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

Feb 9, 2005 Minutes

Present: Provost Moore, Chair Stone, Senators Sawey, Rao,  Conroy, Montondon, Hazlewood,  Gillis, Homeyer, James,  Shah, Bell-Metereau, Brennan, McKinney, Sorensen

 

Guests: Jen Beck, Clayton Medford, University Star Reporter; Dr. Pat Cassidy, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs; Dr. Mike Blanda, Faculty Associate, OSP; Ms. Cindy Waggoner, Academic Affairs; Ms. Margaret Vaverik, Library; Dr. Gene Bourgeois, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs; James Ott, Biology; Joseph Koke, Biology; Micky Henry, VPAA; Chris Nice, Biology; Francis Rose, Biology; George Restivo

 

Meeting was called to order at 4:02.

 

I. Public Art

Senator Conroy observed that the current policy seems to be rather ad hoc.  Dr. Moore said that this should be broadly based, and that there were committees like this on other universities, and it would be wise to see what has been done elsewhere. 

 

II. University Council

Chair Stone asked if the council really contributes significantly, and Dr. Moore said he was not currently ready to take a position on the issue, but he welcomed future discussion of the issue.  Curricular concerns are reviewed there, and this gives one of the only places where students, faculty, staff, and administration are all represented. 

 

Dr. Bourgeois noted that if an issue has an impact on facilities or staff, this is the only place where they receive notification.  Chair Stone said that it seemed to be largely informational rather than decision-making, and Dr. Moore said that he said he would be glad to consider which issues are appropriate for the council.

 

Senator James suggested simply looking at the role and seeing what is already being done.

 

Ms. Vavarek said that the library is not involved in University Council, and Dr. Moore said that Van Wyatt needs to be involved in that process.

 

III. Faculty Grants and FAS/SAP systems

Dr. Moore said that this seems to be a real problem for staff, chairs, and assistants, and that the administration is currently focusing on improving the system.

 

Dr. Blanda said that they will change the visual look of the screen and how the software calculates and updates, but there is no date set for accomplishing this. 

 

Senator James said that faculty are still having difficulty finding out how much is expended in their grants.

 

Dr. Moore said they are focusing on problems in the College of Science, since they have the largest grants.  A staff member is helping them, and Dr. Moore’s office will be assisting people from other departments.

 

Dr. Bourgeois said that faculty will need to get access and have grants set up at the same time, and this is currently being covered.

 

Senator Shah said that this system is broken, and no one is willing to say when it will be working.

 

Dr. Blanda reported on REP, saying that the office of sponsored program sends a plan to grants accounting, where it is done for external money.  Accounting has to handle internal money and grants accounting handles external money. 

 

Dr. Moore said that he increased the amount of internal grants to $350,000, and this caused the problem of people not being able to administer these grants.

We can allocate these to the departments, and have the department simply administer the internal grants.

 

Dr. Blanda said they have identified the barriers, but not all the PI’s have supplied the necessary information.  It takes a while to set up accounts even after all the information is provided.  Grants accounting would still be the best place to administer this, according to Dr. Blanda, but Dr. Moore said that this might be better to have these administered by the departments.

 

Dr. Bourgeois said that fiduciary responsibility needs to remain with the faculty member who got the grant, or else it will simply be giving the grant to the chair. 

 

Dr. Blanda said that only the faculty member has security clearance, and Dr. Moore said to keep it as simple as possible.

 

Dr. James asked if there was a way to improve external grants, and Dr. Moore said he would discuss it further with the deans, and they would work on this until it was improved.

 

IV. Tenure and Rank of Associate

Chair Stone asked if there was a connection between tenure and promotion, if this could be clarified.  Dr. Moore said that he believed it was generally unwise to give tenure without promotion. 

 

Senator Bell-Metereau asked if it was not advantageous to the university to allow occasional early promotion, as an incentive to someone who may not yet be eligible for tenure.  Dr. Moore said that if they were that good, they could be offered early tenure as well.

 

Dr. Moore said he will review these separately, but he believes that someone who is recommended for tenure should also be worthy of promotion to associate.

 

Some members asked what would happen to cases where people went up for tenure without going up for promotion. 

 

Dr. Moore said that it was ultimately up to the president to recommend to the regents, regardless of the decision, just as it has always been, looking at individual cases.

 

Senator Sawey said that in the College of Science, three chairs of the five said we could recommend tenure without promotion.

 

Senator Hazlewood said that two different groups vote for promotion and tenure.  Personnel votes on tenure, but for associates, only associates vote.

 

Senator Conroy said that the President said she would be governed by departmental policy, and Dr. Moore observed that policy alone could never make the ultimate decision.

 

Senator Brennan suggested that the president was referring to following the policy of the documents rather than the departmental decision.

 

Dr. Moore said that this would be important to figure out how much it would cost. 

 

Presentation on the master plan will include some of these items.

 

V. Curriculum Committee Report

Dr. Lochman reported on the unanimous Curriculum Committee decision on the Master of Science proposal to approve the proposal.

 

Senator Sawey asked about duplication and differences between our and other

programs around the state and the cost.   Dr. Ott said the overlap and cost

were minimal.

 

Dr. Lochman discussed 2.01 and 2.05 on policies and procedures for approval of additions, changes and deletions of courses and programs.  The committee has looked at ways the process could be improved.  They want to develop college committees to hone the proposals and consider cost and duplication.  The provost’s office has worked with Micky Henry on revisions to the pps to incorporate these suggestions.

 

Senator Shah asked about 2.l1 on administrative proposals, and Ms. Henry said they were not connected.

 

Senator Rao asked how much the work of the College Curriculum Committees would change the responsibilities of the University Curriculum Committee, and Dr. Lochman said he hoped it would relieve some of the workload of the university

committee.   Dr. Lochman said one practical result is to have changes that

don’t involve prerequisites in other colleges to be approved at the college

level.    In the future every college will have a curriculum committee, based

on departmental elections, with one member on the university committee as well.  The colleges will handle format issues.

 

Senator Brennan asked about how we could reconcile the committee recommendations with those of the senate on the issue of routing.  Dr. Lochman said he deferred to the senate’s recommendations on routing.  We could look carefully at the routing and then have Dr. Lochman return next week, when the senate will vote.

 

VI.   Environmental Issues

Senator Bell-Metereau requested that the provost and president look at the recommendations for creating a green campus and consider appointing a university -wide committee to coordinate efforts on this issue.  Dr. Moore said he would present this issue to Dr. Trauth for her consideration.

 

VII. Facilities and Environments Committee Recommendations Senators Hazlewood moved and Shah seconded a motion to accept recommendations, and the motion passed unanimously.

 

VIII. Perceptions of Administrators Survey

We asked what to do about written comments, and Senator Hazlewood asked if they could be destroyed.  Since they are not working documents, they cannot be legally destroyed.  We need to emphasize that these should not have names, and that they should be typed or block printed, since these may be requested by anyone who wishes to see them.

 

Next week the senate will vote on the issue.

 

New Business:

Senator Homeyer asked how many parking places were designated for faculty.

There are none.    A faculty member asked about the inadequate bus service for

evening classes.

 

Senator Montondon asked about research enhancement grants.  There are discrepancies in dates and letters of rejection being sent to the wrong people.

 Faculty asked about perceived biases in college level committees.   These

items will be RTA’d for next week.  Senator Conroy said that Dr. Frost would place something like this in the Faculty Senate Newsletter.  Chair Stone addressed the issue of post-tenure and a possible survey from another campus.

He said this would not be effective until it has been tested and understood.

The senate informally agreed on this issue.

 

Meeting adjourned at 5:41.

 

Minutes submitted by Rebecca Bell-Metereau.