Members present: Senators Caldwell, Wilson, Hazlewood, Furney, Stone, Brown, Feakes, Huling, Martin, Melzer, Morey, Payne, Warms
Guests: Sigler, Zamora (Star), Greengold, Briggs
Meeting called to order at 4:00.
Development Leave Process Review: The Chair distributed the current list of those recommended for leave. Half of the applicants applied for supplemental funds from the Provost; five have been selected. This cycle, Senate meetings had to be extended so that the large number of applicants could be accommodated; moreover, the Senate allowed applicants to waive their interviews without penalty. Because the number of applicants has been increasing in recent years, the Senate will explore possible changes to the review process. The Chair asked Senators to bring possible new review methods to the Senate in the coming weeks.
The Chair also distributed a proposed revision to policies for receiving supplemental funds that will narrow the definition of “research”: “Criteria: overall quality of the proposed research project, including applicant’s projected publications, scholarly presentations, research track record, and prospect for leveraging work to obtain external sponsored funding.” While Senators noted the importance of transparency in review criteria, some were concerned that the revision would exclude faculty in disciplines whose scholarly / creative work does not fall under the stricter definition. The Senate will return to this issue in future meetings.
Computer Refresh Cycle: Milt Neilsen explained that the previous formula for allotting computers to faculty was based upon faculty numbers and complete computer units, but that the new process allocates a certain amount of funds to each college Dean, and allows faculty to request parts of units as needed. This change came at the request of Deans seeking more flexibility. Tracking of the cycle now is supervised by the Deans in consultation with Chairs. Mr. Neilsen noted that most faculty using basic computer systems request new units each cycle. Senators are concerned that this change reduces faculty input into the refresh cycle process, and will raise the issue at the next CAD meeting.
Software Support: Faculty can purchase Office 2010 for their home computers, via the TR website. For an extra $10, they can also purchase the master disk. A website will open in a few weeks to assist faculty in downloading and installing Office 2010 on their campus computers. Support will also be available to assist faculty with migration of their other programs and files.
Excellence in Diversity Awards Selection Committee: A nominee from the Senate is needed for this committee.
Spring Commencement Mace Bearers: This May there will be six ceremonies for the first time, with the College of Liberal Arts broken into two different commencements. Mace Bearers are need for all ceremonies. The Chair will ask for nominees at the next Senate meeting.
Faculty Senate Spring Calendar:
PAAG Meetings: 2/2, 3/2, 4/6, 5/4
Joint Senate / CAD Meeting: 3/9 (meeting in JCK 460)
Senate Committee Preference Survey: The survey has been distributed to faculty via email; two reminders will be sent, as well. The Senate will receive a report from the Committee on Committees the second week of February. Guidance is needed by the Committee in assigning / selecting chairs, particularly for those committees whose chairs would receive assigned time. The Chair asked the Senate to think about which committees’ chairs would require assigned time for significant service activities, noting that the Faculty Handbook Committee would be one logical choice this year.
Senate Elections: Six Senate seats will be up for election this cycle. Three are from the College of Liberal Arts; the Senate will explore ways to insure that in future such a turnover from one College does not occur in the same election.
Texas Council of Faculty Senates: The TCFS meeting is February 25 and 26, and the Chair asked for two volunteers to attend.
Texas State University Code of Civility: Two Senators suggested that the University work to develop a code of civility for the campus. There is support for such a code among members of the student government. A number of Senators expressed that the code would be more persuasive if it were developed by the students themselves, with endorsement from faculty and staff.
1. A Senator conveyed a faculty member’s concern about the interactions between the College and University Curriculum Committees, since the Senate appoints members to the UCC, and those appointments often differ from members on the CCC, who are selected by departments or assigned by Chairs and Deans. Members of the UCC are ex-officio members of their respective CCC, as policy states. Thus, CCCs are able to express their views while faculty maintain access to the curriculum process through the UCC. The Chair will transmit the Senate’s position to the concerned faculty member. In addition, the Senate will invite Don Hazlewood, Chair of the UCC, to discuss the interactions between the UCC and the CCCs.
Minutes of 12/08/10 were approved.