Nov 5, 2003 Minutes
Guests: Associate Vice President Cassady, University Star Reporter
Gratz reported on the situation in Science, after the death of
II. PAAG Follow-up
The Academic Honor Code and wording and approval process is under review. Dr. Gratz said the memorandum inviting comments is due on Friday, November 7. Early the following week they will integrate comments into a revised document and have a review by Bill Fly for legal issues, and then circulate for discussion at university council a final revised draft. He understands the grading issue and shares Faculty Senate’s concern.
Chair Stone reiterated that senate supports the honor code but has a problem with the grading issue.
President Trauth talked about post-tenure review policy. Dr. Gratz said he met with the committee and they agreed on a number of issues. Dr. Day said they have a draft memo circulating to the committee and Dr. Gratz will have a recommendation to give to Senate for discussion.
Regarding quasi-faculty appointments (in chemistry, for example), librarians observed that there are non-teaching faculty positions on campus.
Dr. Gratz said we could go title by title. The research professor is Kim Rossmo, a one-time appointment in criminal justice. They will have a matrix to see what people are eligible for. The adjunct professor title doesnít exist. The term refers to part-time faculty, etc., on a temporary basis. Non-faculty teaching appointments could be teachers who are 100% on research, or endowed chair faculty with no classes, special appointments when they’re removed from the classroom, or workload credit in lieu of teaching. Visiting professor and thesis committee professor are other examples. Health professions is requesting a clinical professor title.
Senator Hindson said he had a problem with the term “research professor” and, even in top-ranking universities, they’re being called research fellows or they’re required to teach.
Chair Stone said they had a difficulty with Rossmo in regard to the duties, his ability to assign grades, etc. The clinical faculty issue needs to be clarified.
Senator Hawkins said it seemed to be based on a medical school model.
Dr. Gratz said it was a good time to resolve these issues.
Senator Conroy asked if there is an existing policy on grant-funded faculty.
Dr. Gratz said there were at least two different categories, normal pipeline and someone hired related to a grant. Some research titles do not exist. No post-doc category exists, and we should address these gaps.
President Trauth said there was no one way to do this. At most universities, these categories are based on soft money and no tenure because they’re not on state money.
Senator Peeler asked if this could include a non-teaching status for librarians.
President Trauth said this could be considered in the planning process, but we would first want to see how librarians felt about it. A small minority want faculty status, but most don’t want to give up the career ladder. President Trauth wants to allow a year for the librarians to live with current policy and then review the policy.
Senator Sawey asked about timeline for creating policy on titles, etc. and Dr. Gratz said this should happen within a year. There are many models available. Dr. Gratz asked for a couple of faculty senate nominees to serve on a committee.
President Trauth said we might want to break off the clinical category.
Senator Gillis said that the
mentor and do not get compensated. They’re evaluated on contributions to the profession. The title could be a free way to acknowledge their contribution and give them some status.
Dr. Gratz said there could be other colleges with an analogue to the clinical category.
Senator Gordon asked about the regular professors and the time they put in. Could there be a track for people who do some scholarship but are so busy they donít have time for as much scholarship? Someone who could get tenure as a clinical professor, for example?
Senator James said our committee would review tenure and promotion cycles, looking at teaching and non-teaching categories.
Chair Stone said there had been a committee appointed for role of the chair, and requested an update.
President Trauth said Dr. Gratz is in the process of appointing four committees, and getting representation is complicated.
Dr. Gratz said that committee should be formed by next week. All four are about to be appointed.
Senator Sawey said the faculty senate hadn’t been asked for any nominees.
President Trauth said you can’t put one together without putting all four together.
Dr. Gratz asked for two faculty senate nominees for each of the four committees by next week.
III. Board of Regents
Chair Stone said that the regents represent a rural perspective for several of the sister schools. We wanted to know what the procedure might be for consideration of a separate board of regents for
President Trauth said there are six systems and then a handful of independent schools. A legislative interim committee was recently appointed to look at higher education. One issue is how to have fewer systems and more cost saving at the system level. That review may or may not lead to changes, which is the prerogative of the legislature.
Senator Bell-Metereau asked what the ideal situation would be for
President Trauth noted that no school feels that its position is perfect. Systems in
Senator Hindson asked if we should be a flagship.
President Trauth said we’re the only system that doesn’t have a flagship. That has more political baggage because of financial preference for flagship schools. What is important isn’t necessarily getting that title, since it carries no resources. We should continue to be one of the big schools in terms of enrollment and scope of programs. When differentiation occurs we need to be in the group that has the up and coming schools. We should be talking about becoming a research institution down the road.
The funding formula rewards doctoral education. An article in the Star has Stan Israel talking about formula funding. From masters to doctoral is something like five times more. Real money comes in when you have more doctoral programs.
Senator Peeler said that the underlying power is with the presidents, and we have 12% of the vote and yet have 44% of the students. The U.T. Austin president probably has more clout than every other president in their system, on a mechanical level, and we have a strange disparity.
President Trauth said this is correct, but this institution has influence historically. In any system, the people in the biggest schools probably look at these issues. For example, with tuition increases, our regents understand that we should be able to increase tuition or raises, even if other schools in the system may not be in a position to do so. Our regents were willing to allow this to happen here.
Senator Conroy asked if the interim legislative committee might be in place to raise the issue. She asked if U.T. Austin has a weighted vote in their system.
President Trauth said the presidents meet regularly to discuss issues. Apart from the rules and regulations meetings, there aren’t votes on issues. Tuition, for example, is a matter of each school bringing their budget proposals forward to the regents.
The revision of bylaws of the development foundation went from TX State to the regents.
The one time when presidents vote is on rules and regulations. That is a major agenda item in May. We got tuition revenue bond debt service. There aren’t a lot of issues that the other presidents have input on. If President Trauth thinks she needs the support of other presidents on an issue, she will speak to them to try to persuade them.
Dr. Gratz said that the other systems are different, because first the system vice chancellor has to be persuaded, then issues go to the regents. We’re the only system in which presidents report directly to the system. In the U.T. system, the president reports to the chancellor. Here, the president reports to the regents.
Senator Hindson asked what the chancellor does.
President Trauth said that we have the slimmest administration of any system. At one point the system wanted to hire a chief information officer; instead they pulled in Dr. Van Wyatt. He attends TSUS C.I.O. meetings. There are specific duties delegated in the regents rules.
Faculty Senate Meeting:
IV. Representatives for the Committees:
Discussion of chair role committee
Chair Stone asked if there is a senate consensus on the need for chair terms.
Senator Rao said she doesn’t like terms.
Chair Stone said it is possible to extend terms, but still have an established review system.
In response to a comment that establishing chair terms might make it more difficult to hire chairs, Senator Conroy said our “chair for life” system is the anomaly; most universities have renewable terms for chairs.
Senator Rao said we could remove chairs at any time.
Other senators said no, we don’t really have a working procedure for removing a chair.
Senator James said most chairs are reviewed after 3 to 5 years. Current hires have been hired with the stipulation that they will be reviewed, which essentially means they have terms.
Senator Peeler asked if the committee would consider the issue of golden parachutes.
Chair Stone said in theory golden parachutes are already finished, but some departments are still offering them.
The Senate voted to approve the following committee nominees:
Promotion & Tenure Committee:
Le Anne Stedman
Role of the Chair Committee:
Salary Equity Study Committee:
Faculty Titles Committee:
Chair Stone will write in his follow up letter a thank-you for the computer promised by Dr. Gratz. He will request that they put us in the three-year computer refresh cycle.
In the letter to the administration, Chair Stone will express appreciation for insights on the regents issue and thanks for asking for the opportunity to suggest nominees for the committees. The Regents website has rules of operation, but no details. For example, the minority affairs committee isnít on the web site.
V. Anti-discrimination Policy:
Chair Stone reported that
VI. Piper Selection Committee Report
The report said that all three candidates are worthy of the Everette Swinney Award. They are recommending
Gillis moved and Sawey seconded accepting the awards recommendations. Passed unanimously. The committee offered recommendations on revising the selection process, including the suggestion to remind applicants to include only material related to teaching. Bell- Metereau, Conroy and Hindson will review the committee’s recommendations and report back to the senate.
VII. Graduation ceremonies.
May graduation will be expanded to four ceremonies. We won’t reduce the number of graduations. Dr. Gratz will get a memo out on the number of graduations. They will have four for all graduations from now on. They need four, because we have not enough room for audience members. Tickets were discussed but they said we don’t want to limit the number of people at graduations. We need a memo from Dr. Gratz on how many graduations faculty will be required to attend. Senator Hawkins would be willing to be on this committee.
VIII. Developmental Leaves:
Chair Stone said we have fifteen applications. We’ll deal with these for the next two meetings. The procedure is to review is that each senator must review all or none. So if anyone can’t be at both meetings, then don’t go to either meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at .
Second Revision Draft Minutes submitted by
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree