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

Nov 30, 2005 Minutes

Approved Faculty Senate Minutes 11/30/05

Members present:

Chair Stone, Senators Brennan, Conroy, Hazlewood, Hindson, Homeyer, James, McCall, McKinney, Montondon, Rao, Shah, Sorensen, Warms, Winek

Guests:

Dan Lochman, English representing the University Curriculum Committee, Erik Nielsen and Bill Meek, Art and Design, Jordan Anderson and Kyle Morris, Associated Student Government, Clayton Medford, Univ Star

Meeting called to order at 4:00.

 

Comm 1310 Multicultural Component: Jordan Anderson and Kyle Morris from Associated Student Government approached the Senate seeking advise on how implement a multicultural and gender studies component into Texas State�s degree requirements.  Their first thought was that Comm 1310 in the Communication Studies Department would provide such content.  After some discussion, it was the sense of the Senate that Anderson and Morris should ask the General Education Council to come up with a definition of what it would require for a multicultural and gender studies component since that is the logical group to determine what general education requirements should be.  Once such a definition is in place, a department could adapt some of their courses to meet the Council�s requirements.   It was suggested that they go to the General Education Council through Ron Brown, Dean of University College, to implement such requirements.

 

PAAG agenda: The Senate discussed several possible topics for next weeks PAAG agenda.  It was finally decided to include:

  1. Draft PPS 7.19 Research Faculty
  2. On-line availability of the University budget
  3. Faculty workload
  4. Income from football playoffs

The Senate is particularly interested in PPS 7.19 because of the possible denigration of the title of Professor due to the way it is used in the draft PPS.  The Senate sent earlier objections to the use of the title of Professor to the Council of Deans, but those objections seem to have received little consideration and the usage is still in the document.  Thus, it was decided to formally object directly to President Trauth in the statement:

�. The Faculty Senate strongly objects to the awarding of the academic title of Professor in the hiring and promotion of research faculty under the policy proposed by draft PPS 7.19, Research Faculty Appointments.  The Senate�s concern is that this policy creates two pathways to the Professor rank, and that the new, truncated pathway demeans the accomplishments of faculty who earn the title of Professor through the time-honored route, i.e. through years of effective teaching, significant research and dedicated service to the university.  The title of Research Associate or Fellow would be more appropriate and acceptable to the faculty than Research Professor.

 

Additionally, in this draft form, the policy has significant and unacceptable inconsistencies.  In Section 14 of PPS 7.19, the criteria for hiring Research Professors is defined specifically and exclusively in terms of research expertise, as is the basis for promotion as stated in Section 17.  However, in Sections 1 and 7, the PPS assigns possible instructional functions (direction of laboratory experiences, graduate theses and dissertations) for which there are no hiring or promotion criteria.

 

We recognize the value of external grant funding to the university and the role research may play in securing grants.  For many years, this university has successfully obtained grants using traditional administrative titles such as Project Director or Program Administrator.  We are aware of no evidence that the title of Research Professor would be more favorably received than other titles by any granting agency.

 

The Senate strongly feels that if research faculty are to be awarded professorial titles, they should be subject to the same national hiring search requirements, teaching evaluation process and service expectations established in PPS 8.01 and 8.10.  If a wholly different policy for hiring and promotion is to be established for research faculty, it should also establish a separate set of titles and ranks.  While some universities use the title of Research Professor, many others use Research Associate or similar administrative titles.  The title of Professor is culturally, historically, and according to Webster, an instructional title, and we ask that it remain as such at Texas State.�

 

 

University Curriculum Committee Recommendation:  Dan Lochman, chair of the University Curriculum Committee presented the recommendations of the committee to add a Master of Fine Arts, major in Communication Design together with twenty courses to support the program.  Also recommended are changes to PPS 2.01 Courses: Additions, Changes and Deletions.  Those recommendations were discussed and are now on the agenda for a formal recommendation by the Senate next week.

 

Chair Evaluations:  Due to the institution of a formal evaluation of chairs this academic year, there is some question whether the Senate should do its perceptions survey of deans/chairs next spring.  Currently, although the deans� evaluation has an instrument for the evaluation, very little structure for the evaluation is specified.  Also, there is no mention of written comments.  The Senate will have to study this issue and decide next spring how to proceed on the issue.

 

Reports are delayed:  It was announced that the REP report and the Library report have been delayed.