Chair Stone, Senators Brennan, Conroy, Davidson, Hazlewood, Hindson, Homeyer, James, McCall, McKinney, Montodon, Rao, Shah, Sorensen, Warms, Winek
John Davis, Psychology, Leigh Kilman, Library, Selene Hinojosa, Library, Jordan Anderson, ASB Pres, Clayton Medford, Univ Star, Jude Prather, student, George Restivo, student
Meeting called to order at 4:00.
Texas State Alliance: Gilda Garcia, Director of Equity and Access, announced that the Texas State Alliance, a sexual orientation action group, is seeking recognition on our campus. The group is drafting a letter to the President seeking membership on the Equity and Access Committee. In light of the senate's past support for including sexual orientation in the University's anti-discrimination policy, the senate will consider endorsement of their request at the next senate meeting.
Research Enhancement Proposal Guidelines:
Mike Blanda, Chair of the University Research Committee and OSP Faculty Associate, discussed the guidelines for the coming Research Enhancement Proposal (REP) cycle. Last year, the funding was increased from $290,000 to $350,000. In the past, resources have been sufficient to fund approximately 40% of the REP requests. An analysis of the FY04 REP cycle on how those dollars were expended indicated that recipients had leveraged $350,000 in external funding from their grants at the 40% indirect rate and had generated 28 publications and 48 presentations. Dr. Blanda requested an increase in funding to $500,000 from Provost Moore, but the Provost said no. The Provost did indicate that he would increase the funding by $35,000 if the guidelines for REP would include a stipulation to seek external funding in order to be considered for subsequent REP funding. There was considerable discussion about what activities would meet the
Provost's commitment. It was indicated that the activity would need to be documented through the Office of Sponsored Projects. Concern from senators focused on a couple of issues: 1) could every worthwhile proposal be expected to generate external funds? And 2) what happens if proposals start to be scored as worthy based only on their potential for generating external funds. The sense of the senate was that there are many potential problems with changing the REP guidelines as the Provost has suggested. The decision of the senate was not to accept the Provost's offer this year due to the seemingly off-the-cuff manner in which the money would be made available, and instead to study the issue further.
The senate also discussed the suggestion of proportional allocation funding to colleges based on the amount of REP funding requested by faculty in those colleges. REP proposals are reviewed at the college level and then the scores have been normed at the university level trying a number of statistical processes to try to get a fair system for the entire university. As a result, due to the variable nature of the scoring between colleges, it would seem that some proposals are being funded that probably should not be funded. For example, some colleges, with the norming process, have had 90% of their proposals funded while some other colleges have had less than 40% funded. It was decided that in this year's REP cycle, funds will be allocated to colleges based on the percentage of funds requested by the college.
Status of Librarian Curators:
The senate discussed the issue of whether librarian curators are eligible to serve on university committees. The senate was convinced that librarian curators are considered equivalent to librarians and, as such, should have the same committee assignment consideration as librarians.
Committee on Committee's Recommendations:
Caroline McCall presented the Committee on Committee's recommendations for staffing faculty committees. The recommendations were approved with minor changes and Dr. McCall will begin notifying faculty of their committee appointments.
Administrative Computing Committee:
It was announced that the Administrative Computing Committee is reforming. Vivek Shah will act as the senate's representative on that committee.
Senate Constitutional Amendment:
There are almost enough votes tallied to make the ballot regarding amendments to the Constitution of the Faculty official. Final results will be announced next week.
Administrators and Chairs Evaluations:
There was continued discussion the Administrators/Chairs evaluation by the faculty. A good faith effort will be made to indicate the number of responses versus the number eligible to evaluate each candidate. Next week, the senate will consider whether or not to publish the written comments on the web.
There was some discussion about what specific issues to consider in the next Faculty Newsletter. It was decided that the next issue be specifically targeted toward REP issues.
Where is it? After the summer presentation, it was assumed it would soon come to the senate. The chair will investigate.
Minutes for 7/13/05 and 8/24/05 were approved.