January 23, 2002
Senators Present: Sawey, Peeler, Gillis, Stone, Hays, Blanda, Blevens, Stimmel, Hindson, Margerison (for Brennan), Stutzman, Mckinney, Renick
Absent: EAPS representative TBA
Guests: Bob Pankey, Chris Frost, David Doerr
Meeting called to order 4 pm. by Senate chair, Renick
Senators Hindson and Stone reported about the activities of the newly appointed Post Tenure Review Committee. The Senate representatives are concerned the current committee is limiting its scope to the implementation of the current policy rather than re-evaluating policy as well as procedure. This may become moot since nobody seems to be able to find a copy of the actual policy. Is that the Keystone Kops who just raced by? Perhaps the Board of Regents might have a copy. The Senate representatives opined that there may need to be a broadening of the current charge to the committee to allow changes in policy if that seems appropriate. The Senate recommended a good faith attempt to make this committee do what it should do, particularly since re-evaluating Post Tenure Review was one the Senate priorities for this year.
Senator Stutzman reported that the faculty evaluations of the President and the VPAA are presently being prepared for electronic coding. We should have some results in a couple of weeks. After some discussion about how to handle narrative responses on the evaluation forms Senator Sawey moved and Senator Stone seconded a motion that we merely list the narrative comments without any attempt to do specific analysis. This motion was accepted unanimously.
There is great expectation of a high quality of literary effort from the faculty (In other words, these comments should be a good read.)!
Bob Pankey, chair of the HPERD department, came before the Senate to present his desire for an increase of fees for Faculty and Staff for recreational activities in Jowers Center. He stated that the supervision of these recreational activities, specifically the noon time activities in Jowers, as well as the cost of equipment, wear and tear, etc. are costing the HPERD department M and O money. In addition he is concerned about the health of recreation participants unless supervisory personnel are available to aid with injuries. He reminded the Senate that the cost of the equipment and facility maintenance is born by HPERD. The plan is that Recreational Sports personnel would supervise these activities and the increase in fees would be necessary to pay for these supervisors and to help maintain those facilities that are used by the noon recreation group.
Dr. Pankey was also concerned that Jowers is essentially an unsupervised facility and is a potential problem for liability because of injury possibilities. A number of Senators were concerned that this fee increase was being implemented with no input from faculty and staff, and especially none from the people who use the facilities. Dr. Pankey replied that there was no precedent that indicated that he needed to consult the faculty or staff. Gee whiz, guys, has he learned the administrative rules well? And so quickly, too! Senator Hindson asked how many participated during the noon hour recreation period. The response was 25-40 on TTH. These were faculty and staff people. These are the university slam-dunkers and rim hangers! Senator Stone wondered what Bill Fly�s response to this situation was. Mr. Fly apparently recommended that the building needs to be secured against non university people. It was pointed out that some of the �old timers� in the noon recreation group were non university people, adults with a fair amount of standing in the community. It was also mentioned that the proposed $45.00 fee would allow use of the Recreation Building as well as Jowers.
An impassioned plea to keep the noon program as a wellness service to the faculty was made by Chris Frost. There was concern that the fee structure was not based on actual costs and this formalized approach would deter faculty from following a fitness program. He cited UPPS 04.04.3 which �authorizes state agencies to use funds and facilities for fitness programs�.
There was great concern that this spontaneous �ad hoc� fitness program might be destroyed by this fee and the rigid supervision that seems likely to accompany it. Senator Sawey moved and Senator Gillis seconded a motion that Dr. Pankey determine what the actual cost for the faculty/staff use of the facility is, something that the Faculty Senate and the Staff Council can consider supporting, and go to the President�s Cabinet for funding. (After all the President has actively participated in this program for many years. ) The motion was passed unanimously. Isn�t it surprising how the little �perks� that faculty and staff have seem to disappear in the FTFE/SCH/M & O/SPI alphabet soup?
Senators returned from their caffeine and chocolate break refreshed and ready to conquer new heights. The next mountain peak was the recommendations from the Commencement Committee. Senator Stone moved and Senator Sawey seconded that the Senate accept the recommendations of the Commencement Committee. The motion was accepted unanimously. Hindson commented, in passing, that it would be nice to have graduation by department rather than College, with the chair serving as marshall for his group. Hays commented that it would be nice to have the graduation set up so that graduate students receiving their degrees would be required to remain at the ceremony until it was over instead of rudely leaving before the undergraduates had graduated. No more faculty �perks� and no manners among the graduate students. Sigh!!!!!!! I wonder if Plato had this trouble with his students?
There was some unsurprisingly heated discussion about the SCH/FTFE targets. The Senate wished, through our representation on the CAD, to recommend , not having seen any real results from the current supposed reallocation process, that the targets were, perhaps, not set realistically to begin with. It was mentioned that it might be useful to revisit those targets (set in 1996) and determine those areas that, for various reasons, cannot possibly meet these targets due to other constraints. It was moved by Senator Blevens and seconded by Senator Margerison that the Senate seek a partnership with the Council of Chairs to evaluate the first round of the SCH target process to determine the effect on academic instruction, programs, and curricula. This motion was accepted enthusiastically and unanimously. It was noted that a member of the College of Fine Arts, who continuously reminds the rest of the Senators that his department has met its targets, received a reallocation from the College of Education and from the College of Applied Arts. Brag, brag, brag!
Some discussion developed in response to the statement by President Supple at the previous Senate meeting concerning cost cutting measures that were being imposed but not yet clearly defined by the Texas Governor�s office. Senator Blevens (feeling just a bit peckish) moved and Senator Margerison seconded a motion adamantly recommending that the administration , in pursuing cost saving measures, focus on item two in the memo. This would include deferring capital purchases and cutting the scope of capital projects. The motion passed with 8 for, 2 against, and one abstaining. It is nice to see that we are not always of the same mind.
The Senate voted to accept Mike Boone, EAPS, as the replacement for Mike Carns who has had to take a medical leave.
The Minutes of Jan. 16, 2002, were approved as read although it was commented that they were a tad dull. Sorry!
Minutes decorously submitted by Joan Hays