Meeting of the General Faculty and the Faculty Council

Friday, January 10th, 2003 at 3:00 p.m.

The Pleasants Family Assembly Room in Wilson Library

Chancellor James Moeser and Professor Sue Estroff, Chair of the Faculty, will preside.

Agenda

3:00 Call to Order. The Secretary of the Faculty.

DISC 3:00 Chancellor’s Remarks and Question Time.

  • Chancellor James Moeser invites questions or comments.

DISC 3:10 Remarks by the Provost.

  • Provost Robert Shelton invites questions or comments.

DISC 3:20 Remarks by the Chair of the Faculty.

  • Professor Sue Estroff invites questions or comments.

DISC 3:30 Discussion of the Faculty Salary Equity Study.

INFO 3:40 Annual Report of the Status of Women Committee.

  • Professor Etta Pisano, Chair.

INFO 3:50 Annual Report of the Faculty Committee on University Government.

  • Professor Elizabeth Gibson, Chair.

ACT 3:55 Resolutions Amending the Faculty Code of University Government.

  • Resolution 2003-1 amending the Code as it relates to the Divisions of the College of Arts and Sciences.
  • Resolution 2003-2 amending the Code as it relates to the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.

DISC 4:00 Report of the Task Force on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure.

  • Professors Paul Farel and Barbara Harris, Co-chairs.

INFO 4:30 Progress Report on the Honor System Reform Process.

  • Professor Judith Wegner.

DISC 4:45 Open Discussion of Topics Raised by Faculty Members.

ACT 5:00 Adjourn.

 

Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty

 

KEY:
ACT = Action
DISC = Discussion
INFO = Information

Minutes

Attendance

Present (59): Admiora, Ammerman, Bachenheimer, Barbour, Bollen, Bouldin, Cairns, Carelli, Carter, Chenault, Cotton, Crawford-Brown, Diette, Elvers, Files, Fishell, Foley, Gerber, Granger, Henry, Janda, Kagarise, Kjervik, Langbauer, Leigh, Lohr, Malizia, McGraw, Meece, Metzguer, Miller, Morris-Natschke, Nicholas, Nonini, Panter, Parikh, Pfaff, Pisano, Pittman, Poole, Reisner, Retsch-Bogart, Rippe, Rock, Rowan, Salmon, Schauer, Simpson, W. Smith, Straughan, Strauss, Toews, Tulloch, Vandermeer, Wallace, Weiss, Willis, Wilson, Yopp.

Excused absences (24): Allison, Bane, Bowen, Daye, D’Cruz, Elter, Gollop, Kelley, Kessler, Meyer, Molina, Moran, Nelson, Orthner, Owen, Porto, Reinert, Rong, Shea, Sigurdsson, Sueta, J. Smith, Tresolini, Watson.

Unexcused absences (8): Colindres, Fowler, Gilland, Holditch-Davis, Sams, Slain, Tauchen, Vick.

Call to Order

Prof. Sue Estroff called the meeting to order and reminded the faculty that this is a special meeting called to complete the agenda of the regular December meeting that had been suspended due to the ice storm and resulting power outage. She announced that Chancellor James Moeser, although present, would not deliver his remarks as usual due to an attack of laryngitis.

Provost’s Remarks

Budget.

Provost Robert Shelton said that the budget outlook for the 2003-04 fiscal year does not look favorable, but he declined to speculate further than that. He does not expect additional budget reductions in the current fiscal year.

Tuition.

The Tuition Advisory Task Force completed its work onDecember 19, 2002, before the Board of Governors’ decision to implement a freeze on tuition increases of any type across the UNC System. Nevertheless, the Task Force, by a vote of 14-1, recommended a campus-based tuition increase of $350 per year for each of three years. Acknowledging the difficult financial situation that many North Carolina families are facing, the Task Force suggested that implementation of that increase be delayed. Needs identified as appropriate for campus-based tuition increases were, in priority order, (1) need-based financial aid, (2) teaching-assistant salaries, (3) faculty salaries, and (4) SPA staff salaries.

Academic Plan.

Work continues on the Academic Plan with a goal of completing action in time for presentation to the Board of Trustees at its March meeting. Three general themes have emerged from the many comments that have been received to date: (1) maintaining the core of excellence now existing in our undergraduate, graduate, and professional instructional programs; (2) the need to recruit and retain excellent faculty and to meet their needs with innovations such as a true sabbatical program, and (3) increasing diversity, which is critical to achieving the first two goals.

Proposed APT Committee.

Provost Shelton expressed his complete support for the proposed creation of a new Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure.

Honor System Reform.

The Provost praised the report of the Committee on Student Conduct to be addressed later on today’s agenda. “It is,” he said, “a foundation that we can use to reinvigorate a culture of honor that will improve the Carolina experience.”

Senior leadership recruitment.

The provost reported that he is negotiating with a finalist for the position of dean of the School of Pharmacy. The search for a new dean of the School of Education is at the stage of identifying finalists to bring to campus for interviews. The search committee for dean of the Kenan-Flagler Business School has met several times and has recommended an executive search firm to assist in their work. Recruitment efforts for a new vice chancellor for information technology and a vice chancellor for student affairs will begin this semester with a goal of filling both positions for the start of the 2003-04 academic year.

Prof. Steven Bachenheimer (Microbiology) noted that news reports suggest that the Board of Governors’ motivation in freezing tuition increases was concern that increasing costs would limit access to higher education for students of limited means. He asked whether there is evidence on this campus that tuition increases have had a measurable effect on such access. The provost replied that is has been Carolina’s policy to earmark 35% to 40% of tuition increases for need-based aid. Over the past three years, the debt of our graduating seniors has declined, which is counter to historical trends. Furthermore, over the past three years we have been admitting a higher percentage of applicants from lower income groups. Prof. Bachenheimer ask if we could not make an argument to the Board that their concerns are unfounded insofar as this campus is concerned. Provost Shelton replied that the Board sets policy for the entire UNC System, which requires them to act uniformly for all campuses. They are also influenced by the political factors involved. He did think that we at Carolina are acting responsibility on this issue, but he did not think that an argument to give us sole authority to manage our own tuition would get very far.

Chair of the Faculty’s Remarks.

Prof. Estroff expressed her thanks for leadership and membership of the Committee on the Status of Women, the Committee on University Government, the Task Force on Honor System Reform, and the Committee on Student Conduct, all of whom have devoted countless hours this year to their work on behalf of the faculty. “This kind of citizenship is more than a small part of what makes us a superb public university and what makes shared governance a core principal of Chapel Hill,” she said. She also thanked Prof. Joseph Ferrell, secretary of the faculty, for his work behind the scenes.

Prof. Estroff paid tribute to Prof. Rachel Rosenfeld, a member of the Council who recently died, saying “Professor Rosenfeld, for many women of my generation on the campus, was a warrior; she was a beacon; she was a tough cookie who knew what was right and how to fight for it; she led by example; she was generous and ambitious. The campus is diminished by her absence.” The Council rose in silent tribute.

Discussion of the Faculty Salary Equity Study.

Exec. Assoc. Provost Bernadette Gray-Little reminded the Council that she had briefly described the Faculty Salary Equity Study at the November Council. At that time she had spoken to the results of the preliminary analysis. Since then, a set of more fine-grained analyses have been completed at the department level. Those analyses have been sent out to deans and department chairs with the request to submit to the provost by February 1 a plan for assessing the salaries of those faculty members whose salaries are at least one standard deviation below what is predicted for someone of the same rank, seniority, and level of experience. The plan for review of those salaries will describe the procedures to be used as well as identifying who will conduct the review. As these plans are received, they will be reviewed by a university-wide faculty committee (not yet formed).

Prof. Estroff asked whether the plan is to review salaries of men as well as women whose salaries appear to be out of line. Prof. Gray-Little replied in the affirmative.

Prof. Kenneth Bollen (Sociology) asked whether faculty members whose salaries deviate above the expected amount would also be reviewed. Prof. Gray-Little replied that this is not contemplated for two reasons: (1) the focus of concern has been faculty who are being under-paid, and (2) there is very little likelihood reducing anyone’s salary in consequence of this study.

Prof. Diane Kjervik (Nursing) asked whether information being sent to the School of Nursing focuses on that faculty alone. Prof. Gray-Little said that Nursing will get two analyses, one focusing solely on that school and another combining School of Nursing data with what seems to be the most comparable Health Affairs units.

Prof. Camilla Tulloch (Dentistry) asked whether deans and chairs had been instructed to form faculty committees at the school or department level to assist in this matter. Prof. Gray-Little said that the deans have been requested to address this issue in their reports.

Prof. Ed Halloran (Nursing) asked whether the detailed departmental analyses would be made public, as was the results of the overall study. Prof. Gray-Little replied that these reports would not be made public because they contain detailed information that, in many cases, would make individual faculty members readily identifiable.

Prof. Rebecca Laudicina (Medical Allied Health Professions) asked whether individual salaries were compared at the departmental level or the school level, and whether the analysis was limited to faculty at Carolina. Prof. Gray-Little replied that to the extent possible, faculty members were compared with that group of individuals in the same profession with the same degree, and that while some of the analyses included a market factor, none included faculty at other universities.

Prof. Frank Wilson (Orthopaedics) observed that the multiple regression analysis appears to show the greatest disparity in clinical departments in the Medical School. He said that salaries in clinical departments are strongly tied to clinical productivity, and that data provided by the American Association of Medical Colleges suggests that there is a significant difference between men and women in the number of patients seen and the income generated by such activity. He asked whether there are plans to take this into account. Prof. Gray-Little said that this should be addressed in the Medical School’s response.

Prof. Estroff asked for comment on the relative merits and drawbacks of taking an individualized approach as opposed to addressing salary inequity on an across-the-board basis. Prof. Gray-Little said that in her view the preliminary analysis reported in November does not support across-the-board salary adjustments because there are still unexplained factors that contribute to salary levels. Thus, across-the-board adjustments are not advisable for practical reasons. There are also legal considerations to be taken into account. Provost Shelton added that in his view the culture of the University is based on individual effort and merit. Faculty members have their individual programs and roles and are evaluated annually by faculty peers for individual merit salary increases.

Prof. Halloran said that he sees the Salary Equity Study as a study of class, not of individuals. To use the results of a study of a class to identify individuals seemed specious to him. He urged a solution that addresses an issue of class distinction.

Prof. Richard Pfaff (History) disagreed with Prof. Halloran. He said that a class pattern is appropriately used to identify individuals whose salaries should be adjusted.

Annual Report of the Committee on the Status of Women.

Prof. Etta Pisano (Radiology), chair of the Committee on the Status of Women, submitted the committee’s report by title. She said she wished to devote her time to further discussion of the Salary Equity Study.

Prof. Pisano said that she could not understate the degree of interest in this topic among women faculty. Many women colleagues are worried that their individual worth is not appropriately recognized, that they are not being paid enough, and that they do not have an effective means of resolving conflicts or concerns that they have within their own departments. She thought that it is imperative that the campus deal with these concerns in a straightforward manner that will make people confident that they are being treated fairly. The Committee on the Status of Women has developed a proposal [See Resolution 2003-4] that reflects a broad consensus among members of the committee, the Carolina Women’s Center Executive committee, the Associate of Women Faculty and Professionals, and the Association of Professional Women in the Medical School. The proposal essentially has two parts. The first part addresses the acute problem of resolving salary inequities that exist now. The second addresses the chronic problem of salary inequity and seeks to prevent recurrence of the current acute problem. Prof. Pisano said that she has personally come to the conclusion that the Salary Equity Study is in fact a study of individuals, and that we need to look at the individuals who are outliers. Resolution 2003-4, which will be presented for a vote at the January 17 Council meeting, will propose a procedure for identifying those individuals and fashioning appropriate redress. It will also call for creating department-level faculty committees to monitor this issue on an on-going basis. As to the matter of long-term prevention, Prof. Pisano noted that the American Association of Medical Colleges recommends that the annual reports of administrators include a section of gender and minority equity. This will also be included in Res. 2003-4.

Prof. Kjervik asked whether thought had been given to back pay to make up for past inequities. Prof. Pisano replied that this is not part of the committee’s proposal.

Prof. Tulloch noted that in the School of Dentistry, 66% of faculty women are on fixed-term appointments. There is a great sense of insecurity among these women, who are hesitant to complain to their department chairs. Prof. Tulloch said that many have spoken to her individually about their concern that they are severely underpaid. Prof. Pisano replied that this concern is addressed in the resolution by requiring administrators to provide detailed information as to the percentage of male and female faculty who are fixed-term as opposed to tenure-track.

Prof. Laura Janda (Slavic Languages & Literatures) pointed out that the majority of women faculty are in fixed-term positions. As looks at the tenure-track ranks, the higher one goes the fewer women there are. She said there is a problem with women getting into the tenure-track ranks and moving up in the same ways as men. Prof. Pisano replied that she thought this was in part a societal issue, but there are things that could be done to better support women faculty as they arrive at the institution, such as starting salary, non-salary startup packages, and support for spouses or partners.

Prof. Charles Poole (Epidemiology) asked what possible flaws there might be in the data other than the absence of data on productivity. Prof. Abigail Panter (Psychology) said that the methodology is sound and follows other work in this area. Prof. Pisano said that the model predicts 80% of the variance, which is quite high for multiple regression analysis. She thought it possible that all of the remaining differences could be explained by clinical productivity and similar factors, but it is also possible that there are a few people in each unit whose salaries should be adjusted. She added that the issue is not simply one of equity and morality; there is a business aspect that affects our ability to recruit and hire the best faculty in the future. We do not want to appear to be an institution that does not take gender equity seriously. Prof. Estroff said that she rejects the blanket statement that there are no quality and productivity indicators in the data. They may not be as fine-tuned as we would like, but they are there, she said.

Prof. Ronald Strauss (Dentistry) asked if the individuals who are identified as under-paid will be informed that their salaries are under review. Prof. Pisano said that this has been included in the committee’s recommendations.

Prof. Mary Anne Salmon (Social Work) objected to the suggestion that some of the salary discrepancies identified in the study could be due to the individual’s status as a fixed-term. She asserted that since this was included as a variable, that assertion is not correct. Prof. Pisano agreed.

Prof. Salmon also asked about the burden of proof. Will it be assumed that persons whose salaries are more than one standard deviation on the low side are underpaid because they are less productive or meritorious than their colleagues, or will the burden be on the department to justify the discrepancy? Prof. Gray-Little said that she was not prepared to answer that question. Each case will be examined in an open fashion.

Prof. Shirley Mason (Nursing) pointed out that the retirement benefits of women faculty who are members of the State retirement system are affected by this issue since benefits are calculated on the basis of average compensation over the four highest years of earnings.

Prof. Jan Yopp (Journalism & Mass Communication) asked if she was correct in her understanding that deans and department chairs are being directed to report back to the provost why the salaries of faculty members who fall more than one standard deviation below the predicted salary are not higher. Prof. Gray-Little replied that at this point deans and chairs are being asked to describe the procedure they intend to use to analyze those salaries and who will do the review. At this point they are not being asked to justify or prove the appropriateness of the salary, she said.

Prof. Wilson said that the issue of productivity needs better definition. We should distinguish between economic and scholarly productivity. In his experience, economic productivity has been the principal determinant of salary, whereas scholarly productivity has been considered in relation to promotion in rank. He thought that salary and promotion are related, but the correlation is not exact.

Prof. Douglas Kelly (Statistics) said that, speaking as a statistician, it is inaccurate to use the term “outlier” to describe observations that are only one standard deviation away from the mean; the term is used to characterize observations that are much farther out. Indeed, in any normal population, 17% of all the scores will be more than one standard deviation below the mean. He also said that some have asserted as a flaw of the study that the $1,000 coefficient of regression reported in the study is not statistically significant. Others have said that the statistical significance of the coefficient is not relevant to the equity question here. But, he said, one can still ask whether, if there were no gender bias present, the $1,000 variation could still be found in a study like this. The probability of that occurring, i.e., the significance level, is about 35%, which is approximately the probability of 100 coin tosses resulting in “heads” 45 or fewer times. In other words, that is not enough to conclude bias. He said that two things worry him: (1) if we had to prove that we have a problem, we would be on very shaky grounds to use the $1,000 figure, and (2) if we use one standard deviation as the breakpoint, we will be missing some people who are also being underpaid. While the study was conducted properly and is free from flaws, the uncertainty of the coefficient leaves us open to the possibility of missing some people who should be included.

Prof. Kay Lund (Cell & Molecular Physiology) said that the issue of productivity must take into account resources that are available to women faculty. She said that whenever this has been explored in medical schools, it has been shown that women are given fewer resources. We are no different from the national trend in this regard, she said. She thought it very unlikely that this has occurred by chance. She asserted that when the productivity of women is adjusted to account for inferior space and inadequate support, their productivity per dollar is actually quite good. If it is true that women faculty are not as productive as men, we should be asking why we have an environment that appears to foster that result.

Annual Report of the Committee on University Government.

Prof. Elizabeth Gibson (Law), chair of the Committee on University Government, presented the committee’s annual report by title. There were no questions or comments.

Resolution 2003-1 Amending the Code Relative to Division of the College of Arts & Sciences.

Prof. Gibson presented Resolution 2003-1. Prof. Ferrell explained that the four divisions of the College of Arts and Sciences have operated for many years under by-laws adopted in 1971. The divisions have recently updated their by-laws, and the purpose of this amendment to the Faculty Code of University Government is to bring the Code into line with these revisions. The principal change is to provide for separate election of chairs and vice-chairs, and to drop the requirement that the vice-chair is automatically a member of the Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.

Resolution 2003-1 was adopted without dissent on first reading and will remain on the agenda for consideration on second reading at the January 17 meeting of the General Faculty.

Resolution 2003-2. Amending the Code Relative to the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.

Prof. Ferrell said that the changes proposed by Resolution 2003-2 flow from the changes made by Resolution 2003-1. Now that the divisional vice-chairs will no longer be serving on the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions, it is necessary to provide other means for filling these slots. The proposal is to have the positions filled by appointment of the provost.

Resolution 2003-2 was adopted without dissent on first reading and will remain on the agenda for consideration on second reading at the January 17 meeting of the General Faculty.

Report of the Task Force on Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure.

Prof. Paul Farel (Cell & Molecular Physiology) and Prof. Barbara Harris (History), co-chairs of the Task Force, briefed the Council on the report.

Prof. Farel said that the policies and procedures governing academic tenure under which we now operate are virtually identical to those described by President Frank Porter Graham in a talk to the faculty council of the Woman’s College (as UNC-Greensboro was then known) in the 1950s. The Task Force found that the important changes needed are those that will address the ways in which the professoriate has changed in the past half-century. In 1950, the typical professor’s family responsibilities were largely within the province of his wife. Today, many faculty members are single parents, or have spouses or partners who also work in full-time positions outside the home. Family responsibilities such as the care of young children or an aging and infirm parent can be overwhelming to faculty members of either gender. One of the principal foci of the Task Force’s report are recommendations that will introduce needed flexibility in the process during the time in which new faculty members are being evaluated for permanent tenure. The other dramatic change in the professoriate is a much greater reliance on non-tenured faculty, both part-time and full-time. As of 2001, approximately 30% of full-time faculty members hold non-tenure-track appointments. In the School of Medicine, the figure is 42%. The percentage of faculty in this category has increased at an annual rate of about 8.8% since 1997. If this rate of increase continues, non-tenure-track faculty will outnumber tenure-track faculty by 2011. Yet, non-tenure-track faculty have few of the safeguards for systematic policies and procedures regulating promotion and appointment that tenure-track faculty enjoy.

The Task Force organized itself into three subcommittees that focused on (1) flexibility in the tenure process, (2) policies and procedures for non-tenure-track faculty, and (3) policies and procedures related to evaluation for permanent tenure.

Prof. Harris spoke of the work of the subcommittee that focused on flexibility in the tenure process. The first recommendation in this area is that the University institute an appropriately funded system of paid parental leave for a parent with primary responsibility for newborn children. This is deliberately made gender neutral. The second and third recommendations relate to the provisions of the current tenure regulations which permit an untenured assistant professor or associate professor to request a one-year extension of the probationary period for reasons of child birth or similar compelling reasons. A survey of all current assistant and associate professors disclosed that few knew that this option exists, and those who did are confused about its provisions. Furthermore, very few faculty members have chosen to take advantage of it. The survey found that many faculty members who might have been interested in asking for such an extension did not do so for fear that their colleagues would disparage them, or that they would not be considered appropriately professional, or that they would be expected to make up for the extra year by demonstrating more accomplishments. The Task Force is recommending steps that will ensure that faculty members know that the option exists, and that reassure faculty members who avail themselves of it that they may do so with impunity. Finally, the Task Force recommends that a department chair and a faculty member up for tenure may mutually agree to postpone the decision until the final year of the appointment, with the proviso that if the decision is negative, there will be no right of continuation for an additional year.

Prof. Farel said that the recommendations concerning non-tenure-track faculty are drawn almost entirely from a special report commissioned by President Molly Broad. The study group was chaired by Assoc. Vice President for Academic Affairs Betsy Brown.

Prof. Ferrell pointed out that the 21 recommendations of the Task Force have been compiled in Resolution 2003-7, which will be on the Council’s agenda later in January or February.

Progress Report on Honor System Reform

Prof. Judith Wegner (Law), chair of the Task Force on Honor System Reform, briefed the Council on the work of the Task Force. She wanted to emphasize that this review has been a matter of partnership involving the entire campus community. Although the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance is sometimes thought of as relating purely to student conduct and student discipline, it really is a fundamental governance document for all of us.

Prof. Wegner noted several provisions of the revision that are of particular interest to the faculty.

Definition of academic dishonesty.

The definition of academic dishonesty has been rewritten to expand and clarify its provisions. Plagiarism is defined as deliberate or reckless representation of another words, thoughts, or ideas as one’s own without attribution, in connection with the submission of academic work, whether graded or otherwise. The definition of academic dishonesty now includes falsification and fabrication or misrepresentation of data, library abuse, and violation of other pertinent University policies.

Penalties.

The document now speaks of minimum and usual penalties for academic dishonesty. The minimum is probation, the usual is suspension. It now makes it clear that a faculty member bringing a complaint may recommend to the Honor Court handling the matter whether the student should be failed in the course or on a particular assignment. Provision is made for academic assignments as part of the sanctioning package. It is made clear that probation and suspension are both penalties of record, which means that this will appear on the student’s transcript while those sanctions are active.

Trial procedure.

The task force considered modifying the burden of proof. In the end, “beyond a reasonable doubt” was retained, but this standard was redefined to say that it means doubt based on reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence. It does not mean beyond a shadow of a doubt or beyond any conceivable doubt.

Operational procedure.

There will now be a new student honor outreach coordinator, a five-member faculty advisory committee on the honor system, and a standing panel of 30 faculty members to serve on University hearing boards (rather than composing those boards on an ad hoc basis). There we be a new online report form that faculty members may use to report offenses. There will be an effort to distribute the findings of research on cheating and academic dishonesty. An expedited hearing system has been in effect since last spring, and there are major improvements in the appeals system.

Prof. Wegner urged Council members to study materials that have been distributed to the Council in preparation for a vote on January 17 on two resolutions. Resolution 2003-5 will ask for Council endorsement of the Statement of Faculty Rights and Responsibilities which appears in an Appendix to the Instrument of Student Judicial Governance. Resolution 2003-6 will ask for Council endorsement of the entire revised Instrument.

Adjournment.

Its business having been completed, the Council adjourned at5:00 p.m.

 

Joseph S. Ferrell
Secretary of the Faculty

Resolutions Adopted January 10, 2003

Resolution 2003-1. Amending The Faculty Code of University Government as it relates to the specification of officers of Arts and Sciences Divisions and eligibility to vote for and hold such offices.

The General Faculty resolves:

Section 1. Section 8-5 of The Faculty Code of University Government is rewritten to read:

§ 8-5. Divisional faculties. (a) The faculty of each Arts and Sciences Division shall be composed of the faculty members of its component departments. Each Division shall have a chair, a vice chair, a secretary, and an Advisory Committee consisting of at least one representative from each of the component departments; all shall serve terms of three years and such other officers as its by-laws specify. The chair and other officers shall be elected by members of the voting faculty holding primary appointments in departments and curricula assigned to the Division. The faculty of each Division shall elect a chair. Each Division, in consultation with the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, shall adopt appropriate rules and regulations governing its functions and procedures, including procedures for the selection of a vice chair, a secretary, and departmental representatives on the Advisory Committee electing its officers. The faculty of each Division shall meet at least once each year upon the call of the chair.

(b) Each Division, within its area and in cooperation with the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, shall concern itself with the courses and curricula, shall originate and develop educational objectives and implement these policies, and the chairs of the several Divisions shall be members of the Committee on Instructional Personnel. In addition, they shall serve in an advisory capacity, upon request or upon their own initiative, to the respective departments and to the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences in matters involving budgetary, personnel, and instructional problems.

(c) Only members holding the faculty ranks of professor, associate professor, assistant professor, and instructor have the right to vote for and hold the offices of Division chair and vice chair.

Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.

Resolution 2003-2. Amending The Faculty Code of University Government as it relates to the responsibilities and membership of the Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions.

The General Faculty resolves:

Section 1. Section 4-24 of The Faculty Code of University Government is rewritten to read:

§ 4-24. Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions. (a) The Advisory Committee on Undergraduate Admissions shall consist of the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences and the General College or the dean’s designee as chair; the associate dean for academic advising in the College of Arts and Sciences of the General College; the vice chairs of the Divisions of Fine Arts, Humanities, Basic and Applied Natural Sciences, and Social Sciences of the College of Arts and Sciences; and two other academic deans from outside the College of Arts and Sciences and seven faculty members engaged in undergraduate instruction, all appointed by the provost. At least five of these faculty members shall hold primary appointments in the College of Arts and Sciences. The two academic deans shall be selected by the Committee on Instructional Personnel and shall be rotated on three-year terms; if their terms as dean end before their terms on the committee, the Committee on Instructional Personnel shall make other appointments. The committee may add ad hoc members (who shall be faculty members engaged in undergraduate instruction) as it deems necessary. The university registrar, the director of undergraduate admissions, and the vice chancellor and dean of for student affairs shall be ex officio, non-voting members of the committee. The committee shall meet at least once each semester or more on call of the chair. The chair shall call a meeting whenever requested by the university registrar or the director of undergraduate admissions.

(b) The committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the director of undergraduate admissions. In particular, it shall address the design and application of admissions policy, recommend guidelines for special talent and exceptional admissions, and monitor and respond to the national college admissions environment.

Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective upon adoption.

 

Pdf of meeting materials

Print Friendly, PDF & Email