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

Feb 16, 2000 Minutes


Called to order at 4:00pm.

Senators Present: Bible, Conroy, McKinney, Skerpan-Wheeler, Stimmel, Gordon,
Renick, Stone, Peeler, McGee, Hays

Absent: Gillis

Guests: Dr. Hazelwood, Dr. Carranco

1.  Academic Computing Committee Report
Dr. Hazelwood presented her report (appended to minutes).
The Committee reviewed 19 proposals with requests totaling $661,731.
Committee decided to fund all proposals at a reduced rate by making
budget cuts in proposals.  [They were able to fund all requests because
there were fewer requests this round].  Total funded proposals equaled
$484,385.  Requests such as furniture, computer network connections and
other items covered under HEAF funds were cut from budget proposals as
were requests that were for students (such as projector screens) rather
than used by students.  If money is left over the committee wants to
expand the funding for computers requested in the Philosophy
Departmentís proposal.

Q: What is the balance between PC vs. Mac requests?
A: Possibly 20% of the requests were for Macs, the campus is 60% Macs
and 40% PC.

Q:  What was the response of applicants to the cuts?
A: Those that Dr. Hazelwood talked to said they were pleased to be still
under consideration and willing to make cuts.

Report was accepted unanimously.

2.  University Smoking Policy
Dr. Carranco met with the Senate to discuss proposed changes in the
Universityís Smoking/Non-Smoking policies.  Dr. Carranco stated that
the  Universityís smoking policy comes up for review at a time when new
research shows the breadth of the adverse health effects of second-hand
smoke. [Dr. Carranco reviewed a long list of health problems that
research has linked to second-hand smoke, discussed the economic impact
on businesses of their employees smoking, and safety hazards associated
with smoking.] Based on this research, and in his role as head of the
medical services on campus,  Dr. Carranco is recommending that SWT move
to become a smoke-free workplace.  Residence Life has requested an
exception to this policy asking that they be allowed to establish
smoke-allowed dormitory areas.  Because the carcinogens in tobacco smoke
cannot be effectively filtered, Dr. Carrancoís recommendation is that
there be no smoking allowed in any University building or vehicle.

Senate discussion concerned the Senates taking a position on a
smoke-free environment.  Currently, John McBride is in charge of
developing a revised UPPS on smoking and disseminating it for comments
through the appropriate University channels.

Resolution: The Senate endorses Dr. Carrancoís proposal and supports the
University establishing an indoor smoke free policy on campus.
Vote to suspend the rules to act on new business: passed 7-2-1
Vote to endorse a smoke free policy on campus passed 7-2

Break: 5:05

3.  Developmental Leave Eligibility

The Faculty Senate discussed the eligibility of Senators to take
development Leaves.  PPS #8.02 paragraph 4 states that faculty senate
members are not eligible for development leave during their tenure on
the Senate. However, the Faculty Senate Constitution makes a provision
for a senator to be on leave and appoint a temporary member in their
place [p. 64, item G2 Faculty handbook].  To the extent that the
constitution conflicts with the PPS the PPS takes precedence.

Senate Opinion based on the Faculty Handbook is that a senator may apply
for a developmental leave as long as they take no part in the senates
deliberation and ranking of leaves.  If granted a developmental leave,
they may not serve on the Senate while holding their leave.
 

4.  Developmental Leave Ranking Committee

 The Senate discussed the fact that when CAD reviewed the developmental
leave proposals some Deans ranked proposals differently than the
Senate.  If the Deans want to form a committee to examine this issue the
Senate is willing to participate, however, the Senate spent a lot of
time developing their ranking process and believes it is fundamentally
sound.  As always, the Senate remains willing to discuss the issue with
member of CAD.
 

5. Old Business:

The Senate discussed, amended, and passed the following resolution
concerning the Football Programís move to Division 1-A.

Regarding the decision to move to Division I-A in football, the Faculty
Senate hereby resolves:

1. By unanimous vote, to strongly protest the fact that the
administration did not consult faculty, students or staff during the
development of the proposal, even though it appears to have been under
consideration since Mike Alden was Athletic Director.

2. By majority vote, to oppose the move on its merits, because of
concerns about the negative message which many think it sends regarding
the relative importance of academics at SWT, the possible adverse effect
on the academic infrastructure and on student activity fees and fee
allocations, what appears to be the overly optimistic nature of the many
projections on which the proposal is based, and the ability of the
football program to compete successfully at the 1-A level.

3. To direct its Budget Committee to continuously monitor SWT's progress
in meeting the detailed 1-A business plan and to report to the Senate,
no less often than semi-annually, on its conclusions and
recommendations.

4. To direct its Academic Policy and Oversight Committee to continuously
monitor whether the move compromises in any way the university's
academic programs and to report to the Senate, no less often than
semi-annually, on its conclusions and recommendations.  Specifically,
the committee is directed to the Senate's concern about the use of
Student Activities Fees to partially fund the move and the potential
impact that the diversion of this money may have on academic programs.

6. Corrections to the minutes of 2/9/00 were discussed and accepted.
Motion to approve minutes was seconded and unanimously accepted.