Texas State University Logo
Banner Image
J.C.Kellam 880
Office Hours: Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm (6:00 pm on meeting days)

Faculty Senate Meeting Information

Henrietta Avent Faculty Senate Meeting Room

Texas State Links

External Links

Join the Conversation

adjust type sizemake font smallermake font largerreset font size

Dec 6, 1995 Minutes

Present:  Bible, Caverly, Deduck-Evans, Ford, Glassman, Horne, Hunter,
Pascoe, Sawey, Stedman, Swinney, and Weller. Absent: Lyman, Middlebrook,
and Winek.

Guests: Prof. Michel Conroy; Mike Moore, and Sandra Akridge.


02 SENATE MINUTES OF 11/15 AND 11/29

The meeting was called to order at 4:02, Chair Swinney presiding.


Before discussing the handout on the Faculty Research Committee's
report on the Fall '95 research enhancement recipients, Prof. Conroy asked
the Senate to rule on a special case. The applicant is on a hiatus from
tenure track until 1997. Was this person eligible for a grant since grants
are specifically for those who are on tenure track? Since people do
occasionally move between lines (often to stop the tenure clock), it was
moved and passed that the rules should stand currently as they are.

The question was raised whether all fall-cycle monies not awarded
can be carried forward to the spring-cycle. This will be investigated.
The pool of applicants was small this fall and not every proposal was
funded, and some were not funded at the level requested. Should the rules
be changed to include non-tenure track, if it appears that a small pool is
going to be a trend and we cannot carry forward monies not distributed?

The Senate examined the report and voted approval. Twenty-seven
proposals were accepted. Fourteen were rejected for a variety of reasons.
Applicants can rework and resubmit proposals in the next cycle.

Prof. Conroy noted that the guidelines need to indicate that in the
future Human Subjects Committee (IRB) approval will be needed for such
research before awards can be made. Also we need to have electronic format
for forms and have everyone sign-off on everything in packet. Too many
proposals are coming through without all required materials.

The Senate thanked Prof. Conroy and her Committee for their careful
and diligent work.


Two handouts were distributed: (1) the PC's proposed 5-year plan
for student fees and (2) a report on the linkage between tuition and
enrollment. The latter indicates that low income students may leave school
if institutional aid is not available to offset increases. SWT is
preparing to increase the TPEG grant program by $550,000 for those on
financial aid.

VPF&SS Bill Nance and VPSA Jim Studer have been invited to discuss the
student fee plan at our next meeting, January 17.


Last week's Senate minutes reflected the debate over the wording
proposed by VPAA Gratz which seems to imply that "normally" tenure and
promotion to associate prof. go together and that early promotion before
tenure is "extremely rare." At the same time, the statement is made that
"the granting of tenure and promotion are two separate and distinct
actions." (1) If the two "normally" go together, then the criteria must be
basically the same, so how are they "separate and distinct"? (2) It is not
at all convincing from data of the last three years that promotion and
tenure always proceed together. [The 1993-95 numbers we have indicate 23
persons were granted both tenure and promotion to associate prof. at the
same time, while 28 were promoted to associate prof. and either had tenure
already or were going up before they were eligible for tenure. We do not
have the figures for the number of persons with tenure who did not apply
for or did not receive promotion, which could prove to be a sizable number
on investigation. The Senate has requested this data.]

The T&P Committee came up with alternative wording which reduced
the implication of inflexibility for departments and Schools. On the other
hand, the present wording is sufficiently open to allow flexibility, so why
change it. RTA'd for more input from departments.


Regent's Rules in Section V.4.1 encourages some kinds of outside
consulting activities but discourages "regular employment outside the
University." In any case, 4.(11)8 provides that "No member of the full-time
faculty of the System employed on a twelve-month or nine-month basis shall be
employed in any outside work or activity or receive from an outside source a
regular retainer fee or salary during the period of employment by the
University until a description of the nature and extent of the employment has
been filed with and approved by appropriate administrative officials as set
forth in the faculty handbook of each component University."

Our handbook provides that "The faculty member who seeks such approval
must submit a description of the nature and extent of the employment to the
President via the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the department chair,
and the school dean. If the outside employment is not antagonistic to the
interests of the State of Texas or the University and does not intrude upon the
academic functions of the faculty member, as determined by the President,
permission is granted in most cases."

VPAA Gratz has raised the question of whether our machinery is adequate
to ensure compliance with Regent's Rules.

One approach to this subject would be to require a standard form to be
used campus wide. The Senate briefly examined two models--one, a form used by
sister institution Sam Houston State, the other, a form used in our School of
Health Professions. After discussion, the Senate was of the opinion that
requiring faculty to complete an outside employment form might not accomplish
much. First, some faculty may be less than forthcoming in describing or even
admitting to being involved in outside employment. Second, if a chair or dean
is inclined to look the other way and not enforce the policy in individual
cases, requiring the completion of a form will not change that. In sum, to
require the forms will help the University accomplish its objective when
faculty are entirely candid and their chairs and deans are entirely diligent,
but not otherwise.

The Senate believed that the better practice would be to, first, ensure
that all faculty are aware of our outside employment policy, and second, to
instruct chairs and deans to enforce it to the best of their ability in
whatever manner they choose. If they want to require the completion of a form,
that is fine; if they have some other method that works for them, that is fine
as well.

In the course of the discussion, someone raised the question regarding
penalties for violation of the policy. It was noted that there was no way to
know because SWT, unlike at least some other institutions, has no faculty
disciplinary code. The Senate may investigate this subject when time permits.


The Staff Council has been compiling a list of perks the staff
should know about and utilize. We have received a copy of this tentative
list to review and add to (if any) for faculty amenities. Are there any
perks we would like to push for? [For example, Texas staff and faculty are
not allowed tuition waivers for dependents, as in some other states. We
could use some info on what other states have this, or other benefits.]
This will be an ongoing item.

02 SENATE MINUTES OF 11/15 AND 11/29

Minutes approved with addition of recent info that those faculty on
a 12 month paycheck will not see 2 percent added until March. You get the
same amount of money but it is apportioned differently.


(1) The SWT Faculty Senate now has a home page on the Internet,
thanks to Prof. Ev Swinney. Available to you and to others around the
world are such items as: SWT's Faculty Constitution, the Senate's
Standing Rules and Committees, Faculty Handbook, and Senate
Minutes. The page also provides links to University Policies (UPPSs), the SWT
Factbook, the Faculty Directory, and some 30 or so other Senate home pages
around the country. The Senate materials can be accessed from the SWT home
page index or by going directly to the Senate's URL:

(2) A report has been received from Prof. Don Hazlewood (Math
Dept. & Faculty Governance Com.) re "Changes in the Senior Faculty System
for Departmental Governance." In brief, the report suggests the wording in
the Faculty Handbook be changed to reflect what many departments already
do, i.e. allow all faculty to participate in most faculty decisions except
for personnel decisions that are the responsibility of the Senior Faculty.
This seems to be in line with our push toward inclusive total quality
management (TQM). This will be returned to the agenda after we have had an
opportunity to examine the report. Copies ofthe report are available on
request from the Senate Office.

Meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m.

Ramona Ford