Report from Faculty Senate Executive Committee Meeting

September 21, 2006

1. Meeting of 21 September, 2006

Attending: George, Anderson, Heikes, Fork, Frendi, Severn, Lawson Karr, Boyd, Raines, Franz

1.1 Faculty Senate President’s Report

Melinda Lawson reported she and Lynn Boyd attended the Board Meeting last week. Budgets were approved. Melinda had some discussions with other Senate Presidents. She observed our campus is better at getting along with the administration than others. She reported on the Presidential Search Committee. There was a good turn out on Monday at the Forum. There was not as good a representation from Faculty as she would have liked but many faculty were in class. There was a good representation from the Community. There is a good pool of candidates. The Search Committee and the Search Firm is still entertaining nominations. Melinda asked that the faculty go back to their colleges and if anyone knows a good candidate please submit the name(s). The Search Committee will look at candidates and narrow the number to about eight depending on how many applications we get. The Chancellor wants the Committee to pick the top five and he will choose three for interviews. Dr. Boyd expressed that there is some concern for considering candidates having qualifications without an academic background and without having been a faculty member.

Melinda reported she had a conversation with Delois Smith at the Board Meeting regarding an additional Nurse Practitioner for the Wellness Center and she has received funding for this.

1.2 Reports from Administration

Dr. Severn reported he sent something to Shari George regarding course repeats.

Dr. Severn reported Dr. Radonovich is at the ACHE meeting trying to prevent the History degree at North Alabama from being approved.

Dr. Severn reported this is a Catalog year and we will begin working on this in October. We would like to do a facelift and there will be an opportunity for major revisions.

Dr. Severn reported he is looking at data on Course repeats and NC grading.

Dean Raines reported the last report has gone to SACS about two weeks ago. There were seven recommendations from the On Site Committee. Three of the recommendations dealt with academic policy issues. Four of the recommendations dealt with the QEP. There were really only three compliance issues where we did not supply adequate information, etc. There was one related to contact hours in relation to credit hours for things like labs, internships, etc. The policy has been clarified and sent out. There was one issue related to a position in the Library and we had stated it as a faculty position but it was more appropriately a staff position. The third is today’s issue regarding testing of competencies in the general education areas. We had done a good job in individual colleges explaining the skills and student’s competencies in the skills but we did not have a university wide method of providing information proving the competencies. We used the ETS MAPP Test and gave the first test in February and we should have had the results in March but we received the results in August. SACS needed assurance that we had a plan and we were using the information. Dean Raines distributed a packet of information regarding the results of the tests. She explained the contents of the packet. She stated that comparatively our students did well. Our students are in the top 4 except in writing and there they are in the top 8. What we want to do now is to look seriously at the results and think about how to handle the results and what to do with it now. The information we have is not enough information to use significantly but we need to look at the information over time. We have to decide if ETS will remain the company we use. We like the test and hope the difficulties will be rectified and we can continue with them. This was the first time this test was given and difficulties may have arisen due to that and it came at the same time as some difficulties with the SAT. We looked at several tests and companies but they matched best with our needs and what we were looking for. Deans are reviewing the information and will talk with Department Chairs and determine how to deal with what we have. We also wanted to talk to this group. We are putting this on the agenda for the Academic Council and we have asked that it be placed on the agenda for the Curriculum Committee. Dean Raines explained what we have in the packet and how it is put together. Dr. Severn explained how we went about getting the test and sample group. We looked at other institutions that had gone through the SACS reaffirmation recently and their information. The sampling came from those students who had applied for graduation and we wanted 100 students to take the test. We issued 180 invitations. We looked at the demographics of the list and chose participants and then generated the list and invitation letters were sent. We offered an incentive of $50 to take the test and we offered the top 10% another $50 for doing well. Sixty three students took the test and we ended up with sixty one results and this was a valid sample and typical of other institutions. The methodology is the same as other institution. This will be an ongoing part of the evaluation process. If anyone has questions they should call Dean Raines or Dr. Severn. We would like to work at getting a higher sample next time. We will review the entire process but it will be a similar process in the future. There was some discussion of the comparison and how we do by comparison rather than raw score. Dean Raines stated we will use these as a basis of discussion and determine where to go with our goals. The target is an institutional decision.

The QEP will take care of some of the information of where students are when they come in and how different they are when they leave.

There was some discussion regarding the list of comparison schools and what kind of schools are they and are they schools we want to be compared to. We hope the number of participants and the scores will increase.

We hope in the future we will be able to choose the institutions for comparison. We hope that over time we will have choices in comparisons.

Review this and if anyone wants to talk about it more Dean Raines will be glad to come back or anyone can call with specific questions or comments.

Dr. Franz talked about the Charger Café and the next renovation. He reported the food is pretty good and students love it and it is all you care to eat.

The idea is to expand it again. The wall where the computers are will be taken out and pushed out and will be all glass and the floor to ceiling height will be greater. The stairway to the bookstore will be refurbished and made wider and more accessible and the restrooms will be refurbished. The construction will start in February and they will build the external part first and then in the summer they will do the rest and have it ready to reopen in the fall. Dr. Franz reminded the faculty they can eat at Charger Café for $5 a meal but they have to put it on the Charger Card. The renovation will double the seating capacity.

They are making good progress on the lake and the new entrance. They are ahead of schedule. The Applied Science Building is slightly behind on the schedule. This building will be spectacular when it is finished. It will have student gathering areas in the back. The third floor will have a faculty lounge, and a gathering/activity area. Dr. Franz reported they took one house out of the Sanderson Subdivision and will eventually take all but six out because we do not own six of them. It may be some time before we change this to a greenway because we do not want to exercise imminent domain with the people that are left.

Dr. Franz reported he and Ray Pinner attended an SGA Meeting. At this meeting there were comments on Library hours. The students would like to have the Library open until 1 or 2 in the morning. Dr. Luquire and his staff are looking into this. They are also looking at vending machines in the Library. Dr. Franz also has Mike Finnegan looking at lighting around the Library area and between the Library and the Residence Halls if the Library is going to remain open later/longer hours.

Dr. Franz reported we have enough money to start the Parking Garage/Intermodal Transportation Building. One problem is that we are given the money on yearly increments. This restrains our ability to build what we want. We are looking at preliminary designs. We will build it in two parts. The first part will have 400 spaces. We could have this one completed in early 08. Until we have it completed parking will be tight for the Applied Sciences Building.

1.3 Committee Items and Chair Reports

1.3.1 Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (Sharon George).

Dr. George reported the Committee is meeting Oct. 12.

1.3.2 Personnel (Michael Anderson).

Dr. Anderson reported the Committee has not met. Melinda reminded him the Committee should look at faculty dating students and invite Delois Smith to the meeting.

1.3.3 Governance and Operations (Richard Fork for Jeffrey Kulick).

Dr. Fork reported he has looked at the University Committee and their membership to be sure there is a Senate Member on each Committee. The ADA Committee does not have a member and the EEO Committee does not have a Senator on it. The University Review Board does not have a Senate Member but it is probably exempt from that Bylaws rule due to the nature of the Committee. Peggy will get Dr. Fork an updated copy of the University Standing Committee Information. The Committee will also work on changing the Bylaws to reflect the change in the PRAC.

1.3.4 Faculty and Student Development (Kader Frendi).

Dr. Frendi reported the Committee has not met yet.

1.3.5 Finance and Resources (Harry Delugach).

Dr. Delugach sent his report by email since he is out of town. Melinda reported funds were committed for the REU program to continue.

Melinda gave a report on the REU funding and program and the proposals submitted. Three publications and 10 presentations came from the program last year.

1.3.6 Undergraduate Scholastic Affairs (Deborah Heikes).

Dr. Heikes reported she has been emailing about electronic devices in exams. She distributed information about bankruptcies, readmissions, etc. Dr. Severn reported they are working on reporting information to faculty but they are still dealing with Banner issues. We are not getting timely reports at this time. We did get reports early in the semester of those in trouble to be able to intervene early. This is not happening now due to Banner. We can get information to advisors/faculty but it is circuitous now. We are working on making this better and timelier.

1.3.7 Ombudsperson (Gerald Karr)

Dr. Karr reported when he took the Ombudsperson position there were no records and no information on anything that was going on. This created a lack of knowledge and continuity. Dr. Karr thinks it would be good to have a general report without names or details on what the Ombudsperson doing and what cases he is working on to the Executive Committee. In addition to this there would be records kept of the Ombudsperson’s work kept in a locked area by a designated person and only accessible by the Ombudsperson and one other individual in order to keep continuity on cases as the Ombudsperson changes or leaves, etc. This way records would be kept but confidentiality maintained. The Executive Committee agreed to have records kept confidentially.

1.4 Dr. Frendi and Dr. George moved and seconded with unanimous agreement from the Executive Committee to Cancel the September 28 meeting.