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

Aug 7, 2002 Minutes

APPROVED FACULTY SENATE MINUTES 44TH FACULTY SENATE AUGUST 7, 2002

  

Approved Senate Minutes
August 7, 2002
 

Senators Present: Blanda, Blevens, Brennan, Carns, Gillis, Hindson, Renick, Sawey, Stone, Stutzman, Weller for Conroy

Senators Absent:  Bell-Metereau, Frost, James, Peeler

Guests:  Annie Thompson (University Star), Daniel Lochman, David Doerr (University Star), Francis Rose, Stanley Israel, Margaret Vaverek, Walter Rudzinski and Charlene B levens

The meeting was called to order at 4:00 pm.

A moment of silence was held for Bill Peeler�s family that was just reported in a car accident.

Chair Renick welcomed all senators and guests and proceeded with the review of the agenda.

Vice Chair Blevens was congratulated for his appointment as the Associate Dean of the School of Journalism at Oklahoma University,

The first item on the agenda was the Aquatic Resources Doctoral Proposal

Renick restated the Senate�s concerns about the cost of doctoral programs, the validity of business plans submitted to the Senate, and the process for presenting doctoral proposals to the Senate.

Renick commended Senator Blanda for thoroughly reviewing the proposal�s financials, including account and special program initiative funds.

Renick met with Dean Israel about the proposal to state the need for establishing responsibility and accountability for meeting the proposals financial forecast. Dean Israel stressed his willingness to take responsibility and be accountable for the viability of the financial forecast. He stressed his willingness to address the Senate about the proposal.

Renick made a request to then President Select Trauth, to provide the senate with a written statement of her assessment of the proposal. President Select Trauth endorsed the proposal in writing and encouraged the Senate to join in the endorsement.

In response to the meeting with Dean Israel, he was welcomed to the meeting and asked to address the Senate.

Dean Israel described three basic criteria that he uses to evaluate doctoral proposal, and monitor their progress if implemented. The three criteria are as follows:

1. doctoral programs need six to seven students to be graduated each year;
2. if students are only coming from Texas, the program is not making an impact on the discipline; and
3. programs with a pattern of accepting its own undergraduate students are weak programs, or the faculty are being selfish with their top students.

Dean Israel feels th at the Aquatic Biology proposal will successfully meet each criterion.

Dean Israel stated that Biology is a leading tuition producer at the University. However, Dean Israel stated that if the Aquatic Biology program does not meet the three criteria, it should not be continued. If it is not a 10-15 percent tuition producer then it does not need to exist. He reiterated no doubt about the program�s success.

Senator Sawey questioned if five years is when Dean Israel expects the program to reach equilibriu m.  Dean Israel stated it was seven years, but it should be profitable in the fifth year.

Senator Sawey asked about the formula for funding and tuition increases from July to January.  Dean Israel stated that the projections were done by the Budget Office.

Senator Stone made the motion to accept the proposal and Senator Gillis seconded.

During discussion, Senator Blevens asked about the financial viability of the proposal. Senator Blevens asked Dean Israel if he would put the three criter ia in writing, and that the program would be terminated if the criteria were not met. Dean Israel responded positively to this request and that a fourth criterion about financial support would be included. Dean Israel reiterated that the Aquatic Biology proposal would meet all of the criteria.

Chair Rose commented that he has no intention of putting together a bad proposal and that he has no interest in a substandard program.

Senator Hindson commented on Dean Israel�s earlier comment about Biology bei ng the second most productive department. Senator Hindson wants the list of departments. The Senate will request the listing referred to by Dean Israel.

Senator Sawey commented that he expects to hear from Dean Israel in five years.

Senator Stutzman initiated further discussion with a series of questions, including how many other doctoral programs like this one exist in the country and what is the demand for graduates?  Dr. Rudzinski commented that there are very few. Senator Blanda identified a list of federal and local agencies that have an interest in such graduates.

Renick noted that Stutzman�s points were well made and that the Aquatic Biology proposal should stand on its own merit.

With discussion concluded, the Senate voted in favor of the proposal by a vote of nine in favor , none opposed and one abstention.

Acting Senator Weller talked about the commitment level by Dean Israel, and stated appreciation  that he would come before the Senate to demonstrate that commitment. Senat or Blevens made a similar comment about accountability by Deans for doctoral proposals.

Senators questioned the financial viability of the Geography doctoral program and its real numbers. Senators restated their desire to know the real cost of doctoral programs as a whole.

Renick stated there would be no further doctoral proposals until the to be established Presidential Committee on the academic planning process has reported its recommendations.

BREAK

In the second hour of the faculty senate me eting, the senate met with Ms. Meg Grant from the Counseling Center at SWT to identify new senate objectives for the coming year and to eliminate and combine objectives from the previous year.  During the 2001-02 academic year, the senate identified nine objectives that constituted specific goals that the senate would attempt to achieve outside of its normal committee structure.  Essentially, subcommittees of senators were assigned to each objective.

SWT FACULTY SENATE, 2002-2003
 

 DRAFT OBJECTIVES

1. The Senate will become actively and substantially involved in shared governance with the new president (P.C., CAD, College Council ).

2. The Senate will make specific recommendations concerning post-tenure review, including all aspects of related policies, procedures, and processes. (consistent tenure, promotion policy) and post tenure review including.
 

3. The Senate will monitor University financial management to make specific
recommendations concerning the allocation of resources, including budget development, actual expenditures, and understanding discretionary spending and reserves.

4. The Senate will monitor proposed reallocations of faculty full-time equivalents (FTEs) based on student credit hours (SCH) and make recommendations concerning the alignment of proposed reallocations with the University�s mission statement and purposes.

5. The Senate will recommend the development of hiring guidelines for recruiting faculty and monitor hiring patterns, including the use of temporary/adjunct faculty.
 
(new tenure track, including and emphasizing decreasing use of  Temporary and adjunct instructors and including tenure- track positions particularly for undergraduate programs.

6. The Senate will review concerns about faculty salary compression and make recommendation consistent with the review findings.

7. The Senate will develop recommendations to increase faculty involvement in the evaluation processes for VP�s and President (Assoc and Assistant).

8. The Senate will monitor athletics.

9. The Senate will develop a process to identify faculty concerns and make them known to the Administration, including topics such as academic honesty.

As a result, the number one objective of becoming actively and substantially involved in the selection of the new president at SWT was accomplished and removed from the list for 2002-03.  Language in the  original nine objectives was amended to reflect the level of accomplishment and t o expand their scope.

Objective number 2 was expanded to include tenure and promotion.

Objective 3 was expanded to include reserve funds.

Objectives 4 and 5 were combined as well as emphasizing the decreased use of temporary/adjunct faculty while increasing undergraduate tenure-track faculty.

Objective 6 was maintained.

Objective 7 was expanded to include vice presidents and the president.

Objective 8 was altered.

Objective 9 was maintained.

Several new objectives were identified whi ch include the following:

1. The Senate will conduct an active review of the administration infrastructure with an eye toward reduction.

2. The Senate will acknowledge that the faculty owns the curriculum, and will overhaul the process for hearing and approval of all aspects of university life regarding curriculum (curriculum committee).
 

3. Senate will actively work to develop an accountability model for evaluation and approval of all doctoral programs (Presidents Committee).
 

4. Evaluate and make record on the mission statement and how it impacts strategic planning.
 

5. The senate will specifically make a specific record as to an SWT policy prohibition discrimination based on sexual orientation (prior support, vote, student statement)

6.        Faculties, infrastructure ­ Nusbaum report ­ press for action.

The meeting was adjourned approximately at 5 p. m.