,
he re-assured senators that Appalachian had a “track record of liberality”
and to assume that the University will take a liberal stance on such terms
in the future. He noted that the revised policy would go into effect in the
upcoming academic year.
Secretary Moore noted that a vote to adjourn the March meeting was in order
and needed to be dealt with before continuing the meeting. He instructed senators
to record their vote in column #15 on their vote sheet. He also noted that
it would be recorded as the final vote and appended and recorded in the March
Minutes.
Before the vote for adjournment had a chance to get underway there was a brief
procedural debate about whether or not senators first must vote to approve
Gate’s one-year term appointment of Senator Moore. Some discussion arose
and Gates concluded that only the vote to adjourn was necessary at that point.
As a side note, for purposes of clarification and for the record – A
day later, after the meeting, it was revealed by a senator that in order to
comply with Faculty Senate’s Constitution regarding voting on appointees,
a vote was, indeed, necessary. Senators remedied the procedural breakdown
by voting to approve Senator Moore through gathering in a special voting session
via e-mail. Senator Moore was officially approved for the one-year appointment
on 4/26/04.
*VOTE 3 – Vote to adjourn the March 15, 2004 Meeting (as appended
and recorded in the March15, 2004 Minutes as vote #3.)
16 YES 0 NO 0 ABSTAIN
III. MINUTES – March 15, 2004 – Postponed due to office computer
breakdown.
IV. MOTIONS/RESOLUTIONS STATUS – Up-to-date and available online
at: <http://www.facsen.appstate.edu/Resolutions/res03-04.html>
V. PROVOST’S BUDGET AND RESOLUTION STATUS REPORTS
Dr. Peacock distributed an outline of his report to the Senate. Under the
category of “General Campus Information,” Peacock noted the following:
A.) State Auditors on Campus - He noted that Information Technology was being
audited for the next few weeks and that everything was going well. B.) Administrative
responsibilities for Washington and New York properties - formally housed
in ITC - had been moved to the Office of Academic Affairs under the direction
of Harry Williams and maintained by Business Affairs. Peacock noted that both
properties were now completely owned and operated by Appalachian. C.) Appalachian
Consortium Update - Peacock revealed that although the Consortium remains
a separate 501c3 and is housed on campus, the question of why its burdensome
debt is accounted for in Appalachian’s Foundation budget is being re-evaluated
and addressed. Dr. Ward mentioned that the Consortium carries a deficit of
about $68,000. Peacock pointed out that the Consortium has had numerous issues
to contend with such as not producing any publications since1999, problems
with books deteriorating, lack of proper and adequate storage facilities,
and that there had been a drop-off of support from its member institutions
in recent years. There was hope, however, that East Carolina University would
step forward and help support the Consortium, according to Ward. D.) Graduate
School Reorganization – Peacock reported that he had asked Dr. Baumhover,
Interim Dean of the Graduate School, to look into how the program could be
strengthened. Peacock also noted that he had no set plans regarding fate of
the Graduate School but was open to input and improvements. The Technology
Transfer Office and Economic Development were also being considered for inclusion
in Graduate School reorganization, according to Peacock. E.) Land – Peacock
reported that he had aggressively sought to purchase the old Lowe’s property
- located on State Farm Rd. in Boone. He lost the bid because another unnamed
buyer was in process of purchasing the property plus, the selling price was
too high for what Appalachian could afford. F.) Interim appointments –
Peacock noted that the process was underway to appoint an Interim Dean in
the College of Arts & Sciences. He also noted that a committee would be
formed for the Provost search. Under the outline heading “II. Financial
Matters,” Peacock noted that there were space allocations for: health
care promotions and the School of Music’s September taping of a PBS Special
television broadcast. He also pointed out that there was money left over from
the Chancellor search and it was rolled over into the space allocation fund.
Burwell commented, regarding the budget that the goal was to “spend down”
everything by the end of the fiscal year. Peacock also noted that the education
and technology line item in the budget would be increased through money from
campus-based tuition fees. Appalachian was lagging behind financially, compared
to many other state institutions. Peacock pointed to a letter dated March
12, 2004 from the BOG to the Chancellor’s Office. Regarding the item
that dealt with campus-based tuition increases, Peacock emphatically agreed
with and read aloud: “it is the first priority of the Board that the
revenues generated from the tuition increases be used to enhance the quality
of the academic experience for students.” Peacock was especially concerned
about the quality of students’ academic experience at Appalachian. Peacock
also addressed questions raised regarding a deficit in the Intercollegiate
Athletics Program. Peacock and Burwell explained and assured senators that,
in fact, there were no funds flowing out of Academic Affairs and going into
the Intercollegiate Athletics’ budget. There was a brief discussion and
explanation about how and why accrual accounting methods were being used in
the athletics budget. Senator McKinney mentioned the possibility of implementing
parking fees at athletic events. Burwell briefly explained one of the handouts
about the procedure used by OP in selecting Appalachian’s peers in 1995
and in 1999. He also noted that the time was right to look at and re-evaluate
Appalachian’s peer institution list. Peacock added, referring to Appalachian’s
peer ranking, that the Delaware Study was not favorable for Appalachian’s
ranking, nor was it true or even realistic. Peacock also noted that two repair
and renovations projects looked favorable for construction: 1.) The Reich
College of Education’s new facility and, 2.) Wey Hall’s building
addition.
Peacock reported on the status of resolutions. He explained that a motion
passed in January 2004 regarding including the Senate Chair on the administrative
cabinet [*see: FS03-04/11-02- Motion
on Senate Inclusion in Administrative Cabinet (as amended)-
http://www.facsen.appstate.edu/Resolutions/res03-04.html] was now irrelevant
and no longer applied because he was in the process of re-structuring an entirely
new administrative cabinet. The status of another January motion that states
the Chancellor requests the North Carolina Legislature to raise its allocation
to Appalachian State University by $300 per student for each of 3 years and
that this motion is to be forwarded to the Board of Trustees and the UNC Board
of Governors [*see:http://www.facsen.appstate.edu/Resolutions/res03-04.html]
had already passed through NC Legislature and that the allocation was approved
for $225 per student. Peacock asked the Senate to bear with him for a response
to the status of the motion on the Establishment of ad-hoc Committee on Graduate
Education [*see: FS03-04/12-03- Establishment
of ad-hoc Committee on Graduate Education- http://www.facsen.appstate.edu/Resolutions/res03-04.html].
He responded that he did not have a problem the Senate forming an oversight
committee but asked that the Senate work with Interim Dean, Dr. Baumhover
of the Graduate School. He also noted that the Graduate School was being restructured.
Peacock was not in favor of the motion requiring the Chair of AP&P be
a faculty member [*see: FS03-04/12-01-Require
the Chair of the Academic Policy and Procedure committee (AP&P) be a faculty
member and not the Provost (or his/her designee)-http://www.facsen.appstate.edu/Resolutions/res03-04.html].
Peacock was receptive to the motion regarding DPC reform
[*see: Resolution on DPC Reform (as revised and amended)– http://www.facsen.appstate.edu/Resolutions/res03-04.html].
However, he noted that he wanted to discuss it with deans before making a
final official response.
Senator Moore asked what restructuring the administrative cabinet might entail.
Peacock responded that due to the hiring transition, he was still in process
of restructuring and could not respond yet but it was a top priority.
Senator Simon asked Peacock about the status of the building resolution [*see,
FS03-04/10-03-Resolution on Cooperation in Campus Planning (as amended)- http://www.facsen.appstate.edu/Resolutions/res03-04.html].
Peacock noted that he had not had time to review it, but he would look into
it. A brief discussion followed about how to provide faculty a viable process
for feedback and input on campus construction projects regarding building
design, repairs and renovations and the “Building Shepard” concept.
Senator Yaukey noted that faculty felt disenfranchised from the process because
they were not being heard.
VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS
A. Academic Policy Committee (LAMBERT, McCaughey, Keasler, Weitz, Yaukey)
1.) FS03-04/04-01 - Motion on Computer Use Policy –
Regarding the Appalachian State University Policy on the Use of Computers
and Data Communications (see:
http://www2.acs.appstate.edu/asucomputerpolicy.htm), the ASU Faculty Senate
recommends that:
ASU employees be alerted to any new changes in the policy, in advance of the
amended policy’s enactment; and
Special care be taken by policy makers to avoid any policy change that would
adversely affect academic freedom, the ability to pursue one’s program
of teaching and research responsibly and effectively, or students’ free
expression and comfort with their instructors. In particular, employees should
not be asked to waive their privacy rights in their computer files.
Reasoning:
The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) demands that university
employees be judicious about sharing information on their computers, as student
information protected by FERPA is often saved on those computers.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986 prohibits the intentional
interception of electronic communications, and it is the primary statute relied
upon by employees to challenge invasive workplace monitoring.
The Fourth Amendment protects state employees from unreasonable searches and
seizures, including of their electronic files at work.
The U.S. Department of Justice Guidelines for police investigations of cybercrimes
indicate that computer seizures and searches by law enforcement officers require
a search warrant or the existence of specific and extreme circumstances.
Senator McCaughey introduced and read the motion on computer use policy. She
noted that the proposal about privacy rights stemmed from concerns about possible
abuse and misuse of individuals gaining illegal electronic access to private
student records as well as other private documents. She referred to Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA ) [*see: http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html].
Gates noted that FERPA was also known as the Buckley Amendment. McCaughey
noted that she was serving on ITAC and an official statement coming from the
Senate would be useful for any future privacy policy issues. She reasoned
that if a new privacy policy were to be implemented through ITAC in the future,
the Senate would then have an official position on privacy policies on campus.
Senator Waring noted that access to IRB research subject data was another
concern to add to the list. Dr. Ward pointed out that the computer use privacy
policies on campus must comply with State and Federal regulations. He also
noted that the ITAC audit was mainly concerned with computer security issues.
Senator McCaughey emphasized that the motion was not about changing the current
computer use policy. Rather, the motion served as a statement that could be
used if a new policy were to come up in the future. Senator Yaukey commented
that the motion was a “good first step.” She also wanted to know
who was responsible for writing the computer use policy and pointed out that,
while it was understandable that policies needed to be in place for purposes
of computer security, the issue of academic freedom had been neglected and
a conversation between the policy maker(s) and faculty was crucial. Senators
Anderson, Yaukey, McCaughey, Waring, Moore and Dr. Ward talked about Federal
and State laws, local regulations, as well as campus policies that affected
computer use privacy rights.
Senator McKinney called for the question and Senator Simon seconded.
VOTE 1. Call for the question
16 YES 0 NO 0 ABSTAIN
The question passed.
VOTE 2. FS03-04/04-01 - Motion on Computer Use Policy
16 YES 0 NO 0 ABSTAIN
The motion passed.
B. Welfare & Morale Committee (MARKING, Arnold, Olson, Cramer)
1.) FS03-04/04-02- Motion in support of SGA action on campus-based domestic
partner benefits-
The Faculty Senate supports the Student Government Association’s request
for the establishment of definitive, written policies in relevant University
documents that extend and include access for domestic partners and their dependents
to university recreational facilities, and the university library and to allow
faculty and staff to take sick leave in order to care for their domestic partner,
and to extend access to group term life insurance policies to such domestic
partners.
Rationale:
According to the Faculty Handbook, "Appalachian State University is committed
to equality of educational opportunity and does not discriminate against applicants,
students, or employees on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion,
gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation. Appalachian also actively
promotes diversity among students and employees." Despite this strong
commitment to diversity, Appalachian State University does not offer domestic
partner benefits for faculty and staff.
Domestic partner benefits are generally defined as benefits that are granted
to "members of same- or opposite- sex who are:
(a) sharing a residence,
(b) over the age of 18,
(c) emotionally interdependent,
(d) and intend to reside together indefinitely."
Additional requirements sometimes include demonstrable financial ties, such
as a joint checking account, residing together for six months, and a signed
affidavit attesting to the previously stated conditions (see Appendix A for
sample affidavits).
At Appalachian State, domestic partners have access to counseling services
through the Hubbard Center. They do not, however, have guaranteed access to
recreational facilities, guaranteed library access, the ability to take sick
leave to care for their spousal equivalent, and access to term life insurance
policies.
Guaranteeing access to recreational facilities would be a relatively simple
matter. Currently, to obtain access, domestic partners must receive permission
to have an AppCard issued from Human Resources. Afterwards, they pay six dollars
to have the card issued and then pay the required $48.00 a year for dependant
use of university fitness facilities. This procedure has been followed on
at least one occasion to date. This policy also applies to married, permanent
part time and full time faculty and staff. Domestic partners, however, are
allowed access on a case-by-case basis. A definitive, written policy that
extends access to those defined as domestic partners would be more equitable
and less arbitrary.
Library access follows the same procedure, but obtaining library access does
not require payment, aside from AppCard costs. Like athletic facility access,
there is no written policy. Similar steps should be made in extending access
to spousal equivalents through a definitive, written policy as well.
Faculty and staff also lack the ability to take sick leave to care for a domestic
partner. Dr. Wilber H. Ward III, Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, is working
on extending access for this purpose. As of this writing, he has the approval
of the Dean’s Council and is taking the issue to the Council of Chairs
in April. This extension would be a beneficial policy change for faculty and
staff members of non-traditional marital status.
Other UNC schools also offer the hard benefit of term life insurance coverage,
while Appalachian State University does not. UNC Chapel Hill and UNC Wilmington
offer access to term life insurance policies for domestic partners. Chapel
Hill established their policy by requesting that their life insurance provider
include domestic partners. According to Karin Abel, UNC Director of Benefit
Program Administration, many large employers already do this, so it should
not be problematic if this University were to pursue this strategy.
Appalachian State University would benefit greatly by providing access to
the aforementioned services. In recent years, ASU has undertaken many steps
to become more diverse, in order to expose students to varying perspectives.
This allows for a more comprehensive education. By providing domestic partner
benefits for both homosexual and heterosexual faculty and staff, Appalachian
State University would be more able to foster heterogeneity on its campus
by hiring and retaining more diverse faculty and staff.
Furthermore, by possessing a more accepting environment, Appalachian State
University would be able to advance its academic reputation as a progressive
institution. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University
in Durham, both highly respected universities, have some form of domestic
partner benefits. In fact, at least 198 colleges and universities across the
country offer some form of these benefits.
Finally, offering these spousal equivalent benefits are essential for Appalachian
State University to possess an equitable benefits program. As is stated in
Appalachian State University’s Faculty Handbook, the institution is not
to discriminate on the basis of “race, color, national origin, religion,
gender, age, disability, or sexual orientation.” The National Gay and
Lesbian Task Force has accurately observed that, “Failing to provide
equal benefits to employee’s partners, regardless of sexual orientation,
violates the nature of [this policy].”
Gates announced that Senator Marking could not attend the meeting and introduce
the motion from the Welfare & Morale Committee, due to a death in her
family. Gates presented the motion in her absence. Since the written motion
had not been reviewed members of the Welfare & Morale Committee, Senator
Arnold questioned how it could be presented in the first place. Gates announced
he would present the motion from the floor since members of the committee
did not have a chance to review and discuss it in committee. A brief discussion
followed. Senator Hall asked that the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual”
be replaced with the words “lesbian”, “gay” and “transsexual”.
Gates called for a vote on the motion as amended and Senator McKinney seconded.
VOTE 3. FS03-04/04-02- Motion in support of SGA action on campus-based domestic
partner benefits (as amended)-
16 YES 0 NO 0 ABSTAIN
The motion passed.
C. Welfare of Students Committee (MUIR, McKinney, Weiss)
1.) FS03-04/04-03- Motion on Religious Observance Attendance Policy –
Whereas, the student body at Appalachian State University has increased
in regard to, among others, religious diversity, and
Whereas, the Faculty Handbook, encourages faculty to recognize students’
religious observances, and to allow students to make up assignments,
exams, or other coursework without penalty,
Therefore, the Faculty Senate recommends faculty at Appalachian State
University allow students of non-Christian backgrounds to be excused
from class and to complete, within a reasonable time frame,
course-related assignments or exams missed due to the religious
observance. In addition, students will provide faculty members with
appropriate advanced knowledge of said religious observance.
Senator Muir presented the motion and explained the rationale behind the motion.
Senators were in agreement with the proposal. Senator Moore commented, “The
motion simply restates what policies that are already in place [at Appalachian].”
VOTE 4. FS03-04/04-03- Motion on Religious Observance Attendance Policy
–
16 YES 0 NO 0 ABSTAIN
The motion passed.
Gates asked senators to hand in their written final committee reports and
any other important related documents to the Faculty Senate Office. Senator
Simon asked that all final reports be attached with the minutes [*see attachments].
Gates solicited for nominations of 2004-2005 Faculty Senate officers. Senator
Anderson nominated Senator Moore for chair. Senator Simon nominated Senator
Waring for chair. Senator McKinney nominated Senator McGarry for Vice Chair
and Senator Cramer for Secretary. Senators Yaukey and McCaughy were also nominated
for Vice Chair but both declined.
VII. ADJOURN THE 2003-2004 FACULTY SENATE
Gates called for the adjournment of the 2003-2004 Faculty Senate.
VOTE 5 Adjourn the 2003-2004 Faculty Senate.
16 YES 0 NO 0 ABSTAIN
The motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mike Moore,
Secretary
APPALACHIAN STATE UNIVERSITY
2003-2004 FACULTY PRESENT AND VOTING SHEET
APRIL 19, 2004
Voting Symbols: Y = yes N = no A = abstain
Name of Senator 1 2 3 4 5
ANDERSON, STELLA Y Y Y Y Y
ARNOLD, EDWIN Y Y Y Y Y
BUSH, ROBERT-exc.
CRAMER, BETH Y Y Y Y Y
GATES, PAUL Y Y Y Y Y
HALL, KIM Y Y Y Y Y
JAMISON, TOM-exc.
KEASLER, TERRY Y Y Y Y Y
KOCH, ANDREW –exc.
LAMBERT, MONICA-exc.
MARKING, MARTHA-exc.
McCAUGHEY, MARTHA Y Y Y Y Y
McGARRY, RICK Y Y Y Y Y
McKINNEY, HAROLD Y Y Y Y Y
MOORE, MICHAEL Y Y Y Y Y
MUIR, KEN Y Y Y Y Y
OLSON, GEORGE-exc.
RARDIN, PATRICK-exc.
SIMON, KATHLEEN Y Y Y Y Y
STAUB, SUSAN Y Y Y Y Y
WARING, DOUG Y Y Y Y Y
WEISS, AMY Y Y Y Y Y
WEITZ, GAYLE-exc.
YAUKEY, MARGARET Y Y Y Y Y
VOTE 1: Call for the question
VOTE 2: FS03-04/04-01 - Motion on Computer Use Policy
VOTE 3: FS03-04/04-02- Motion in support of SGA action on campus-based domestic
partner benefits (as amended)-
VOTE 4: FS03-04/04-03- Motion on Religious Observance Attendance Policy –
VOTE 5: Adjourn the 2003-2004 Faculty Senate.
VISITORS: Dr. Kenneth Peacock, Interim Provost; Dr. Tim Burwell, Interim Associate
Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs; Peter Petschauer, Hubbard Center; Dr.
Harry Williams, Associate Vice Chancellor for Diversity; Dr. Bill Ward, Senior
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs; Kendal McDevitt, ASU SPARC
Campus/Community Organizer
ATTACHMENTS:
2003-2004
SUBMITTED FACULTY SENATE COMMITTEE ANNUAL REPORTS:
Faculty Senate Campus Planning Committee 2003-2004: Annual Report
Members: Kathy Simon (chair/reporter), Doug Waring, and Tom Jamison
A. Committee met with Jane Helm: Sept. 30, 2003 in her office.
Report written.
Business Affairs/ Campus Planning Committee Forum set for October 21 in student
union.
Ms. Helm told us specifically that she wanted to conduct the forum as soon
as possible to answer questions and to correct any misinformation that may
be on campus.
B. At October 13, 2003 FS monthly meeting:
1. Committee Meeting of Sept. 30 reported to Senate (see 10/13/03 FS minutes
for report and discussion)
2. FS Agenda Committee proposal, amended during senate discussion, and voted
on
(Copied from 10/13/03 FS minutes. See minutes for discussion and vote)
Faculty Senate Committee: Agenda Committee
FS03-04/10-03-Resolution on Cooperation in Campus Planning (as amended)-
Academic departments have not had a productive relationship with the Office
of Business Affairs. There have been repeated failures of communication and
planning between these departments and Business Affairs. These failures have
adversely and unnecessarily affected the academic mission.
The Faculty Senate requests that the Provost and Chancellor ensure that Business
Affairs works effectively with the affected departments so that reasonable
planning and coordination of all building and renovation activities can be
assessed, and that those affected will know what is and will be happening
at each stage of the building project. This requires that academic departments
be involved directly in all decisions about space usage and available funds.
The Campus Planning Committee will provide active oversight and assessment
of how well the coordination of Business Affairs and the affected departments
are working and will report bi-monthly to the Faculty Senate.
Rationale
It is crucial that the incoming Chancellor have the legitimacy and trust that
can be generated only through a process in which the faculty are engaged.
October 13, 2003: passed by Senate: 16 YES 0 NO 2 ABSTAIN
As of April 2004, the status of the proposal with regard to ASU administration
response is still “pending.”
Comment: The original idea for a proposal to apprise the faculty of and get
them more involved in the design and construction phases of new academic facilities
and of renovation of older facilities come out of the Faculty Senate retreat
held in September 2003. This was in response to concerns raised by several
faculty at the faculty/staff campus planning forum, conducted by Vice Chancellor
Jane Helm in April 2003, in regard to what they saw as particular problems
associated with the decisions made by Business affairs and the Office of Design
and Construction in the planning and construction of the two science complexes
(CAP and Rankin Science). The original proposal published in the Oct. 13,
2003 FS meeting agenda came from the Agenda Committee as a result of a meeting
of the FS committee chairs (few of whom showed up) called by Paul Gates on
October 7. The October Faculty Senate Meeting was attended by two reporters
of The Appalachian and resulted in three front page newspaper articles about
the meeting’s resolutions. Two articles presented the points of view
of senators (“Inquiries made into construction, Business Affairs”
on 10/16 by David Forbes) and administrators (“Shepherd System links
faculty, administration” on 10/21 by David Forbes) on the construction/communications
proposal. At the time we were impressed with the initiative of the The Appalachian
reporter who came to cover the Senate meetings. However, Forbes informed me
that he was assigned to cover Senate meetings only when matters affecting
Business Affairs are on the agenda.
Failure of the resolution to be approved by the administration, particularly
part 3 concerning the proposed oversight and assessment functions of the Campus
Planning Committee, allowed CPC no formal mechanism for getting regular “reports”
from the Business Affairs office or from individuals involved in present construction
or renovation activities to pass on to the Faculty Senate. However, several
campus and local newspaper articles since October indicate the willingness
of Business Affairs to keep the campus and the community informed on the progress
of specific construction projects.
C. Business Affairs/ Campus Planning Committee Forum:
The information forum was held October 21, 2003. V.C. Jane Helm and several
Business Affairs department heads attended. Ms. Helm’s power point presentation
highlighted most of the campus construction and renovation projects and future
projects under the ASU ten-year master plan as well as the newly acquired
Washington D.C. “App House.” During and after the slide show, numerous
questions from the audience of staff, faculty and students were answered by
either Ms. Helm or her staff. Reporters Frank Ruggiero from the Watauga Democrat
(“University presents plan for future capital projects” 10/24 at
p. 3A) and David Forbes from The Appalachian (“Construction forum brings
campus Q & A,” 10/30 at p. 1) covered, respectively, (1) the status
of current and future projects, and (2) questions on the Faculty Senate resolution
on communications/building projects, current building delays, safety concerns
and repairs, bringing buildings up to code, and funding sources.
Comment: Ms. Helm and staff stayed beyond her scheduled hour to answer questions
and clarify misunderstandings. She was also scheduled to give a similar presentation
to the Student Government that night. She regularly addresses civic groups
as well as the ASU Board of Trustees and Staff Council.
D. Report of CPC Meeting with Jane Helm Tuesday, March 30, 2004.
Attending: Simon, Waring and Jamison
The following matters were discussed:
1. Shepherd system: Doug Waring, who is also the building shepherd for the
Smith-Wright renovations, said that the system is working very well in his
building. Helms believes that it is a workable system, unless for example
the shepherd is not contacted because of a failure of communication between
the construction manager and a subcontractor. She suggested that we contact
other building shepherds (e.g., for Walker and Rankin) for their views on
the system.
2. Parking matters: (a) Parking spaces across from Walker Hall that were lost
as a result of the student activities center being built on that site will
be restored in full once the project is complete. (b) Debt service had been
met this year for existing parking deck, but we had trouble meeting debt last
year. (c) Another parking deck is in the master plan (site not identified
and no funding plans developed yet), however, Ms. Helm did point out that
fewer parking permits were sold in 2003-2004. She attributes part of this
to individuals have opted to pay by the hour in the parking deck because they
don’t come to campus every day, or need to park for only an hour or so.
Other factors include that students who come on campus after five o’clock
don’t have to get permits anymore for evening parking, and more individuals
are riding the bus. (d) Parking fees are not likely to go down because of
need to meet debt service on the parking deck as well as to pay for parking
lot paving and repairs that had to be postponed from last year and work that
is scheduled for this coming year. (e) To an inquiry of whether there could
be restricted parking under Duncan Hall for very large vehicles that tend
to park in other smaller vehicles, Ms. Helm said that it could be difficult
trying to define what is considered “too large".
3. Construction/student vehicles/Appalcart traffic issues: Two traffic problems
near academic buildings were discussed. (a) Problems of traffic flow exist
beside the back entrance to Raley Hall when students park along the building
between classes waiting for riders to come out at the same time traffic is
coming out from parking areas near Volberg Theatre and near the Library. An
additional factor is that several times construction trucks have tried to
go in or come out of the construction site near Whitener Hall. This was referred
to Barry Sauls. (b) A more serious matter concerns the Appalcart turnaround
in front of Raley Hall. People use the turnaround to
let out passengers or wait for people, which cause havoc for the busses and
danger to bus and car passengers. The entrance/exit gate for the Duncan Hall
parking area is blocked when this happens. Ms. Helm said she would look in
to this immediately.*
4. Renovation and Repair money: As a follow-up to a question asked at last
fall’s campus planning forum regarding the status of ASU’s renovation
and repair requests being developed for the state, Ms. Helm referred me to
Mr. Robbins.*** A far as the past allocations, she said we received $7 million
over three years (primarily for Fire, Life and Safety related projects) and
that the first year’s money was spent on meeting safety, disability and
codes requirements.
5. Washington D.C. App House and New York Loft: Ms. Helm told us that Assoc.
Vice Chancellor for Diversity Harry Williams had been assigned responsibility
for the administration of the two facilities by Chancellor Durham. She said
that the new App House should be open in the Fall 04. Based upon input from
faculty who had used the new Loft, it was going through some refurbishing
this summer. Bookcases and a research work area were to be added to the Director’s
apartment, the floors were to be re-sanded, and some new furniture purchased.
6. Another Forum: We asked Ms. Helm about the feasibility of holding another
forum in April 2004 and she said that there was not enough new information
at this time. Once the new chancellor is in place in July, she suggested that
early Fall 2004 would be a good time to hold another forum.
7. Community Council: When asked about the newly formed “Community Council,”
(which brings together representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, the University,
the Town and the County), Ms. Helm said she fully supported such interactions.
Since the Council had not as yet had its first meeting, she could not give
us any details on what matters might be discussed and what possible outcomes
they hoped to achieve.
*Chairman Simon received a telephone call from Clyde Robbins a few days after
our meeting with V.C Helm on March 30. He said that he had met at the Raley
Hall bus turnaround site with Chris Turner (Director of Appalcart) and Barry
Saul (Director of Parking and Traffic). They have plans to re-configure the
turnaround to deal with the conflict. To prevent pick up and drop off, they
plan to change the Duncan Hall gate location slightly.
**During the telephone conversation with Mr. Robbins (above), I asked him
about the renovation and repair requests. He told me that it had not been
made official yet, but that under the State Construction Office Facilities
Condition Analysis, and upon forwarding more project details to the Office
of Management and Budget, it looks like we may get under $8 million R/R money
over 3 _ years. Until the past year or so the legislature separated out the
UNC system R/R money from the rest of the state building R/R money. Now it
comes from the same “pool” and makes it more difficult for the universities
to get their share.
CPC Suggestions for 2004-2005
1. If there is a Faculty Senate Retreat in September, ask other senators for
input concerning what matters might be considered by the Campus Planning Committee
this academic year. Listen to student concerns regarding the issues relevant
to campus construction and physical environment; they may reflect concerns
of faculty and staff as well.
2. Plan to meet with Jane Helm, Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs, at beginning
of school year shortly after the first meeting of the Faculty Senate in September.
Schedule a Campus Planning Committee/Business Affairs forum for faculty, staff
and students with her as soon as possible in October. This was her suggestion
as of March 2004. Note problems or nature of concerns brought up at the forum
and follow up on them through the year. Find out what is on the “Ten-Year
Campus Plan” as of this year.
3. Find out the status of the October 13, 2003 resolution. If it has been
put in place, then the Committee has at least one major bi-monthly investigating
and reporting responsibility under part 3.
4. Explore the possibility of asking one of the three Faculty Senate representatives
on the University Parking and Traffic Committee to officially report any traffic
or parking new business to the Senate through the Campus Planning Committee
report. At present there is no mechanism by which the Senate hears what is
going on in University Committees.
5. Be prepared to share in the Strategic Planning Commission long-range planning
activities. The new strategic plan needs to be in place by 2005. The Chair
of the CP committee serves on the Commission when it is called into session
by the chancellor. However, when they get down to breaking up in to work groups,
other CPC members may have opportunities for some input.
Final report from this year’s ad hoc committee on Faculty Governance
Members: Gayle Weitz, Paul Gates, Andy Koch, Rich McGarry, and Doug Waring
Submitted by Gayle Weitz
March 30, 2004
Academic Governance
The initial charge (April 2002 faculty senate minutes) of this committee was
to look at academic governance, specifically how curriculum change occurs
at ASU. In the fall of 2003, this committee recommended changing the Chair
of AP&P from an administrator to a tenure track faculty member. This recommendation
was approved by the Faculty Senate. Other information and recommendations
concerning academic governance are forthcoming from a subcommittee of AP&P,
(which Gayle Weitz is chairing). A working draft of the document will be shared
with the AP&P committee for feedback, further development, and eventual
approval. (See forthcoming AP&P minutes for April 2004.)
Faculty Governance
The expanded charge of this committee (fall 2003) now includes an examination
of faculty governance. So, after some discussion, recommendations for changes
to the faculty governing body – the Faculty Senate – were made at
the February 2004 Faculty Senate meeting, discussed by the Senate at the March
meeting, and hopefully will be voted upon at the April meeting.
http://www.facsen.appstate.edu/Minutes/feb.9.2004min.htmUniversity Committee
Organization
Academic governance and faculty governance tie into the larger committee structure
in the university (colleges, schools, and departments). A survey of university
and college committees (but not department committees) was done by Harvey
Durham, Mike Moore, and Gayle Weitz in 2001. A list of these committees, their
functions, memberships, etc. was compiled. In addition, the Faculty Handbook
lists existing University Committees and existing Administrative Councils.
After surveying these lists of committees, this ad hoc committee discerned
five general types of committees and categorized the existing university committees
and administrative councils accordingly.1. Administrative cabinets –
groups whose major purpose is to advise a specific administrator. Most members
are in key positions under that administrator.
Athletic Council
Strategic Planning Commission
Council of Chairs’
Deans Council
Advisory Council to Academic Computing
Library Administrative Council
Equity Office Advisory Board
Administrative Cabinet
2. Advisory boards – groups whose major purpose is to advise a specific
administrator, area, or group. Most members are in key positions outside the
university.
Each college/school has an advancement board
Most departments have an advancement board
3. Administrative councils – groups whose major purpose is to address
a particular concern. Most members are appointed by an administrator.
Traffic Management and Safety Committee
Cultural Affairs Advisory Board
Registration and Calendar Committee
Appalachian Summer Committee
Fringe Benefits Committee
Bookstore Council
Council of Arts
Financial Aid Advisory Council
ITAC
Assessment Committee
University Judicial Board
Health Services Advisory council
4. Faculty committees – groups whose major purpose is to address a particular
concern. Most members are (or should be) elected or approved by the faculty
or the Faculty Senate.
Awards Committee
Admissions Committee
Library Services Committee
Non-Tenure Track committee
Technology Transfer Committee
Teaching Enhancement Committee
Research council
Off Campus Facility Board
Academic Integrity Board
Conflict of Interest Committee
Space Committee
Board of Trustees Travel Selection Committee
Faculty Senate?
5. Academic committees – groups whose major purpose is to address an
curricular matter – policies, procedures, courses, programs, or structures
relating to academic matters. Most members are (or should be) elected or approved
by the faculty of the Faculty Senate.
Academic Policies and Procedures Committee
Core Curriculum Committee
International Program Council
Study Abroad Committee
Graduate Council
Teacher Education Council
Summer School Advisory Council
Summer Reading Committee
University Advising
Learning Communities
Humanities Council
Each college/school has a curriculum committee
Each department has a curriculum committee
We suggest that the next Faculty Senate chair immediately appoint an ad hoc
committee to continue this work on faculty governance. Some things that remain
to be done are:
- Determine which committees are necessary? Which could be dissolved? Which
could be combined? Are any new committees necessary?
- Determine the role (if any) faculty governance should play in regard to
each committee. Should faculty senators serve on that committee? Should members
of that committee be elected by the faculty? Should members of that committee
be approved by the Faculty Senate? Should the business of that committee be
monitored by the Faculty Senate?
- Determine how the business of each committee can be made more accessible
to faculty (perhaps by a central web page?)
- Determine how to increase the value of service by faculty, administration,
and in reappointment, tenure, and promotion criteria.
- Determine how to better educate faculty on the importance of shared faculty
governance.
Annual report of the Faculty Handbook Committee:
We took up, but did not act on a proposal from the Council of Chairs regarding
structures to deal with faculty members judged disruptive in performing their
DPC duties.
We submitted to Senate numerous proposals for cleaning up language in the
Handbook, and these were passed by Senate in October.
We submitted on behalf of the Graduate School its new proposed guidelines
for graduate faculty that would become a part of the faculty constitution.
The Senate did not approve them at its October meeting.
We have been given the charge to draft language for constitutional reform
that is presently being considered by the Senate.
We should add a section to the Handbook that defines the duties and committee
responsibilities of the Senate chairperson, since those are not now identified.
April 1, 2004
Michael Moore, Chair
Stella Anderson
Chip Arnold
Paul Gates
Gayle Weitz