At 3:00 p.m. on February 11, 2002, a diversity video was presented by Tracey Wright and Barbara Daye in the University Conference Room (224 Greer Hall).  Daye reported that a recruitment video has been produced which will be provided to prospective students.
     Weitz thanked Wright and Daye and noted that the ball has now been placed in the faculty’s court as to what they would like to do with diversity issues and what faculty members can do individually and collectively to forward the diversity mission.  It is going to take participation, education, and action on all parts of the campus.  Weitz asked the senate, as a group, how they wanted to proceed; how far would we want to go in instigating or promoting curriculum change and pedagogy change (e.g., have AP&P forms address diversity).  Should departments develop strategies and ideas?  Durham noted that at the March Board of Trustees meeting, a diversity plan will be presented.  Weitz asked that volunteers who would like to get together between now and the March meeting to do some brainstorming to present possibilities to faculty for changes towards diversity to contact herself or Michelle in the next couple of days.  (Hall and Yaukey volunteered at the meeting.)  Daye and Wright said they would make themselves available as a resource for the group getting together.  (further information about diversity can be found at http://www.diversityweb.org/Leadershipguide/#CT)

Weitz then brought the meeting officially to order at 3:30.

    I. ANNOUNCEMENTS
         A. VISITORS.  Weitz welcomed visitors and asked that they introduce themselves.  (See voting sheet for visitors’ names.)
         B. MOTIONS/RESOLUTIONS UPDATE.  Weitz reported that the status of resolution/motions can be found at http://www.facsen.appstate.edu/Resolutions/Res2001-2002.html.
         C. SACS REPORT.  Hirst gave an overview (http://www.selfstudy.appstate.edu/slides/facsen.htm) of the status of the report, which has been completed and sent off.  Hirst reported that data has been collected and a report generated, reviewed, printed and mailed.  The report can be found in a pdf format at http://www.selfstudy.appstate.edu/report/intro.pdf.  What is left to be done is an addendum on suggestions, the SACS visit (April 22-25), and follow-up reporting (between April and September).  There were five recommendations (places where SACS criteria were not met): 1) to better clarify the mission; 2) to address certain safety issues on campus such as roads and buildings; 3) to better document faculty credentials; 4) to provide better documentation of institutional effectiveness for academic programs; and, 5) to provide better documentation of institutional effectiveness for administrative functions.
     There were several suggestions by the Committee where Appalachian could do better in places.  Those suggestions pertaining to faculty include: remove EPA non-teaching salaries from faculty funding; require faculty with grants to receive budget training; colleges and departments should provide orientation for new faculty; continue to examine faculty workload issues; better define part-time faculty and publish policies on office hours, evaluation and service; investigate ways to improve pre- and post-grant award procedures; continue to seek diversity; library needs strengthening to better support faculty research; limit growth in part-time faculty use; implement evaluation of deans; get all involved in documenting institutional effectiveness; continue to seek increased salaries; verify that merit pay guidelines are in place in each department; collect data to determine if salaries/benefits/cost of living are affecting recruiting and retention; and, APP faculty should be peer reviewed in the same way as others.  Those pertaining to curriculum/students include:  discuss special designators on syllabi; distance students need access to and training on technology; Counseling Center needs more counselors; link more closely educational goals and outcomes to educational programs; allocate space based on educational goals; have one coordinator for consortial arrangements; examine concerns about graduate program quality; pursue additional resources for graduate students; and  expand assessment of graduate education.  Those pertaining to administrative include:  ITS should announce changes in advance, and methods for input into these decisions should be publicized; share budget information; establish criteria for space allocation, and keep minutes of space committee meetings; safety training needs to be increased and publicized; make the master plan accessible; provide guidelines for web and print publications; and, implement the new Human Resource system.
     Self-study conclusions include:  Strengths - high quality faculty committed to teaching; intimate atmosphere and personalized attention for students; strength and broadness of the undergraduate curriculum;  Weaknesses - aging or out-of-date facilities; lack of diversity among faculty, staff, and students; problems with communication among the various divisions and units at Appalachian.  Opportunities and Threats:  growth of the student population on or off campus - all of its implications; aging of the faculty, staff, and administration; increasing dependence upon part-time faculty; increasing requirements of faculty scholarship and the resulting impact on the University’s mission and on workload issues.
     For Institutional Data and Text for the Strategic Plan:  http://www.irap.appstate.edu.  For Self-Study Information:  http://www.selfstudy.appstate.edu.
     Weitz thanked Hirst and the Senate gave her a round of applause.
         D. CHANCELLOR’S ADVISORY MEETING REPORT.  Weitz reported that at the January 28 Chancellor Advisory meeting, the Chancellor discussed the $150 tuition increase for staff salaries.  Durham added that this issue will be discussed at the March Board of Trustees meeting.  Weitz asked the Senate if they wished to have input on this and if so, it needed to be done today.  Simon moved and it was seconded that the Faculty Senate support the Chancellor’s resolution to raise tuition $150 for staff whose salaries are not at the maximum level.  Discussion followed.  One objection to the motion was that if approved, we are enabling the legislature of this state to continue to shirk its responsibility to provide a living wage to many of its employees.  Another objection to the motion was that it was unclear and possibly unfair as to whom would benefit (i.e. staff at their maximum could not receive increases).  Rardin moved to table the motion and Muir seconded.

         E. CENTER FOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.  A copy of the proposal for the Health and Human Services at Appalachian State University was distributed to senators.  Weitz reported that the proposal has been accepted and approved by the Provost.  Ward gave an update on the status of the Center noting that Lyle Schoenfeldt is in the process of providing the necessary paperwork to the Office of the President.  Durham added that the proposal has already been approved at Appalachian’s level.
     Weitz noted that the program is a good one, but that the process by which it passed through the University did not include going through the established academic governance procedure.  It was approved by a group of selected faculty.  Weitz added that this is a structural change and, according to the Faculty Handbook, structural changes should go through AP&P.  Durham added that that was a matter of interpretation of the Handbook.  Weitz noted that our current academic governance structure is like all other structures--a recommendation process.  The Academic Policy Committee and Committee on Committees is going to look at the process and come forward with recommendations at a later date.

   II. MINUTES
         Simon moved and Allen seconded to approve the January 14 minutes as written.

 III. STANDING COMMITTEE REPORTS
         A. ACADEMIC POLICY COMMITTEE
              1. FS01-02/02-01a, b, & c - Motions on academic freedom.  Simon noted that the motions were changes to the Faculty Handbook regarding academic freedom.  Weitz noted a friendly amendment from Hugh Hindman--to insert the word “appoint” in front of “...reappoint, promote, or tenure...”  The Academic Policy Committee accepted the amendment and a vote was taken on the motions as a whole.

              2. FS01-02/02-02 - Recommendation on Grade Appeals.  Simon noted that there were no changes to the policy, only reedited.  Moore noted that he had some concerns about the updated wording.  One concern was in the first paragraph of Steps to Take in Final Grade Appeal; in the second to the last paragraph, it should state, “....using the appropriate grade appeal form,....”  After further discussion, it was suggested that the Final Grade Appeal Form have a line where the date of the initial faculty/student consultation will go.  The Committee accepted both recommendations.  A vote was taken on the motion as amended.

Durham suggested that the Grade Appeals Process be put in the Academic Policies and Procedures manual.  Weitz asked if the current Academic Policies and Procedures manual (dated 1990) would be updated, too.

Ward will put the Grade Appeals Process on the web.  Discussion followed on where the Grade Appeals Process should be placed for faculty access. Weitz questioned if the Process was placed as an appendix at the back of the Faculty Handbook, would it then become part of the contract with faculty.  She asked the Faculty Handbook Committee to look into it and, for now, the Grade Appeals Process will be placed only on the web.

The Senate took a break at 5:00 and reconvened at 5:10.

              3. FS01-02/02-03 - Motion on Student Evaluations.  Butts asked for a clarification on wording regarding “...the official university document.”  After some discussion, the wording should now read, “...the official department instrument.”  Butts asked if a faculty member has to pay to obtain copies of their evaluations; Durham’s response was no.
     Petschauer commented that some departments use totally different forms of evaluations than other departments; thus, colleagues are evaluated very differently.  Weitz noted that the history of evaluations give departments control over the instrument.  If the Senate wants to develop guidelines for evaluations, that is a different matter than what is currently being discussed and should be brought forward at at another time.
     Arnold asked what the rationale is for the perpetuation of evaluations--why does the proposed motion include evaluations to occur at the end of spring and summer sessions.  Hall responded that due to the fact that some courses are offered only spring semester, so those courses do not get a chance to be evaluated.
     It was noted that if evaluations were completed every semester in every course, the paper costs and storage problems become  issues.
     Butts moved and Rardin seconded to strike from the motion the paragraph beginning with, “That, beginning with the Fall 2002 semester,..”  Butts noted that there is nothing in the motion (less the deleted paragraph) that prevents an individual faculty member from evaluating every course every semester.  Durham added that the reason fall semesters were chosen for evaluations is that there would not be enough time to evaluate in the spring and then for the chairperson to receive results for faculty reviews.  He added that evaluations are supposed to occur for courses taught off-campus.  A vote was taken on striking the paragraph from the motion.

A vote was taken on the motion as amended.

Weitz asked the Academic Policies Committee to check with the University Attorneys to see how they came to the decision that evaluations are the property of the University.  She also asked that the Committee check with other UNC institutions to see if they have a similar policy.
              4. Information regarding human subjects.  Weitz reported that at a Council of Chairs meeting in the fall, the research on human subjects issue was brought up.  The National Science Foundation now has stricter guidelines for NSF grants regarding human subjects.  The Graduate School is under the impression that those standards will become standards here at Appalachian.  For further information visit http://ohrp.osophs.dhhs.gov/polasur.htm or contact Bob Johnson at the Graduate School.
         B. AGENDA COMMITTEE
              1. Status of 2001-2002 Faculty Senate items.  Weitz reported that she has met with Committee chairs and that there are still a lot of items to be covered before the end of the Senate year.  Because of this, Weitz has scheduled an additional Faculty Senate meeting for March 25 at 3:15.
         C. BUDGET COMMITTEE
              1. FS01-02/02-04 - Resolution Regarding Opening Budgets to Faculty.  Hall questioned if “on a regular basis” needed to be defined.  Discussion followed.  Durham suggested that Academic Affairs make the report available in the library and in a form which can be understood.  Koch moved and Butts seconded to expand the motion to include, “...academic divisions, colleges, school, library, and departments,...” instead of just “departments.”  Discussion followed.  The question was called.

A vote was taken on the proposed amended motion.

              2. Lapsed salary report.  Petschauer noted that at the end of every year funds are left over in different categories.  These monies are then distributed to the next year.  Durham noted that last year the money was not rolled over due to the current budget crisis and that the money was spent in June.

         D. COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
              1. FS01-02/02-05 - Motion regarding Non-tenure Track Faculty Committee.  Butts reported that the Committee requested this change.  A vote was taken on the motion as written.

FS01-02/02-05 - Motion regarding Non-tenure Track Faculty Committee
The Committee on Committees recommends that the structure of the Non-Tenure Track Faculty Committee be changed to allow faculty representation from each college and school and to allow the committee, with concurrence of the Faculty Senate, to name alternates to the committee.

A MOTION TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE OF THE NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY COMMITTEE:
Membership on the Non-Tenure Track Faculty Committee will consist of one faculty representative from each of the degree-granting colleges and schools and one representative from the Library plus two student members.  A member of the Faculty Senate Welfare and Morale Committee will serve as an ex officio member of the Committee.  With the concurrence of the Faculty Senate, the Committee may name an alternate member from each college and school.

              2. Faculty volunteers for Deans’ evaluations.  Butts reported that the Committee used several general criteria including that for a given dean, the Committee did not want the faculty member to be from the same department.  The Committee also tried to get gender balance where possible.  A vote was taken on the recommendations.

         E. WELFARE AND MORALE
              Discussion regarding Traffic and Safety Committee will occur at the next meeting.
         F. WELFARE OF STUDENTS COMMITTEE
              1. FS01-02/02-06 - Motion regarding Drug and Alcohol Policy.  Rardin read a report which had been accidentally omitted from the motion.  Rardin reported that the Committee fairly assumed that the problems that result from alcohol use and abuse are as serious as those related to drug use and abuse.  Rardin noted that the substance of the motion is that given the serious drug/alcohol use on campus, maybe parents should be informed of some of the problems students have.  Weitz added that the gist is paralleling alcohol abuse with drug abuse.
     Pope added that there may be a legal implication--that if you did not inform parents of the first offense and the second offense led to the death or other medical problem then the parents may come back to the University and charge that if the situation had been drugs, the parents would have been notified after the first offense.
     Koch noted that he was surprised that this motion came from the Welfare of Students Committee because he thought students are fairly broad in their dislike for the current alcohol and drug policy.  Expanding the current policy simply to be consistent is something he would not support.  Weitz asked if he, then, would be in favor of making the drug sanctions parallel with alcohol sanctions instead of alcohol sanctions paralleling the drug sanctions.  Koch responded that he would.  Durham added that the drug policy is sanctioned by the UNC Office of the President.
     Moore noted that according to the current policy, someone like Barbara Daye makes an informed choice whether to notify parents of a first offense.  He also asked if there is some sort of data that shows that the University is abusing the present policy or has made itself unusually vulnerable. Rardin responded no, but then noted that according to the student judicial office, this does not happen unless the offense has serious health implications.  Rardin tried to put this in context to what it is--college, underage drinking.
     Weitz suggested that since there is concern over point number two, that the Senate vote at this time on point number one, which is to include in the current brochure the Summary of Alcohol Sanctions paralleling its Summary of Drug Sanctions.

Koch noted that there was not a quorum so discussion was ceased.

Weitz noted that she would schedule another additional meeting to conclude the business of this meeting.

Moore read a note from Durham which reported on the status of repair and renovation funds for 2001-2002 which stated, “Part of the Governor’s plan for eliminating the budget deficit is to freeze (though it is believed these funds were never released by the Governor this year) all Repair and Renovation funds.  So if a department (such as Art) has counted on receiving such funds this year, it is not now possible to allocate such.  Next year has all possibilities of being equally as problematic (if not more so as per the State Treasurer, Mr. Richard Moore); we should not count on these funds (i.e., the R&R funds) for 2002-2003."

The meeting ended at 6:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
  Mike Moore

voting symbols:   Y = yes        N - no          A = abstain

Name of Senator	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
ABBOTT, JOHN	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
ALLEN, PATRICIA	Y	Y	Y
ARNOLD, CHIP	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
BARBER, BILL    excused
BUSH, ROBERT	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
BUTTS, JEFF	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
CROCKER, DEBORAH    excused
FOX, JERRY	N	Y	Y	Y
GATES, PAUL	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
HALL, KIM	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
KOCH, ANDY	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
LONG, BETTY   excused
MARKING, MARTHA  excused
MCKINNEY, HAROLD	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	A	Y	Y	Y	Y
MCLAUGHLIN, TOM	N	Y	Y
MILLSAPS, STEVE	Y	Y	Y	A	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y
MOORE, MIKE	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
MUIR, KEN	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y
PETSCHAUER, PETER	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
POPE, JANICE	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	A	Y	Y
RARDIN, PATRICK	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	A	Y	Y
SIMON, STEVE	N	Y	A	Y	Y	A	Y	Y	Y	Y
TRUETT, CAROL	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
WEITZ, GAYLE	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y
WHYTE, TOM	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
WOODWORTH, JOAN	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
YAUKEY, MARGARET	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y

VISITORS:  Pat Farthing, Library; Holly Hirst, Math/SACS; Sean Oakley, The Appalachian; Clinton Parker, Academic Affairs; Mary Ruble, Library; Bill Ward, Academic Affairs; Nathan Winkler, student.

VOTE 1:  Motion to table motion regarding $150 tuition increase for staff salaries
VOTE 2:  Approve January 14 minutes as written
VOTE 3:  FS01-02/02-01 - Motions on Academic Freedom
VOTE 4:  FS01-02/02-02 - Recommendation on Grade Appeals
VOTE 5:  Motion to strike a paragraph from Motion FS01-02/02-03
VOTE 6:  FS01-02/02-03 - Motion on Student Evaluations
VOTE 7:  call for the question
VOTE 8:  FS01-02/02-04 - Resolution Regarding Opening Budgets to Faculty
VOTE 9:  FS01-02/02-05 - Motion Regarding Non-tenure Track Faculty Committee
VOTE 10: Approve faculty volunteers for deans' evaluations

Faculty Senate
Appalachian State University

FS01-02/02-01a - Section 3.3.2 Academic Freedom and Responsibility of Faculty
(Current) 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.

(Proposed) 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.

FS01-02/02-01b - Section 3.6.3.a. Appointment, Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure
(Current) The decision to reappoint, promote or tenure a faculty member may be based on any factor(s) considered relevant to the total institutional interests, but those responsible for making the decision must consider the faculty member’s demonstrated professional competence, potential for further contributions, and institutional needs and resources.  These considerations may form, in whole or in part, the basis of the ultimate decision.  A decision not to reappoint, promote or tenure may not be based upon (1) the faculty member’s exercise of rights guaranteed by either the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I of the North Carolina Constitution; (2) discrimination based upon the faculty member’s race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap or national origin; or (3) personal malice.

(Proposed) The decision to appoint, reappoint, promote or tenure a faculty member may be based on any factor(s) considered relevant to the total institutional interests, but those responsible for making the decision must consider the faculty member’s demonstrated professional competence, potential for further contributions, and institutional needs and resources.  These considerations may form, in whole or in part, the basis of the ultimate decision.  A decision not to appoint, reappoint, promote or tenure may not be based upon (1) the faculty member’s exercise of rights guaranteed by either the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I of the North Carolina Constitution; (2) the faculty member’s exercise of academic freedom;  (3) discrimination based upon the faculty member’s race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, or national origin; or (4) personal malice.

FS01-02/02-01c - Section 3.6.4.A. Permissible and Impermissible Grounds for Nonreappointment
(Current) The decision whether to reappoint a faculty member when a probationary term of appointment expires may be based on any factor considered relevant to the total institutional interests, but those responsible for making the decision must consider the faculty member’s demonstrated professional competence, potential for further contributions, and institutional needs and resources.  These considerations may form, in whole or in part, the basis of the ultimate decision, except that a decision not to reappoint may not be based upon (1) the faculty member’s exercise or rights guaranteed by either the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I of the North Carolina Constitution, (2) discrimination based upon the faculty member’s race, color, religion, sex, age, handicap or national origin, or (3) personal malice.

(Proposed) The decision whether to reappoint a faculty member when a probationary term of appointment expires may be based on any factor considered relevant to the total institutional interests, but those responsible for making the decision must consider the faculty member’s demonstrated professional competence, potential for further contributions, and institutional needs and resources.  These considerations may form, in whole or in part, the basis of the ultimate decision, except that a decision not to reappoint may not be based upon (the faculty member’s exercise or rights guaranteed by either the First Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I of the North Carolina Constitution, (2) the faculty member’s exercise of academic freedom; (3) discrimination based upon the faculty member’s race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, or national origin, or (4) personal malice.

Any student considering a grade appeal should understand that each faculty member has the right and responsibility to determine grades according to any method chosen by the faculty member which is professionally acceptable, communicated to everyone in the class, and applied to all students equally.  Prejudiced, arbitrary, or capricious academic evaluation by a faculty member, however, is a violation of the student’s rights and is a valid ground for a final grade appeal.

Steps to take in final grade appeal

--Any student who contests a course final grade shall first attempt to resolve the matter with the instructor.  The student must explain her or his position to the instructor and attempt to understand the instructor’s reasons for assigning the grade.  The purpose of the meeting is to reach a mutual understanding of the student’s situation and the instructor’s actions and to resolve differences in an informal and cooperative manner.  If the student fails to reach a satisfactory solution in consultation with the instructor, the student must present the appeal in writing, using the appropriate grade appeal form, to the chair of the department in which the contested grade was awarded.  A copy of the necessary form is provided at the end of this document.

--The student must file the written appeal with the department chair within 14 calendar days after consulting with the instructor.  The statement must be specific and concise and limit itself to citations of evidence pertaining to valid grounds for the appeal.  Through conferring with the student and the instructor, the chair will seek resolution by mutual agreement.  The student must provide the chair with a course syllabus and all available tangible materials related to the grade (e.g., exam and term papers) as well a list of any items used in the evaluation for which the student cannot provide documentation (e.g., unreturned exams, grades on class participation, attendance records).

 --If there is failure to reach an agreement through consultation with the chair, the student may file the written appeal with the Grade Appeals Committee through the Office of the Dean of the college or school in which the grade was awarded.  The student must file this written appeal within 30 calendar days after the beginning of classes in the next semester after the contested grade was awarded.  When possible, the form must be signed and dated by both the instructor and the department chair as well as the student.  In accordance with the instructions on the form, the student must present with it the documentary evidence furnished to the department chair and any other evidence relevant to the case.

--The dean or her or his designee serves as convener of the Grade Appeals Committee of the college or school.  Each full committee consists of the convener (who presides over hearings), the chair of the department in which the contested grade was assigned, three faculty, one undergraduate student, and one graduate student, all from the college or school which the committee serves.  The department chair sits in a non-voting capacity, and the convener votes only in the case of a tie.  The three faculty members, one alternate faculty member, and the two students are appointed by the dean from among volunteers for the assignment.  A quorum for each committee shall consist of no fewer than one student and two faculty members, along with the convener.

--The Grade Appeals Committee has authority to screen out frivolous or unsubstantiated appeals.  The convener will explain any such finding in writing to the student, the faculty member, and the department chair.

--If the committee grants a full hearing, the student will appear before it to present all evidence relevant to her or his case.  The convener will also invite the instructor to appear and present any evidence in support of her or his grade decision.  The committee may ask questions of either or both and will hold its deliberations in executive session after hearing the case.  The dean, the department chair, the faculty member and the student will receive prompt written notification of the committee’s findings.  The committee’s decision is binding.  If the committee supports the student’s appeal, the instructor will be required to re-evaluate the student according to a specific method.  The method of re-evaluation will depend on the circumstances of the appeal.  Re-evaluation will not be used in a punitive manner toward the student.  The student has 14 calendar days to inform the instructor, department chair, and convener in writing whether she or he consents to the proposed method of re-evaluation (which must be completed within the semester of the finding).  Should the student not consent to the proposed method of re-evaluation, the instructor, chair, and committee will mutually agree on a method of recalculating the appealed grade.  In either case, the resulting grade is final and may not be appealed.

THEREFORE, be it resolved that after final grades have been submitted and as soon as official evaluations are returned to the department, faculty will be notified so that they may examine the evaluations for ideas in revising their courses for the following semester, and

That official quantitative and official qualitative evaluations for the most recent five-year period be housed in a secure location within the department and that older evaluations be returned to the individual faculty member, and

That individual faculty will have access to their own official evaluations within the department office and may obtain copies as desired, and

That any supplemental evaluations used by a faculty member are the personal property of that faculty member.

ACADEMIC POLICY
Done:
Convocation Center use
Graduate School Professional Certificates
Representative to AP&P
Representative to BoT Academic Policies Committee
Listing of Chairs up for renewal
Voting  on-line
Core Curriculum representative
Liberty University
In progress:
Policy regarding student evaluations
Human research policies (Bob Johnson)
Grade appeals (pat reighard)
Academic Freedom
To do:
Promotion and Tenure guidelines (hold)
Distance learning (ad hoc for next year?)
Collegiality ? forum (fall 2002)
Privacy in email (march ? (march fyi)
Role of advisory boards at ASU ? (march)
Relationship between annual report, merit document, and promotion and tenure guidelines (april)
Departmental policies and procedures (get copies from coc)
Cultural museum by laws, policies and procedures (march)

BUDGET
Done:
Distribution of tuition increase money (2001/2002 and 2002/2003)
Monitor administrators’ salaries
Recommendations for possible budget cuts
Forum on ASU’s internal budgeting process
Representative on BoT Business Affairs committee
In progress:
Recommendations for access to/participation in university, college, and departmental budgets (feb)
Recommendations for a University Budget Committee (oversee and planning) (March)
101-1310 hit list
Check competitiveness of faculty salaries (march)
Obtain copy of Lapsed Salary reports (feb)

CAMPUS PLANNING
Done:
Representative to University Relations Committee
Representative to Foundation Board meeting
Representative to BoT Advancement committee
Representative to Space Committee
Representative to Strategic Planning Commission
Regular meetings with Jane Helm
In progress:
Recommendations for improvements to Space Committee policies, procedures (delegated to ad hoc committee)
Dissemination of information (march)

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
Done:
Recommend senate rep on ITAC
In progress:
Continue investigating university committees
Traffic committee
Dean’s evaluation review committees
To do:
Schedule for review of university committees
Allocate university committees to standing senate committees
Status of recommendations made by this committee to university committees last year
Add policy on replacements in F.S. Guidebook
Add Chancellor's Advisory committee to standing committees
AP&P changes
Grievance changes
Core curriculum charge
Updated listing of committees/charges in handbook
Add Chancellor's Advisory Committee "to the books"
Report on university committees
Report on Traffic committee
Deans evaluations (perhaps add to nomination list)
New electronic form for committee sign up
Teaching awards (with Welfare and Morale)
Academic integrity code board

FACULTY HANDBOOK COMMITTEE
Status of new handbook
Grievance changes?
Add a definitions section?
Add links?

WELFARE AND MORALE
Done:
Faculty Lounge policies
Post tenure review
In progress:
Directorship of Loft and App House
Traffic and parking procedures and appeals
Non-tenure track faculty committee (with Comm on Comm.)
To do:
Pick new "peer" institutions
Teaching awards (with Comm on Comm??)
Uncertain:
Health Benefits
Teaching portfolio (appendix in handbook?)

WELFARE OF STUDENTS
Done:
Retention survey (check with SGA)
Name change from "lady mountaineers" to "mountaineers"
Representative to SGA meetings
Representative to BoT student development committee
Core curriculum and Special Designators representative
In progress:
Implementation of Academic Integrity Board (feb)
Alcohol and drug policy (Feb.)
Freedom of speech (Mar)
University Courtyard (relationship to ASU, policies and procedures) (Mar)
General Studies advising
Evaluation of Faculty (SGA on web page)

OTHER COMMITTEES
Done:
Ad hoc on grievance and equity office
In progress:
AD HOC ON SPACE (march)
AD HOC ON DPCs  (march)
AD HOC ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WORKLOAD DOCUMENT  (march)
Task Force on enhancing Appalachian’s appeal (april)

OTHER ISSUES
Recommendations for changes in Faculty Senate
Diversity
Core curriculum

2.  Payment to Employees on Loan from other schools
 $   16,376
3.  To pay honorariums for visiting speakers in the Curriculum and Instruction Department
 $    3,000
4.  To pay contractual payments for Interdisciplinary Studies
 $       674
5.  To pay reimbursements to Watauga County Schools and Wake County Schools for the College of Education
 $  71,911
6.  To pay indemnity claim for the Geography & Planning Department
 $         30
7.  Transferred to academic departments to support operating budgets for supplies and materials
 $ 936,156

Total Lapsed Teaching Dollars used 2000-01:  $1,070,382

WHEREAS, alcohol abuse is as serious a health risk as drug abuse,
WHEREAS both alcohol and drug use are under the jurisdiction of Appalachian State University and explicitly mentioned in Code of Student Conduct,
BE IT RESOLVED that Code of Student Conduct should be amended as follows:
    1. Contain Summary of Alcohol Sanctions paralleling its Summary of Drug Sanctions
    2. Section 7.10 Record f should be changed from:
The Vice Chancellor for Student Development or designee will notify the parents or legal guardian of students under the age of 21 of any second and subsequent violation of the Code of Student Conduct concerning the possession and consumption of alcohol and may, at his or her discretion, notify the parents of first-time violations of this behavior.
TO:
The Vice Chancellor for Student Development or designee will notify the parents or legal guardian of students under the age of 21 of any violation of the Code of Student Conduct concerning the possession and consumption of alcohol.

CURRENT POLICY AND PROCEDURE ON THE ILLEGAL OR ABUSIVE USE OF ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS    http://www.resourcemanual.appstate.edu/admpol8a.htm

At 3:17 p.m. on March 18, 2002, Weitz brought the remaining meeting of February 11 officially to order at 3:17 in the University Conference Room, 224 I. G. Greer.  Visitors were asked to introduce themselves (see voting sheet).

     F. WELFARE OF STUDENTS COMMITTEE
          1. FS01-02/02-06 - Motion regarding Drug and Alcohol Policy.  Rardin informed the Senate where they were in regards to the current motion on the floor.  At the last Senate meeting (February 11), it was suggested that the motion be divided into two separate parts.  A vote was taken on the first part which is to “include in the current brochure and Code of Conduct a Summary of Alcohol Sanctions paralleling the Summary of Drug Sanctions.”

FS01-02/02-06 - Motion regarding Drug and Alcohol Policy
Report from Welfare of Students Committee

Welfare of Students Committee was charged to review Appalachian's Drug and Alcohol policy in light of student concerns regarding Appalachian's
role is the suspension of financial aid to students in accordance with Higher Education Act of 1998 (section 484, subsection f) which suspends
eligibility for grants, loan, or work assistance under the title of the act for drug related offenses.  The committee finds that violations of Code of Student Conduct regarding the use, possession, sale, or distribution of drugs are reported only to the parents or legal guardian of students under the age of 21 (710, e).  The committee is also satisfied that sanctions for drug and alcohol violations include Special Programs (5.11) that focus on education and counseling.  The committee is, however, concerned about inequities in the areas of informing students of sanctions for violations and reporting alcohol and drug violations to parents for students under age 21.

WHEREAS, alcohol abuse is as serious a health risk as drug abuse,
WHEREAS both alcohol and drug use are under the jurisdiction of Appalachian State University and explicitly mentioned in Code of Student Conduct,
BE IT RESOLVED that Code of Student Conduct should be amended as follows:
    1. Contain Summary of Alcohol Sanctions paralleling its Summary of Drug Sanctions

CURRENT POLICY AND PROCEDURE ON THE ILLEGAL OR ABUSIVE USE OF ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS    http://www.resourcemanual.appstate.edu/admpol8a.htm

Discussion followed on the second part which is to bring the alcohol policy into line with the drug policy.  Moore asked what SGA thought of the motion.  Rardin noted that they were not asked.  A vote was taken on the motion.

          2. FS01-02/02-07 - Motion regarding Committee on Student Conduct.  Rardin noted that the motion asks that two members of the teaching faculty serve on the Committee on Student Conduct and to bring the Committee under the purview of the Faculty Senate’s Committee on Committees.  Moore asked what the benefit of doing this would be.  Rardin responded that it would give the Faculty Senate some input on the staffing of the Committee, which formulates policy.  A vote was taken on the motion as written.

FS01-02/02-07 - Motion regarding Committee on Student Conduct
The committee is concerned that faculty appointments to Committee of Student Conduct currently escape the purview of Faculty Senate.

WHEREAS, Committee on Committees is charged to submit to the Senate, at its April meeting, and at other appropriate times, recommendations for nominations to fill vacancies on university committees,
BE IT RESOLVED that the two members of the teaching faculty who serve on Committee of Student Conduct are to be recommended to the Vice Chancellor for Student Development and the Chancellor by a vote of Faculty Senate on a recommendation of Committee on Committees.

          3. FS01-02/02-08 - Motion regarding Academic Integrity Board.  Rardin noted that the thrust of the motion is to bring the Academic Integrity Board under the purview of the Faculty Senate and to ask that the Committee on Committees review annually the membership and responsibilities of the Academic Integrity Board.  A vote was taken on the motion as written.

FS01-02/02-08 - Motion regarding Academic Integrity Board
Welfare of Students Committee was also charged to review Academic Integrity Code. The committee is concerned that Academic Integrity Board currently escapes the purview of Faculty Senate.

WHEREAS Committee on Committees reviews annually the membership and responsibilities of each of the university committees, and periodically conducts detailed reviews of university committees,
BE IT RESOLVED that the Committee on Committees will review annually the membership and responsibilities of Academic Integrity Board.

     G. FACULTY HANDBOOK COMMITTEE   No report.
     H. CAMPUS PLANNING COMMITTEE     No report.
     I. AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON DPCS     No report.
     J. AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON WORKLOAD     No report.
     K. AD-HOC COMMITTEE ON SPACE     No report.
     L. TASK FORCE ON APPALACHIAN’S APPEAL     No report.

V. OLD BUSINESS
     A. BULLETIN BOARD - Trish Allen - report at the March 18 meeting.
     B. ELECTIONS - Paul Gates - there are still seats vacant, especially on the Faculty Senate.  Gates encouraged senators whose terms are expiring to run again or to ask colleagues to consider running.  Michelle will send senators an email after the meeting indicating where seats need to be filled.

Moore moved and Simon seconded to adjourn the meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,
  Mike Moore

voting symbols:   Y = yes        N - no          A = abstain

Name of Senator	11	12	13	14	15
ABBOTT, JOHN	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
ALLEN, PATRICIA	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
ARNOLD, CHIP	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
BARBER, BILL	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
BUSH, ROBERT   unexcused
BUTTS, JEFF  excused
CROCKER, DEBORAH    excused
FOX, JERRY	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
GATES, PAUL	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
HALL, KIM	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
KOCH, ANDY	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
LONG, BETTY   excused
MARKING, MARTHA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
MCKINNEY, HAROLD   excused
MCLAUGHLIN, TOM	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
MILLSAPS, STEVE					Y
MOORE, MIKE	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
MUIR, KEN	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
PETSCHAUER, PETER	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
POPE, JANICE	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
RARDIN, PATRICK	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
SIMON, STEVE	A	N	Y	Y	Y
TRUETT, CAROL	Y	N	Y	Y	Y
WEITZ, GAYLE	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y
WHYTE, TOM  unexcused
WOODWORTH, JOAN	A	A	Y	Y	Y
YAUKEY, MARGARET	A	N	Y	Y	Y

VISITORS:   Ian Mast, ACLU student; Bill Ward, Academic Affairs

VOTE 11:  FS01-02/02-06 - Motion regarding alcohol/drug policy (first part)
VOTE 12:  FS01-02/02-06 - Motion regarding alcohol/drug policy (second part)
VOTE 13:  FS01-02/02-07 - Motion regarding Committee on Student Conduct
VOTE 14:  FS01-02/02-08 - Motion regarding Academic Integrity Board
VOTE 15:  Adjourn