Call to order: 4:00 pm.
Senator Renick chaired this session of the Faculty Senate as Chair Hays was away on business.
The preliminary meeting agenda was revised slightly and the structure was set to allow the session to proceed.
Reminders were made that the Senate would meet on (1) December 6, 2000 (a PAAG meeting) on the 11th floor of JCK in the Regent's Room and (2) December 13, 2000. December 13th is the first day
of finals and several Senators may not be present.
Item 1. Merit Grievance Form
Senator Stone provided a revision of a previously developed Merit Grievance Form which reflects the input of the Council of Academic Deans. Review by and input from the Senators resulted in minor changes. The revised form will be sent forward through Chair Hays for review by CAD once again. Several Senators commented that the Senate really wants a paper trail of all appeals and decisions rendered to be available for both VPAA and Faculty Senate review. CAD has concurred.
Item 2. Status of Potential Dismissal of a Tenured Faculty Member
A query was made regarding the potential dismissal of a tenured faculty member. As the Senate understands the situation (no request has been made to involve the Senate at this point in time), a letter of dismissal as of the end of the Spring semester has been issued. However, the University has agreed to mediation and the outcome has yet to be determined.
Item 3. Status of the Academic Honesty Task Force
Senator Gillis reports that the Task Force has been established and that the first meeting is scheduled for December 13, 2000. She requested that the Senate provide some issues for discussion.
Several items were suggested including:
(1) Determining whether or not there is an academic honesty problem on the SWT campus,
(2) Determining whether or not the the current policies are being implemented,
(3) Determining the role of the Dean of Students Office in the process. For example; (a) Are the current procedures a linear process from academic accusations through Student Justice judgment and disciplinary actions? or, Is the academic process independent of the Dean of Students Office process? If the procedure is linear, there appears to be a serious conflict of interest by the Dean of Students Office having an "Advocacy Policy" on behalf of students in academic matters and is simultaneously administering honesty policies and procedures. Who advocates for faculty members?
(b) Do we want a student driven policy? Should the ASG be involved? (c) Should the policies be different for Under-graduate versus Graduate students? and,
(4) Will the University fund a site license PC software program that allows student papers to be scanned and tested for plagiarism, etc.?
Item 1. Determination of December 6, 200 PAAG Agenda
(1) Report on the current status of SWT's I-A football initiative.
(2) Consideration of the feasibility of creating an Academic Quality Team for reviewing the faculty recruiting search process and possibly establishing a time line to enhance recruiting.
(3) Summary report on the last Board of Regents' meeting.
Item 2. Salary Compensation Study
A salary compensation study from the University of Houston wassubmitted by Senator Stone for Faculty Senate review. Presumably, the study will be discussed at a later date. We always have"discretionary equity."
Item 3. Student Classroom Behavior
Several Senators commented on the current academic climate in theclassroom. Customer behavior appears to lack respect and responsibility for the learning process. Senator Sawey suggested that a Faculty Senate Web Survey be conducted to gather other colleague thoughts on customer civility (or lack there of) and possible causes.
Item 4. Approval of Minutes
Faculty Senate Minutes for the November 15, 2000 meeting were approved.
Meeting adjourned, 5:10 pm.