Skip to Content

Feb 21, 1996 Minutes

Present: Bible, Caverly, Ford, Horne, Hunter, Kurtz, Middlebrook, Pascoe,
Stedman, Swinney, and Winek. Absent: Deduck-Evans, Glassman, Sawey, and

Guests: Dean Rumaldo Juarez (Health Professions), Profs. Joy Boone (Health
Administration) and Linda Thomas (Medical Records); Mike Moore, and Sandra


13 DEVELOPMENTAL LEAVES (Policy and Forms)
02 SENATE MINUTES OF 1/31/96, 2/7/96, and 2/14/96

The meeting was called to order at 4:02, chair Swinney presiding.


The discussion centered around the three main areas discussed last
week: Cost, process, miscellaneous smaller questions.

(1) Prof. Swinney distributed a spread-sheet of SWT expenses
and income he had worked out from the proposal. Assuming that the
projected number of students in the program is correct, the program would
cost the University $66,206 the first year, but begin paying for itself
with surplus for the next four-years of the plan. Adding the surpluses
from the second through the fifth year, the University should be $306,889
ahead in 2001. Part of the reason for this is that, in addition to student
tuition and fees, the State formulae for students in this medical area is
3+ times the normal student SCH funding rate. Although State funds
directed to the specific program will not begin until the third year, the
formulae funding to SWT's general coffers will start in the second year.

Further, we are not able to presently calculate the additional
tuition and SCH funding from the regular courses on campus students in this
program will generate. This will be in addition to the above estimate of
income surplus. [Note: Universities are not paid each year on the
head-count in classes that year, but on head-count during "count years" one
or two years before. 1996-97--when Health Professions would like to have
this program in place--is a count year. SCH next year will determine our
income two years down the road.]

Student lab fees will come to SWT, not Shivers where the labs are.
Perhaps only one radiation course could, as the program is presently
constituted, be conducted on our campus.

(2) "Process" included such issues as: Who is in control here?
Technical and contractual areas were discussed regarding what could happen
when a new entity (the proposed Seton-Brackenridge-Shivers merger--SBS)
takes over. In addition, medical corporation sharks are patrolling the
waters to take possible control of this complex. With what will SWT be
stuck in its contract if an outside entity takes over? For example, what
if a court decides we have a contract to provide a degree for students when
our private medical contractors have broken their side of the agreement to
us in some way. Dean Juarez suggested that if such an unfortunate event
were to occur, we could work with students to transfer to other programs,
either other areas of concentration in-house or to other radiation programs
of which there are eight out-of-state.

(3) With regard to SCH, Prof. Kurtz asked what the small SCH of
such a high-tech program would mean to other Departments and the
University. The University is aiming at a very high number of students per
faculty. How will this be absorbed by Schools or the University? The
answer is that apparently we don't know how small graduate classes and
mandated small lab classes (such as the Radiation BS which is limited
regarding number of students per high tech equipment) will be handled.

Related to this, the "virtual department" comparison with other
schools was discussed. Dismay was expressed concerning the methodology and
that departments would have to do their own sleuth work on equivalent
programs if the University's figures seemed out of line.

Prof. Pascoe moved that we accept the proposal. Prof. Kurtz
proposed an amendment that the Senate ask for acceptance to be contingent
upon a list of items the University wants which must be in place before an
agreement is signed between SWT and the Shivers/Seton/Brackenridge group.

The motion to recommend the proposal for a B.S. in Radiation
Therapy was passed unanimously. The amendment to add an internal list of
non-negotiable items was passed 7 to 3.

13 DEVELOPMENTAL LEAVES (Policy and Forms)

Last November the Senate forwarded PPS 8.02 to the Council of
Academic Deans (CAD) with a few word changes. CAD has just returned the
draft with their own alterations. The option for professionals, e.g.
participation of librarians and counselors, was struck in the CAD revision.
The Senate took immediate difference with this exclusion. Some other
wording changes were also suggested.

RTA'd for a clean copy of the Senate's wording re-including
librarians, counselors, and other professionals.


The faculty governance system, as expressed in the Faculty
Handbook, is at issue. The new wording is inclusive of junior faculty
tenure-track and non-tenure track who are already being included in most
decisions, according to departments. To date the Senate has received a few
departmental acceptances based on either departmental votes or chairs'
approval. So far only the School of Applied Arts has responded negatively.

RTA'd for more responses.

02 SENATE MINUTES OF 1/31/96, 2/7/96, and 2/14/96

Approved as corrected.


(1) Prof. Bible announced that he is resigning as the Chair of
the Honors Program and calls for those interested in this position to come

(2) When will parking, etc. come back on the docket? Where is
ticket money going and will there be additional student ticket writers?
Soon we will return to this 40-year old problem.

Meeting adjourned at 6:03 p.m.

Ramona Ford