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

Nov 10, 1999 Minutes


Senators Present: Bible, Conroy, Early, Gillis, Gordon, Hays, Irvin,
McKinney, McGee, Peeler, Renick, Skerpan-Wheeler,
Stimmel, and Stone.

Absent: none

Liaisons Present: Margaret Vaverek, Library

Guests: Jerry Supple, President
Bob Gratz, Vice President
Pat Cassidy, Associate Vice President
Bill Meek, Art and Design, Academic Computing Committee
Mike Moore, Regents' Delight

CONTENTS
PAAG
AQUARENA CENTER
REALLOCATION OF UNIVERSITY RESOURCES
M&O
MERIT RAISES
ATP BUILDING SITE
ACADEMIC COMPUTING COMMITTEE PROPOSAL PROCESS
EQUITY PPS DRAFT
NEW BUSINESS
YET ANOTHER FACULTY SURVEY
PARAGRAPH 12, MERIT PPS

The meeting was called to order by Chair Hays at 4:00 p.m.

PAAG
AQUARENA CENTER

Dr. Supple reiterated his belief that Aquarena was _not_ a black
hole consuming university resources right and left. After the
initial $1.5 million loss whilst we and PFM were mismanaging
the Aquarena restaurant, et al., the Aquarena operations have
stabilized to, essentially, a break-even point -- maybe making a
little money some years, maybe losing a little other years.

Part of the money for damn repair and the Texas Rivers Center has
been identified; none will come from current university funds. So
university departments, in general, will not suffer because of the
existence of Aquarena.

Supple admitted that a couple of university departments have been
stretched a bit because of Aquarena. The Physical Plant budget, for
example, was not increased even though Physical Plant has to maintain
the buildings and systems at Aquarena. The same kind of thing happens
when we build a new academic building, but do not increase custodial
funding to account for new custodial duties.

Supple claims to be between a rock and a hard place [between the
water and the bank?] with respect to the part of the San Marcos
River immediately below the Spring Lake dam. While the City of
San Marcos has the right to allow swimming in the river itself, and
has voted to do so, TNRCC, as a state agency, has the right to
compel SWT to keep the corresponding banks of the San Marcos River
off limits, and has done so. Supple recognizes the point of the
argument that, in case of catastrophic failure of the dam, which
he thinks is extremely low in probability, then it would be best
if some folks were on the bank rather than all being in the river
itself. Supple is searching for an answer to the conundrum.

REALLOCATION OF UNIVERSITY RESOURCES

Gratz recognized the validity of studying the allocation of
university resources [faculty lines, staff lines, space, budget,
etc.] to see if differential growth in various areas might justify
increases and/or decreases in university resources allocated to
those areas.

Gratz said that he was beginning such a study this fall.

There was some discussion of the use/misuse of course fees.

In response to a question from Gordon, Gratz responded that using
instructional fees to pay for phone calls to students was questionable
unless calls could be linked to specific courses (an example Gratz
gave was an internship in which the professor made calls to the intern
to check on the intern's progress). Percent of phone calls charged to
instructional fees could be established by a two-week snapshot
of calls rather than having to log every call made throughout the year.

M&O

Supple says that he has, basically, three important and competing
demands for funds -- salaries, technology increases, m&o. He said
that we must, however, recognize that, given a fixed amount of money
to allocate, increases in funds for one of those demands demands
corresponding decreases elsewhere.

Supple said that SWT's basic problem is lack of funding by the
legislature through the formula funding mechanism. He said that
SWT gets about $113 per semester credit hour while the state average
is about $145 per sch. That $32 per sch difference, multiplied by
555,000 sch means that SWT gets about $17-18 million dollars less
than if we got the average formula funding. He is convinced that
he can do nothing about SWT's funding level; we must simply learn
to live with what we get.

MERIT RAISES

Supple said that there will be money for at least a 3% merit raise
in 2000-2001. Maybe some performance raise money as well. This
in addition to longevity raises, promotions, bonuses, equity
adjustments, etc.

In response to a question from Gordon, Supple and Gratz said that
there is no legislation calling for faculty raises beyond the current
biennium to be limited to merit raises only.

ATP BUILDING SITE

Supple said that architects have presented sketches of several
proposals for location of the ATP building. One that Supple seems
to like does not involve razing and rebuilding the NSB greenhouse.
Not drilling new water wells for San Marcos and not rebuilding the
greenhouse saves about $2.5 million. But increased construction
costs during the delay has wiped out that saving and added another
$4 million to the total cost of the building.

Supple says that the architects have said that they might be able
to recapture some of the lost time so that occupancy of ATP will not
be unduly delayed. He recognizes, however, that the Department of
Technology has serious reservations about ATP.

ACADEMIC COMPUTING COMMITTEE PROPOSAL PROCESS (MEEK)

Bill Meek presented a draft of the Academic Computing Committee's
"Request for Proposals" for use of the approximately $500,000 per
year that the ACC is allowed to disburse to departments for computing
needs.

The senate endorsed the proposal process with a request that the
committee clarify the way in which it would rank requests for
equipment for "open" computer labs vs. "special purpose" computer
labs.

EQUITY PPS DRAFT (HAYS)

The current draft of PPS 7.xx Faculty Salary Equity Study was
examined by the senate and found wanting.

1. Paragraph 4c. Remove the first instance of the word 'individual'.

2. Paragraph 5a. What is meant by 'age'? Longevity? Teaching
experience? Age discrimination?

3. Paragraph 5b. 'Department' seems to be somewhat amorphous.
How about 'Discipline'?

4. Paragraph 5d. There should be a specific listing of the various
degrees in the terminal/non-terminal categories, even if that
listing must be on a college-by-college or department-by-
department basis.

5. Paragraph 5e. Why is 'service' relevant? And, if it is, why
is only SWT service relevant?

6. Paragraph 5f. Why is 'administrative experience' relevant to
a study of faculty salaries?

In general, paragraph 12 is extremely important. It is here that
we avoid a situation wherein someone who has received few if any
merit raises might suddenly receive a large equity raise which would,
in effect, override the rationales, over the years, for that person's
failure to receive merit raises.

NEW BUSINESS
YET ANOTHER FACULTY SURVEY

Chester Banks wishes to alert the faculty that they soon will be
receiving a 'customer satisfaction' survey from the bookstore. He
urges all faculty to complete and return this survey.

PARAGRAPH 12, MERIT PPS (RENICK)

Renick reported on his attendance at a recent meeting of the Council
of Chairs, a meeting which 13 of 41 chairs attended.

After considerable discussion in the CofC, they reached consensus on
the following three points:

1. the Council does not support the Senate's proposed language for
paragraph 12 of PPS 7.10;

2. the Council does support the Senate's general recommendations
concerning grievance and merit awards; and

3. the Council supports a sub-group of approximately three chairs to
meet with a like group of senators to seek joint consensus on
paragraph 12 language that is based on the general recommendations.

The senate concurred with item 3. Bible, Gordon, Renick, and
Skerpan-Wheeler will meet with the CofC sub-group.

The minutes of 3 November 1999 were approved.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

cheerfully submitted

grady

sen.19991110