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

April 2, 2003 Minutes

Present:  Senators Renick, Conroy, Sawey, Peeler, Gillis, Stone, James, Blanda, Gordon, Frost, Hindson, Bell-Metereau, Brennan, Stutzman

Guests: Margaret Vaverek, Professor Martin, Professor Horn, Associate Vice President Covington, Micky Henry

Chair Renick called Faculty Senate to order at 4:02 and reviewed the agenda.

I.    Curriculum Committee
Dr. Martin reviewed curriculum committee recommendations, including the catalogue change from 36 choices to 61 possible choices for B.A. minors

Senator Hindson asked why we have minors and Senator Bell-Metereau suggested it was a political issue for SCH in various departments.  Senator Hindson said he
would address the issue with Dean Ellis.

Senator Hindson moved to approve the recommended changes, Senator Gillis seconded and the motion passed unanimously.

The next change was to add a Forensic Psychology minor.  Professor Osborne answered questions, including whether there was a need for a certificate or a minor.

Senator Conroy asked if there were any professional or accrediting agency that could offer legitimacy and Dr. Osborne said there was not.

Senator Stone suggested that Dr. Spencer from Criminal Justice might be available to consult.

Senator Gillis moved to approve and Senator James seconded, with unanimous approval.

II.   Research:

Dr. Covington reviewed handouts of a slide presentation he had given previously.

Senator Blanda asked how a grant activity benefits the faculty or university.

Dr. Covington said that it does, by offering a way to grow professionally to learn, research, and engage students.  Grants also increase the prestige of the institution.

Senator Frost asked if $5 of revenue is returned for each $1 expended.

Dr. Covington said this is generated in a community or the state, not just in the university.

Senator Blanda asked what is a grant, contract, and gift.

Dr. Covington said a definition is that in a grant, a final outcome is viewed as a best effort.  NSF expects best effort, whereas a contract is more definite in signing that something will be delivered.  If itís not given, youíre in breach of contract.  A gift has no strings.

Chair Renick asked about pay above base.

Dr. Covington said it could be implemented without having policy in place, up to 25% of 9-month salary or staff 12-month.  A constraint is having in writing
from the grantor that they donít mind you making more than your base.  Feds and states donít allow this, but sometimes a private granting agency doesnít care.

Senator Sawey asked if it takes space when research is done.

Dr. Covington said they ask the question in the budget process and the chair and dean review the information.

Senator Gillis asked if an organization gives money directly to faculty do they have to go through the university.

Dr. Covington said that some organizations will give money directly to the individual, which is fine, if the faculty provide a copy of what theyíre doing.

Senator Bell-Metereau asked if he had the percentages of departments and colleges in number of proposals and number of dollars, and Dr. Covington said they had that aggregated

Senator Conroy asked about student organizations and Dr. Covington said the Federal granting agency doesnít give money directly to the PI ordinarily.  If the university doesnít have to do anything and the agency will give to an organization, it isnít necessary to come through the grants office.

Senator Bell-Metereau asked about recruitment efforts and Dr. Covington said this was done electronically.

Senator Blanda asked about grants accounting and his office merging, and Dr. Covington said this wasnít set.

Senator Peeler asked about pending projects, such as the TSUS port security, Sam Houston and SWT targeting Texas ports as a model.

Senator Renick suggested that the office identify someone who would function like a P.I. at the University level, like a federal grants officer, so if a PI had question the faculty member would go to one person, to track and facilitate.

III.    Summer Teaching Workshop
Milt Nielsen reported on the summer 2002 IT workshop.  Two outside faculty came in to help create the workshop.  Focus was on specific instructional problems, ranging from academic dishonesty, software integration, active learning exercises, course in economics using software, to low level technology to support writing skills.  They didnít focus solely on technology.  Where tech was appropriate they offered instruction; in other cases, some reorganization and minor technology helped more.  They resolved all but one problem, on which they are still working.

Chair Renick asked if the senate considers the IT Workshop worthwhile and if the budget is well spent.

Senator Gillis said that if the money is there, whether or not it is spent on this, to go for it.  She moved to recommend and have as many faculty as possible, Senator Bell-Metereau seconded, and the motion passed with twelve in favor, one abstention.

IV.     Facilities
Dr. Horn reported on the University Facilities Committee, Senateís Facilities & Environmental Committee, and reporting lines.

Senator Bell-Metereau said that we  need a real environmental committee that considers environmental issues, such as recycling, green space, and university policies connected to the environment, not something simply folded into the rest of the committees that look at building space and planning.

Dr. Horn said it difficult to say whoís in charge.

Senator Frost agreed that it is hard to say whoís in charge or what will happen, once proposals are approved by committees and Then forwarded on for implementation.  He had questioned the role of Pat Cassidy, in order to clarify the roles of support services and academic affairs.  Nancy Nusbaum had explained that historically it has been tricky to avoid crossing lines regarding academic space.  Therefore, Dr. Cassidy was the interface or liaison between academic affairs and facilities.  Senator Frost said that this interface made sense, but that other aspects of the process may still need examination.  We donít need another committee, but we should get people involved in this committee with a stronger voice.  Dr. Cassidy represents from the administrative level, but no faculty are represented. The
administrative concerns of academic affairs, but we also need a faculty voice in the implementation phase of facilities. Since faculty are often the "end users" of the space.

Senator Peeler said that implementation is in a nebulous area.  The middle layer does a lot, resulting in some procedural problems.

Senator Stone said that we have a dysfunctional administrative system.  A provost system might fix the problem.

Dr. Horn said that you have to hunt for information on whatís going on.  There is no single way to find out without calling everyone on campus.

Senator Conroy said that it sounds as if the committee is not used for review or oversight.

Senator Frost asked if there was a way to do evaluations of people other than deans, chairs, etc.

Dr. Horn said that environmental issues seem to be placed on the back burner.

V. Old Business:

We discussed a response from Walter Rudzinski and a letter from Bob Randolph, former summer acting ombudsman.

Senator Stutzman stated that the sexual harassment wording and policy on ìFalse accusation will be dealt with Öî are unclear, non-specific.

Senator Hindson asked if we have any numbers on how many accusations occur.

Chair Renick suggested that Gilda Garcia would have that information.

Senator Blanda reminded the senate that we need elections for research representatives for Liberal Arts, Fine arts, etc.  We still have the issue of nominating college chairs for fine arts and liberal arts.

VI.     New Business:
Chair Renick said that the President had made comments about tenure and promotion:  Senator Stutzman reported on a five-hour CAD meeting, in which the
president said that for tenure and promotion this year she would continue under current policies but next year there will be a big change.  It seemed as if too many were going up too early, before 5 and 10 year periods.  There was no necessary connection between tenure and promotion.  Weíd have to change the handbook in order to implement these changes.  Also, several departments send people up for promotion before tenure, and sheís not in favor of that.  On the issue of transferring credit from other places; she wants to go to a 6-year policy, just counting what occurs here.  Sheís open to hiring senior faculty with tenure.  She is amazed at the number of proceedings and presentations that occur and arenít turned into journal articles.  She wants to see more such papers and presentations turned into articles.

VII.    Other Agenda Items

PAAG social on April 16 and senators meeting on April 17.  The following will be put on PAAG agenda.

Continued discussion of issues raised by Senator Stutzman. Health care costs shifting to consumers, McBride to talk about that, constricting choices.

Questions on post-tenure review RTAíd to next agenda.

Developmental leaves also on agenda (10). 1 person on 16th.

Action on minutes from 19th; Gillis:

Initiating Senate Elections starting next Monday.

Minutes for March 19th and 26th were approved with minor changes.

Executive session to discuss voting issues.

Adjourned at 6:05.