Guests: Mickey Gilley, University Star reporter
Chair Stone called the meeting to order at 4:00.
I. Professor Lochman gave a report on the curriculum committee, noting that this committee spends a great deal of time on their work. Details are available in their minutes, including further information on the 10 of 89 proposed additions that might be duplicative.
Senator McGee asked about the space available for the future engineering program, and Ms. Gilley said that half of the Mitte Building will help to house the program. Senator Sawey moved and Senator James seconded approval of the report, with a unanimous vote in favor of approval. Senator Conroy asked Ms. Gilley about the memo from Gratz concerning graduation attendance, and Ms. Gilley said she had not yet found it.
II. Piper Selection
Piper Committee, Professor Hennessy Piper representative nominee,
Professor Chiodo the College of Business, Professor de la Teja for Liberal Arts. Professor Aditi Angirasa from Business,, Professor Northcutt from Science, Professor Bruce Renfro from Fine Arts and Communication, Professor Nancy Chavkin from Health Professions, Professor Barbara Davis from Education
Senator Conroy made motion to extend to October 15, to give more time for applicants and receipt of materials, Rao seconded, with the motion passing unanimously.
Chair Stone said he would email to extend deadline and alert the committee.
III. The charge of the committee.
Senator Conroy reported on the committee charge. Senator Rao suggested changing the sentence “teaching excellence” rather than experience. People will email any other suggestions to Senator Conroy.
IV. Faculty Parking concerns:
Senator James brought up concerns: access on central campus, wants to move students to outlying areas. Better parking and building access for teachers.
Senaotr Gillis says they’re out in the field all day and they can’t make it back before 3, when gates are opened.
Senator Peeler said that some lots may be designated to faculty.
Senator McGee said they might move their cars in at night and not move them out. Senator Gordon questioned students getting into gate by speaking with guards.
Senator McGee said if you come in at 8:30 there are no spaces. Then students leave after class.
Senator James asked what lots are open and when. Faculty leaving to observe interns may have difficulties when they return.
Senator Peeler said they have a fine line to walk, since extending the hours will mean many more complaints from students.
Senator Hofer said that the lot across from Evans also has many illegally parked vehicles from parking services and police. Senators should email concerns to Senator Peeler.
Senator Sawey said it was a university council committee, slanted toward students and student affairs. Too much closed off parking for special events.
V. Faculty liability and travel issues
Professor McGee brought questions for Bill Fly and distributed an article concerning Professor Garber’s accident. He consulted with other faculty and no one had looked at what happens with faculty in a criminal suit. Civil suits are covered by insurance, but not criminal.
Taking the case to Bill Fly will probably not do much good.
Senator Shah asked if the recommendation would be that they rent a taxi and not hire a car. A crisis management plan should detail what to do if something happens with a student, but it still does not deal with same problem with the professor.
Paul Kens said he was flattered by our desire for him to be on patent committee, but he declines the nomination. David Spencer said he would be willing.
Chair to academic computing committee will be Carolyn McCall. There are two science members on committee, so it needs someone from Fine Arts. We need to take off Easter or Hazlewood. Hazlewood will step down and Senator Conroy put forward Tom Berno, who has recently gotten one of these grants. She will report back next week.
Senator James reported on CAD budget meeting. Next year they’ll look at money and reallocations, and chairs and deans will have better time to do planning ahead. Raise will be 1% performance 2% merit, with input of personnel committee.
Deadline will be about December, and Vice President Gratz said the memo will come out within the next couple of weeks.
After merit takes place $750,000 will then be available for the next raise. All raises were merit based at President Trauth’s former institution. The definition was pretty broad. New people will already have competitive salaries. This salary increase is one of her top two priorities.
Departments need guidelines to determine low, medium and high levels of merit.
Senator James: What is follow up on workload policy changes? Chair Stone said we have not heard a word from either one.
Senator Bell-Metereau said from the Liberal Arts situation, it looks as if it will be difficult for committees to reach consensus on the issues.
Professor Ginsburg reported on his concerns, requesting a discussion of the budget process and president’s council, producing needless apprehension among chairs, deans, and faculty.
It seems odd we have patches and repairs, but we’re spending money elsewhere. Most of deans and chairs and faculty were disturbed by the moving target of the budget process.
VI. New business
Senator Brennan asked about a student who said her professor wasn’t having office hours. The student’s mother called and complained to the university; Gratz’s office was contacted, and then Debbie Banks became involved, etc.
Senator Brennan wanted us to know about the complaint, which was then forwarded. Concern is for faculty, tenure track faculty, etc. All of these people have knowledge of this faculty member. The person who passed on the information without going through channels is a coordinator for parents. She should have turned it back to the department chair. Executive assistants may have inserted themselves into the process, without following channels. We need to register a complaint or contact this person. Chair Stone said he would contact the VPUA’s office. The administrative assistant got a call as coordinator for Texas State and executive assistant to the VPUA, and then used staff channels in an inappropriate way. Several people observed that parents wouldn’t know which person to contact, but the assistant should have said what was the correct thing to do.
Hazelwood introduced a shortened version of a proposed response to the Regents' amendment of the tenure policy. He is still investigating how the rules were amended. There appears to be little record of how the amendment change happened in terms of the process that was followed. He obtained a copy of the minutes of the meeting, but they are very vague. Stone mentioned that there exists a much more detailed version of the agenda and minutes somewhere on campus. Hazlewood will look into finding that document.
General discussion followed concerning the issue of the procedure followed by the Regents. Did they follow the correct procedure? what is the procedure?
Isn't this a public process? Doesn't notice have to be given before change can be adopted?
Also, there were additional questions about whether or not the change affects property rights. That seems to be a matter of some debate among various lawyers consulted by different senators.
It was agreed that Stone and James would bring the matter to the attention of the other faculty senates of the TSU system during the State Faculty Senate meeting in October. In addition, they will be meeting with Urbanowsky [spelling?] before that meeting. They can question him about this. The matter will also be included in a future PAAG agenda.
Minutes for September 17th approved.
Minutes for September 24th approved as amended
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com