Faculty Senate Minutes
April 20, 2007
Present: Bantell, Bickley, Causgrove, Cook, Elwood, Fugate, Hartlaub, Johnson, King, Lewis, Lucero, Murray, Oliver, Pierson, Pohan, Reuter, Talley, Thomas, Waheeduzzaman, Winston, Yellen.
New Senators Present: Byus, Changchit, Cammarata, MacDonald, Griffith, Mortimer.
Guests: Carroll, Cassidy, Garrett, Pearce, Piker, Ward.
I. Approval of 3/23/07 minutes
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Hartlaub. It was moved and seconded to approve the minutes. The minutes were approved.
II. Speaker Comments
1. Hartlaub noted that service expectations at the University are not as high a priority as research or teaching. He thanked the members who have served or will be serving on Senate, as it is an important body for faculty.
2. The Provost search will be conducted through the summer with the goal of having a new Provost by August 1.
3. COLA and the Texas Council of Faculty Senates – Hartlaub would like to pursue the idea of implementing Cost of Living Allowances for faculty. If he is re-elected Speaker, he will use the platform of the Texas Council of Faculty Senates to gather support and inform people of the need for COLA.
III. Agenda items
Faculty Affairs Committee
o Policy 12.01.99.C2 – Tenure (attached) – Yellen outlined some of the concerns the Committee had with this policy. In Section 3.1, the Committee would like to delete the sentence, “Such extensions must be based on extraordinary circumstances and require written concurrence by the faculty member, department head, dean, and the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs.” The tone limits faculty despite the existence of another policy on extension of tenure.
In Section 4.1.2. “No additional material can be added to the dossier
after submission except for letters by various evaluators.” The Committee
felt there might be added materials, to correct something, perhaps, that could
not be added. Hartlaub clarified that the Committee wants to eliminate this
sentence or change the language. In Section 4.3.1, there is additional language
that states, “Once the review process begins, no other materials may
be added to the dossier….”. This should be clarified with the earlier
In Section 4.2.3, the Committee would like to reinstate the deleted language regarding workload (See p. 6 of the Faculty Meeting packet). Because the Senate Committees have found drastically different workload among colleges and departments, the faculty would like to see this remain in the document.
In Section 4.3.2, the Committee would like to add “Faculty comments will become a part of the materials that go forward.”
Section 4.4.2 had been deleted. The Committee would like to see this section reinstated. This section deals with the candidate meeting with the committee, either at the committee’s request, or the candidate’s request.
King also had suggestions regarding the policy. In Section 3.4 the department chair is included, but not in Section 3.3. In Section 4.2.1, “and” appears to be unneeded. After discussion regarding the meaning of the clauses, “and” was appropriate for that sentence. In Section 4.2.2, there is no agreement between the plural and singular in scholarly works/creative activity. It was suggested to change the phrase to: “scholarly works and/or peer-reviewed products/creative activities.
Reuter asked about the history of this document, and if this has gone to the Deans’ Council. Winston confirmed that the Deans have seen this document.
King had other suggestions/corrections: Under Section 4.2.3, he suggested striking “who are granted tenure” as the policy is about tenure; Section 4.3.1, subparagraph 12, the grant information requested should be changed to plural, and changed to the past tense; in Section 4.4.1, the second sentence regarding college-level or department-level should agree with the heading 4.4, “”Review by the College and/or Departmental Faculty Tenure Committee”. King also noted that the Provost sets all dates for deadlines for the various tenure timelines, but there is no time for when these timelines will be announced. King also suggested including in Section 4.6.4 the word “immediately” after “A copy of the committee’s letter will be sent to the candidate.”
Bantell noted that in Section 2.5, the list of criteria is limited. She would like to include course development or program development. King noted that it is in faculty’s favor to have a limited list, as these are things faculty must do.
After some discussion, Hartlaub asked if we want to recommend these changes
or amend the policy. There was a sense that this document needs further study
and discussion. A motion was made and seconded to table this and send it back
to committee for further work. Oliver requested that people send their comments
to the committee to assist it in its work. The motion was approved.
o Year-end report – Yellen corrected a mistake in the year-end report, that the Committee wants to continue to review Chairs every year.
o Year-end report –Bickley asked members to read the Year-end report. She told Senators about Patricia Hill, the Director of the Transitions office, who submitted her dissertation to the National Academic Advising Association, and won the dissertation award.
o Nursing 1-year term (bylaw suspension) – Hartlaub explained the problem with the Nursing Senators, one of whom should be serving a one year term, due to the departure of one of the former Nursing Senators. Although we should have caught this error before elections were held, we didn’t. Hartlaub moved to suspend the portion of the By-laws requiring election of half the Senators each year, until next year’s election. At that point ABE will solicit a candidate to run for a 1 year term, and we will be in compliance with our Constitution and By-laws. The motion was seconded and approved.
• Committee on Committees
o Year-end report –Thomas reported the end-of-year results for this Committee. They found there was no consistency between Colleges about workload, and there was very little information about a 12 month status for Nursing faculty or for Librarians. Those issues should be dealt with at the college level. In terms of filling committee positions for representatives from the Faculty Senate, they are mostly completed. There is one vacancy for a position of a Faculty Senator on the CORE Curriculum Committee. This led to a discussion of the make-up of the CORE Curriculum Committee, and an undergraduate curriculum committee. Pohan and Lewis spoke in favor of having a Undergraduate Curriculum committee that oversees CORE and all other undergraduate curriculum. Senators discussed the difficulties in getting courses approved to be part of the CORE, and the fact that the CORE Curriculum Committee is very powerful and not representative of the whole university.
Pohan moved that the Senate recommend to the Provost to change the CORE Curriculum Committee to an Undergraduate Council, overseeing all curriculum for the undergraduate programs. The motion was seconded. More discussion followed, including if this is something we want to describe further, or send to the Provost’s Office now.
A friendly amendment was added by Pohan to have the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee have equal representation from the Colleges. A vote was called for, with 4 voting for the motion and 14 against, with 1 abstention. The motion does not pass.
Pohan moves to put this on the Academic Affairs Committee agenda for next year. The motion is seconded, and passes, 19 for 1 against.
Academic Affairs Committee
o Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction ¬– Causgrove noted that the Executive Summary of the PhD program for Curriculum & Instruction is in the packet. The Academic Affairs Committee recommends approving this program, and Causgrove so moved. The motion was seconded. There was no discussion, and the motion passed.
o Year-end report – Causgrove reported on the issue of consistency for student evaluation. The Committee determined that this is really a college level issue. They also worked on policy regarding an appeal process for academic dishonesty. This document is currently being reviewed in Dr. Billeaux’s office, and will come back to Senate next year for review.
o Year-end report – Waheed reported that the Budget Committee’s year-end report was contained in the completed Merit Survey Report.
IV. Other issues
Merit Pay Survey – Discussion continued
Hartlaub suggested that if everyone got COLA, then Merit would become truly Merit-based. Oliver noted that the National Faculty Survey showed Texas faculty salaries down 5% in real dollars. Hartlaub asked the question, what should we do with the Merit Survey? It has been sent to all College Deans. Pohan raised the issue about how the dollars are distributed to the Colleges, Hartlaub said that Orser described the process, a percentage of a unit’s total salary is budgeted as the merit pool for that unit. The Dean and other administrators in the unit decide further how they are distributed. Pohan said that a formula based on percentages rewards the highest earners more. After more discussion, Pohan moved that the Senate recommend that administration look at a more equitable distribution of the pool of merit dollars going to colleges, by number of faculty and their rank as opposed to a percentage of total salaries. The motion was seconded. Debate continued and the question was called. Nine Senators voted for the motion, 10 voted against, with 1 abstention. The motion did not pass.
Waheed suggested that Senate take the survey and meet as a body with the Deans
and Chairs and ask them how to resolve inconsistencies and make the merit process
more fair. Thomas said we need to do COLA first. Hartlaub noted that the closeness
of the vote meant that Senate needed to do more work and have more discussions
on this issue. Reuter mentioned that the Library was not considered when the
survey was written. It needs to be rectified, and should happen next year.
Core Curriculum – Discussion
Hartlaub said that a motion was made to discuss this issue at the meeting, and it is on the agenda. Elwood passed out a chart showing the formula funding differential for faculty salaries teaching classes in different fields. The fields are not valued similarly by the Coordinating Board. Hartlaub asked is Senate the place for this discussion? Guest Martin Ward noted that a good case can be made for putting Education courses in the CORE, and there is an issue about representation on the CORE Committee. Pohan noted that the Coordinating Board gives flexibility, but the University’s requirements are very specific. The CORE Curriculum Committee may approve something, but the College must approve, they are the decision-maker.
A motion was made to extend the meeting at 3:55 p.m. The meeting was extended.
Cook moved that this be sent to the Academic Affairs Committee next fall to be discussed. The motion was seconded. The motion passed 16 to 2 with 1 abstention.
International Faculty – HR hurdles
Hartlaub described international faculty complaints about their HR paperwork. Although graduate students’ paperwork is processed efficiently, faculty members paperwork is delayed and incomplete. Hartlaub moved that the Speaker of the Senate meet with Lovitt to improve this process. The motion was seconded. Griffith, a newly elected Senator, testified to the problems he had coming here from Canada four years ago. It was a terrible ordeal and it was all preventable. The question was called, and the motion passed.
Acting provost decisions: for Senate’s information only. Decisions
made by Orser, reversing Wheeless decisions.
o Evaluation of Chairs every year
o Calendar returns to “normal” except for the Monday faculty meeting moved to Friday
o Awards (Academy Speaks separate from other awards)
V. Recognition of outgoing senators – Outgoing Senators Cook, Oliver, Pohan, Thomas, Talley & Hartlaub were honored with a certificate and a thank you from Hartlaub and other Senators. Outgoing Senators left the meeting.
VI. Seating of new senators – New Senators were seated at the table.
Election of Officers – Bickley presided over the election of officers for the Senate. Hartlaub was elected Speaker, Yellen was elected Deputy Speaker, and Lucero was elected Secretary.
Calendar Committee representative
Creation of senate committees – Senate then formed into Committees for next year. The make-up of the standing committees are:
o Faculty Affairs – Oliver (Education), chair; Bickley (Library); Lucero (Business); Murray (Nursing)
o Committee on Committees – Johnson (Education), chair; Byus (Business); Cammarata (S&T)
o Budget – Waheed (Business), chair; Lewis (Liberal Arts); Reuter (Liberal Arts); Bantell (Nursing); Elwood (Education); King (S&T)
o ABE – Pierson (Library), chair; McDonald (S&T); Hartlaub (Liberal Arts); Yellen (Nursing)
o Academic Affairs – Talley (Liberal Arts), chair; Griffith (Education); Mortimer (Nursing); Changchit (Business); Causgrove (S&T)
o It was moved and seconded to approve the make-up of the Executive Committee as follows: Hartlaub (Liberal Arts), Speaker
Yellen (Nursing), Deputy Speaker
Lucero (Business), Secretary
Pierson (Library), ABE
Causgrove (S&T), Academic Affairs
Oliver (Education), Faculty Affairs
Johnson (Education), Committee on Committees
Waheed (Business), Budget
Talley (Liberal Arts) Academic Affairs
The make-up of the committee was approved.
Summer retreat – Hartlaub announced that Senate will hold a Summer retreat if approximately 15 Senators can attend. At that time we will prioritize our agenda and assign tasks to committees.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Submitted by Sally Bickley, Secretary