Faculty Council Meeting

Minutes for Meeting on May 18, 2006

4:20 PM, Woolworth Room

President:  Noreen Naiman                        Vice President:  Julie Graves               Secretary:  Tamar Castelloe

1.   Approval of Minutes from January and March meetings

The vote on approval of the minutes from the January and March meetings was postponed until the next meeting, as time did not permit it.

Secretary’s note:  Noreen Naiman stated that the main purpose for calling this Faculty Council meeting was to have an opportunity to discuss the issues of adopting a Faculty Senate as opposed to a Faculty Council now that we will be a constituent of the UNC system, as well as the issue of our adopting the Standards of Shared Governance.  She wants to most accurately represent the faculty at the Board of Trustees (BOT) meeting on Friday, June 9, 2006.

2.      Faculty Council 2006-2007

Noreen opened up the discussion to the faculty of whether to adopt a Faculty Senate, as the other 16 UNC constituents have, as opposed to continuing with a Faculty Council.  In her opening words, she stated that the NC School of the Arts does not differentiate between their high school and college faculty when representing them on their Faculty Senate.

A faculty member asked whether there are firm rules on how faculty is represented on a Faculty Senate.  Noreen answered that the Board of Governors (BOG) regulations state that representatives are elected, but she is not aware of the details.  She also stated that Faculty Senate meetings are open to non-representatives, but she is not sure whether Faculty Senate representatives also serve on committees, as Faculty Council members do.

A faculty member expressed that she believes an elected body would be more efficient and official and that the faculty should seriously consider having it.  Another stated that she believes that since our faculty is relatively small anyway, having all faculty members at the meetings and contributing is a better option.  Having elected representatives requires that they report to their departments to discuss issues before they can represent them, which is less efficient, she argued.  A comment was made that most universities’ Faculty Senates seem to be as large as our faculty.  Another comment was made that not having a quorum, as has been an issue in some years, is debilitating, and that Faculty Council should be a responsibility.  A faculty member argued that one benefit of having a Faculty Senate is that the members could meet more often and have more “focused” meetings.

A faculty member added that perhaps the faculty could redefine a quorum, where each department has a certain number of representatives and redefine the quorum depending on that. 

A suggestion was made to have a vote on whether faculty members have a strong preference for keeping the Faculty Council as it is, have a strong preference for making the change to a Faculty Senate, or whether they would consider both.  A formal motion was not made, however.  A faculty member then suggested that Noreen approach the BOT and inform them that the Faculty Council is discussing the issue, so that they are aware of it.

A nominating committee will be formed to begin election proceedings for Faculty Council officers for the 2006-2007 academic year.  Noreen will appoint the members of the committee.

(Secretary’s Note:  The nominating committee members were appointed after this meeting, and they were John Morrison, Sarah Russell, and Amy Sheck.)

3.      Standards of Shared Governance

      As the discussion began, one faculty member stated that he feels that the list of faculty responsibilities in the Standards could be a bit intimidating.  He sees that some of the items seem difficult to do as a 10-month employee.  On the other hand, he feels professionally accepted and treated well by the state and is therefore up to the task of fulfilling those responsibilities.

      One faculty member feels that the number of attendees at this Faculty Council meeting is indicative of the fact that faculty are interested in adopting the Standards.  She believes that with freedom comes responsibility and that since we enjoy our freedom (of curriculum, for example), we should be willing to do the work involved.  Another faculty member stated that adopting the Standards seems to be a healthy and beneficial thing and that it would contribute to the “betterment” of the school.  Yet another stated that having a document like the Standards would complement the expertise the faculty has to take care of responsibilities.  It is not as much work as it seems, she believes.  Another faculty member added that most of the items on the list seem to be things that we as a faculty have addressed in the past and that it does not seem that the Standards would require much more of us than that.  Others agreed.  Yet another faculty member commented that it seems the university expects us to adopt the Standards and be professional, committed people.  He thinks that it would be wrong to enter next year as a new constituent without adopting them.

      A suggestion was made that after a vote on this issue, an ad-hoc committee could be formed to consider what adopting the Standards would mean for us (look closely at our regulations as well as the BOG regulations) and report back to us at the beginning of the next school year.

      The following motion was made:

      Endorse the Standards of Shared Governance and accept the resposibilities inherent in them.

      The motion was seconded, and the voting (administered by secret paper ballots) results were as follows:

                                                                  Yes:  34

                                                                  No:  1

                                                                  Abstain:  0

      The motion was, therefore, passed, and an informal vote was then taken on whether to give Noreen the permission to report our opinion to the BOT.  The faculty voted to give her permission.

      Another motion was made:

      As a constituent of the UNC system next year, we should have representatives on the Faculty Assembly, whether we have a Faculty Council or a Faculty Senate as our representative body.

(Secretary’s note:  The Faculty Assembly consists of representatives from each of the Faculty Senates of the 16 constituents of the UNC system.) 

There was brief discussion on the issue as the motion was on the floor, and a faculty member asked whether members of the faculty would be permitted to attend Faculty Assembly meetings as observers.  Jerry Boarman believes that this would be possible and that we would only need to ask the head of the Faculty Assembly.

      The vote on the motion was then administered by a show of hands, and the results were as follows:

                                                                  Yes:  35

                                                                  No:  0

                                                                  Abstain:  0

      In answer to a question on the issue, Noreen stated that the BOG has reviewed the Standards and agreed with them in principle.  They have not dismissed them, but the Standards are not yet official BOG policy.

      In answer to a question on how the BOT’s “power” would change if we adopted the Standards, Jerry Boarman stated that the BOG regulations maintain that the BOT of each constituent has governance over issues such as graduation requirements, curriculum, hiring faculty, and campus issues.  The BOG has governance over things such as tuition and appeals.  The BOT of each constituent decides how to implement the policies in the Standards and will remain the body that makes most official decisions for us.

The meeting adjourned at 5:25 pm.