Newspapers / University of North Carolina … / Sept. 19, 1972, edition 1 / Page 1
Part of University of North Carolina at Charlotte Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
ber 1r volume viii number 4, September 19, 1972 Curriculm change process to be simplified :h trtl r It'., ted I. m. k etefi_ Fight brewing over innuol funds -by susan regan Rogues 'n Rascals editor Tom Alsop has stirred up a mild controversy with his petition for an additional $3500 in student funds for the yearbook. The center of the Controversy is whether UNCC can afford the additional expense, even for a yearbook that promises to be "an artistic representation of college life." SBG President Stan Patterson, who opposes the petition, believes that the annual allocation would put a strain on the funds available to otho- campus organizations. "I don't feel there are commensurate students to allow this increase. I don't feel he (Alsop) can justify another $3500 for the armual," he commented. Alsop feels that the money Is necessary if he is to produce a quality yearbook. He had originally planned on receiving $4500 in advertising revenue, which would have occupied about 50 pages in the book. He now wants to decrease advertising revenue to $1000 to free more pages for substantive matters. Tentative plans also call for the inclusion of a set of records in the book, a project which may cost about $1500. This will be, he says, "a different means of presenting a collection of moments." Patterson feels that UNCC's total enrollment has not increased so much that the school needs such an annual, if it will deprive other student activities of operating funds. No student funds were carried over from last year. Since last year, student funds have increased only about $7000. This money has to be divided among the Media Board, the Student Government, Student Legislature, the Union Board, and other campus organizations. Much of this money has already been allocated. Student Legislature, which distributes the funds, is working with $10,000 less than it had at this time last year. Much of the remaining money must be reserved to meet the needs of students or campus organizations as the year progresses. . Alsop disagrees with Patterson's money figures. He believes that over $8000 remained at the end of last year, and that if past patterns continue, money will remain at the end of this year. He contends that each student pays an average of $11.00 per semester in activities fees, and that much of this money Is being held over. This cheats the students who do not return to UNCC the following year. Since enrollment has increased by 1000 students, Alsop says, an additional $11,000 is available. Recording to Registrar Harold Clarke, however, UNCC's enrollment has increased by only 600 students. Since many of these are part-time students, and consequently do not pay the full activities fee, the total money available is difficult to estimate. Last year, the annual was allotted $16,515 in Media Board funds. According to Patterson, the annual staff came before Student Legislature and asked for an additional $1200. This request was approved E)y one vote, but was vetoed by Patterson. The reason was that after an examination of the annuars records, it was discovered that the reasons for need were not accurate. This year, Alsop requested $21,196 from the Media Board. After a Media Board decision to reduce all media budgets, Alsop cut his request to $19,126. If Alsop receives the $3500 he is requesting, he will recover the $2000 cut from his original request and will gain an extra $1500. Patterson feels that Alsop is aware of the hardship he would be placing on other areas of student interest, and because of this he used the procedure of a petition. Normally, he would be required to go to the Media Board and state his need for money. The Board would in turn pass this on to Student Legislature. SBG President Patterson would have the final word on the request. Patterson believes that Alsop knew that his request for more money would be denied, as last year's request was, because of failure to sufficiently justify need. As a result, Patterson said, Alsop took advantage of regbtration to get signatures on the petition from students who may not have been aware of the annual's needs or of the financial limitslions at UNCC. Alsop, Patterson said, "is playing on the silent but unaware majority." Have you been looking for a table in the University Center cafeteria? You’re not alone. -— by sharon deck Simplified procedures for academic and curriculum changes rnay be instituted in the near future. Chancellor D.W. Colvard told the University Senate in its first meeting last Wednesday. Under the new process, which was formulated on the recommendation of the Senate's university affairs committee, the Academic Council will no longer be involved in curriculum decisions and a new student-faculty group, the Intercollege Curriculum Committee, will be added. The Academic Council is composed of the deans of the various colleges. With the current system, curriculum changes must be approved by two separate faculty committees and the Academic Council. Faculty ratification of the new faculty constitutiori now under consideration will clear the way for the proposed changes, because the two faculty committees are not mentioned in the new constitution and can be omitted. Here is how the new system will work for a new program within the present framework of the University: Such a program will usually originate within a particular department. The department chairman approves the proposal and forwards it to the dean of the college Involved. The dean sends it to the vice chancellor for academic affairs, who at this stage merely coordinates the procedure and neither approves nor rejects the proposal. The vice chancellor notifies the Academic Council of the proposal for their information only, and forwards the proposal to the Intercollege Curriculum Committee for further consideration. From there, the proposal goes to the university affairs committee of the University Senate, to the full Senate, and finally back to the vice chancellor and then to the chancellor. The Intercollege Committee and the Senate can only recommend that a certain action be taken. Actual approval is left to the vice chancellor and the chancellor. For course changes or additions, the procedure is much simpler. Although this rough draft of the new plan seems complicated, it has two advantages over the current system: It is less cumbersome, and it allows for more student representation in curriculum decisions. At the end of last year, the various Senate committees made recommendations to the administration. Chancellor Colvard explained to the Senate what administrative actions had been taken on each of the proposals in these four areas: Long-range planning: The committee had recommended that a statement of University goals and objectives be adopted, and had submitted a rough draft of the statement. The Chancellor reported that the statement is being refined and will probably be adopted in the future. The committee had also recommended the establishment of a permanent office of University planning. The administration has requested funds for this purpose from the Board of Governors, and has placed the request in a high priority category. The request will be presented to the Advisory Budget Commission this week. University affairs: This committee had recommended that a set of guidelines for committees be formed. The Chancellor said that the committee structure is now being reviewed, and that some committees have been dissolved and other committee functions have been turned over to Senate committees. He suggested that the university affairs committee should continue to review possible changes. Finance: This committee had suggested an analysis of the costs of various educational programs. The Chancellor explained that the data for such a study have been hard to get, but that work should proceed more quickly now, because both the business office and the office of Institutional research have applicable data. Within the last six months. Dr. Colvard said, the University has employed a controller, who will make a major systems analysis of the University. The committee had also urged adoption of the Higher Education Management System now used by some colleges. Chancellor Colvard reported that this system was now under consideration, as well as another system designed to aid in cost accounting, which would allow the auditors to determine the costs of various academic programs. Personnel: A new grievance procedure for non-academic employees has been set up, at the request of the personnel committee. The procedure provides for discussion with one's supervisor and appeals to the personnel office, a grievance committee of one's peers, the Chancellor, and the state personnel office. In other action, SBG president Stan Patterson blocked the election of a president pro tempore by the Senate. Dr. Loy Witherspoon of the religion department had been the only nominee. Just before the vote, Patterson objected to the election on the basis that the students had not been informed of it in advance. He felt that, although the students had nothing against Dr. Witherspoon, the students should have had a chance to discuss among themselves other possible candidates. Dr. Witherspoon then declined to accept the nomination unless the students were confident that his election was in their best interests. As a result, the meeting was recessed until this Wednesday, when the election will continue. Most ducks in no danger .1 SB L journal photo/max street The ducks aren't in danger of extinction after all, and that issue isn't the only one concerning UNCC's Swan Lake. A memo recently issued to Dr. W.H. McEniry, vice chancellor for academic affairs, from Dr. M. Dale Arvey, chairman of the biology department, outlines a number of improvements which the biology department hopes will improve the general condition of the lake, ecologically and otherwise. The plan, drawn up by Drs. Hechenbleikner, Matthews, and Menhinick, states that the lake "should be maintained as an aesthetic attraction for the campus,'' and that any development of the lake should be In harmony with as many aspects of campus life as possible. The duck issue, may not be the most important, but it is the most likely to become an emotional one. Contrary to public opinion, the ducks will not be wiped out completely. The plan suggests that the duck population be cut from 30 to six — four white and two mallard — Increased to ten, and cut back to six. This would hopefully stabilize the ecology of the lake, which is now endangered. According to the biology department, the ducks are overfertilizing the lake; subsequently, the increase in plant growth is slowly killing off the fish. The department —: by charlotte porter wants to make it clear that wild mallards should not be prevented from joining the flock. On other issues: the report states that there is no evidence of mosquitos because of the controlling influence of mosquitofish. So, If the ducks continue to kill off the fish in the pond, the campus will be forced to deal with another unpleasant problem. The plan suggests a general landscaping effort for the rocky area behind Rowe. This would include planting evergreen bushes around the drainage pipe, hauling in topsoil and planting grass, and painting the pipe and the headwall to blend in with the surroundings. Also included are plans for a feed box for the ducks, paved walkways, and maintenance of the eroded end of the lake. Fishing, the plan maintains, is fine for the ecological balance of the lake. However, If the litter problem increases proportionately with fishing, it may be necessary to place restrictions on this activity. Mr. Moelchert, vice chancellor‘''of business affairs, wilt have the final word on adoption of the biology departments recommendation. He states that the plan will be considered on the basis of priority and available manpower and funds.
University of North Carolina at Charlotte Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 19, 1972, edition 1
1
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75