APPROVED FACULTY SENATE MINUTES 44TH FACULTY SENATE NOVEMBER 13, 2002
Approved Senate Minutes
November 13, 2002
Faculty Chair Oren Renick called Senate to order at 4:00.
The chair asked for comments by Friday on the three agendas, the upcoming CAD and Faculty Senate meeting, the PAAG meeting, and the meeting with President Trauth and the Faculty Senate subcommittee on the planning process. The chair noted that the next meeting with the president would be an hour-long meeting on December 11th, after which we will receive the spring schedule of meetings.
Senator Frost reported on the facilities committee, observing that no one is really following the master plan. Rather space has been juggled on an ad hoc basis. For example, the Center for the Study of the Southwest was placed into Brazos and then it is being moved out of Brazos, without consultation with Mark Busby. It is likely that the university will not return to a process governed by the master plan until about three years from now, given those projects
already in line for the future. Senator Frost distributed an article on St. Edwards University?s planning and parking process, which emphasizes a community-friendly campus, and he issued a call for comments from faculty via their senators. Senator Bell-Metereau said that the city planning and zoning commission had expressed a desire at the last meeting to have a joint meeting with the university planning and facilities committee, perhaps with a view to
establishing regular quarterly meetings to improve communication and cooperation between the university and the city. Senator Conroy asked why Brazos was scheduled to be demolished, and Senator Peeler said it might be because of mold problems. Senator Frost suggested that she write a brief position paper on the need for distinctive architecture. President Trauth seems to be sympathetic to the idea of preserving historic buildings on campus. Brad Smith commented to Senator Frost that his department was often the last to be brought into a project to consider landscaping issues.
Senator Hindson requested that discussion of the method for Piper nominations be brought to a future agenda. He suggested changes in the following areas:
1) Piper nominee selection
2) Liaison selection
His rationale for proposing these changes is to allow for smaller departments and schools to have a better chance of having their members be chosen. As it now stands, large departments and schools hold a virtual monopoly on the nomination process because of their size and voting influence. He also suggested that it should be possible to have more than one nominee per college. Senator Stone offered that perhaps election wasn't the best process and that a senate sub-committee might review applications instead. Senators Gillis and Conroy argued that it is sometimes simply a popularity contest.
Chair Renick suggested that this Piper discussion was an issue which might call for a change in the Faculty Handbook, and that this could be discussed when Kathy Fite visited the senate. He also discussed the need for a review process for Handbook revision, especially in light of the fact that many were not satisfied with the handling of the process undertaken in 1999.
Chair Renick reviewed the guidelines for Developmental Leave interviews, with Senator Hindson acting as timekeeper. Applicants have four minutes to present and two minutes for question and answer. The senate heard development leave presentations from the following faculty members:
Philip Salem, Richard Earl, Lynda Harkins, David Butler, Lucy Harney, Judy Leavell, Elizabeth Blunk, Steven Hager, Weizhen Gu, Tinker Murray and Susan Morrison.
The remainder of applicants will present on November 20, 2002.
The minutes of the November 6, 2002 meeting were approved.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:08.
Submitted by Rebecca Bell-Metereau