Texas State University Logo
Banner Image
J.C.Kellam 880
512.245.8323
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

Jan 15, 1997 Minutes


Present: Bible, Bourgeois, Caverly, Deduck-Evans, Ford, Hays, Horne,
Hunter, McGee, Pascoe, Sawey, Simpson, Stimmel, Weller, and Winek.

Guests: Profs. Lou Caruana and Kim Folse; Margaret Vaverek (Library
liaison), Mike Moore, Dylan Sides (University Star), Shirley Pilus,

CONTENTS:

CURRICULUM COMMITTEE (Prof. Caruana)
COUNCIL OF CHAIRS DRAFT PPS
CHAIR AND DEAN HIRING--PPS 7.01
AGENDA FOR CAD/SENATE MEETING, 1/21/97
SPRING SENATE ISSUES
RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT GRANTS COMMITTEE (Prof. Folse)
MINUTES OF 10/16/96, 11/13/96, 11/20/96, 12/4/96.

The meeting was called to order at 4:00, Chair Bible presiding.

CURRICULUM COMMITTEE (Prof. Caruana)

After discussion the Senate voted to accept the report of the
Committee regarding course additions in Music, Honors, and Philosophy and
administrative changes (the Women's Studies core courses moved from
Sociology to the new WS prefix) with one nay, one abstaining, and 12 ayes.

COUNCIL OF CHAIRS DRAFT PPS

A new PPS (no number yet) outlining the duties of the Council was
accepted by a unanimous vote. The Council has been meeting for some years
without an "official" description.

CHAIR AND DEAN HIRING--PPS 7.01

After discussion of the draft to revise the PPS, a motion was
passed to ask that Search and Screen Committees be required to rank their
top acceptable candidates and not merely list candidates as "acceptable"
and "unacceptable," as set forth in the PPS. It was felt that after
spending much time examining the candidates' files, departmental or school
Committees should share their preferences with the Administration in
explicit terms. Secondly, the Senate concurred that the wording in the
draft be changed to reflect that the files of all acceptable ranked
candidates be sent up, not just the top person.

AGENDA FOR CAD/SENATE MEETING, 1/21/97

The Senate will meet with the Council of Academic Deans Tuesday,
January 21 from 1:30-3:30 (place to be determined). The agenda will
include the post-tenure review draft (which all faculty should have
received on e-mail by now) and the on-going bonus versus merit money-pool
question. [FYI: The Senate and the Council of Chairs voted to put the
monies into the merit pool which is added to base salary, while CAD and the
Administration have favored establishing a bonus system.]

SPRING SENATE ISSUES

(1) Chair Bible was instructed to bring to the Administration's
attention again the need for a Senate computer (we have the 1980s variety
which is limiting our Net research) and an increased annual budget for
duplicating capabilities. Every PPS and committee report the Senate
examines requires 16 copies and our $900 budget is shot in half a year.

(2) Long-time lecturers (15-20 years, in some cases) are not
eligible for research grants or teaching awards, despite the fact they may
be "world class" in their areas. [Prof. Hays brought to our attention two
faculty who are internationally recognized in karate and fencing as
examples of this type of oversight. In previous Senate meetings it was
brought to our attention that long-term lecturers in fields such as math
and accounting did not get to participate in these areas or travel to
professional meetings, etc.] There was consensus that this was unfair and
counterproductive. While research enhancement awards are controlled by the
Coordinating Board and cannot go to lecturers, at least awards of other
kinds are under local control. Chair Bible will investigate this.

(3) Grade appeals.

(4) Renewable terms for chairs.

(5) Faculty Handbook is not being followed in many areas.

(6) Library funds to depts. are over $1 million. So how are they
being spent? (Prof. Bourgeois offered us a future short course on this.)

(7) What is Research and Sponsored Projects doing with regard to
their process and procedures? [Questions have arisen in the past and the
Senate is interested in what has been done to facilitate the grant
process.] Are accounting procedures fast enough to keep up with grant
expenditures? Debate ensued regarding dept. experience.

RESEARCH ENHANCEMENT GRANTS COMMITTEE (Prof. Folse)

Dr. Folse presented a report on what projects were surveyed (44
total); 25 were funded, in full or in part. Most of those rejected fell
into the four categories of: (1) Aim and methodology were not well
delineated, (2) An IRB for research on human subjects was not obtained
from the IRB Committee before submitting the proposal, (3) Budget items
were not justified, or (4) Technical error (e.g. proposal was over
prescribed page limit or violated guidelines of applying too soon after
previous grants within the last five years).

Going into the fall funding cycle, SWT had $214,590 and $125,463
was allocated. We have $89,127 left over for an additional spring recycle
program. The Senate voted to approve the supplemental spring proposal
round. Persons applying must spend the funds by the end of August 1997.
Notices on this will go out soon from Research and Sponsored Projects, so
get your proposal together now with attention to aim, methodology, budget.

Those who have applied unsuccessfully can get recommendations for
improvement from their School committees. This past fall the Senate REG
Committee offered two help-programs to those applying, but they were poorly
attended. Anyone applying should attend any future programs to make sure
the guidelines and explanations are followed.

Prof. Folse suggested that the Committee would like to pursue some
questions on the SWT grant sponsorship. Discussion of changes included
upping the grant cap above the $6,000 limit (and the possible summer salary
above the $3,000 cap, set many years ago). Increased funding for some
projects might attract more applicants. The Senate rules will have to be
examined on these questions. A motion was made by Prof. Pascoe and
approved that the Committee return to the Senate with recommendations to
improve the Research Enhancement Grant processes and conditions.

The Senate moved to accept the Committee's report and thanked Prof.
Folse and the Committee for their serious efforts to provide SWT with
outstanding research grants. Prof. Folse pointed out that four members of
the committee now had expired terms. Prof. Folse was asked to chair the
Committee again and inquire about the willingness of others to serve whose
terms were expiring.

The guidelines for grant applications for Faculty Enhancement
Grants will be put on the Web for all to consider. New faculty are
particularly urged to apply, as this will assist you in research and
perhaps put you in a position to garner outside grants in the future.

MINUTES OF 10/16/96, 11/13/96, 11/20/96, 12/4/96.

RTA'd.

The meeting adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

Ramona Ford

Secretary