Skip to Content

Dec 4, 1996 Minutes

Present: Bourgeois, Deduck-Evans, Ford, Hunter, McGee, Pascoe, Sawey,
Simpson, Stimmel, Weller, and Winek. Absent: Bible, Caverly, Hays, Horne.

Guests: Pres. Supple, VPAA Gratz; Margaret Vaverek (Library liaison)


PAAG SOCIAL HOUR (30 minutes, actually)

The meeting was called to order at 3:56, Vice-Chair Pascoe presiding.


It has been called to Prof. Sawey's attention that a faculty member
was not added to the pool of 3 or 4 faculty from each School who read
student names at graduation because that person had a slight foreign
accent, although there were teachers in the classroom who were barely
understandable to many students. This brought up a discussion concerning
two basic points: (1) Are we trying to put on a better face at public
ceremonies than we are in classroom teaching? Answer: We have a small
name-reading pool and have not examined the particular case in question.
(2) What has happened to our policy of annual review of foreign language
faculty and speech training for those who need assistance? The reply to
the question was that departments are supposed to be monitoring faculty
annually through student/colleague evaluations and it is up to the dept. to
make sure that faculty with communications problems get into the available
training. One point brought up was that it is good for students to get
used to foreign accents, but not to the point that it damages semester
outcomes, of course. Depts. need to do their required monitoring and make
sure teachers get the help they need.


Account managers get all kinds of forms (IBCs, travel, class
schedules, purchases, etc.) kicked back to them from JCK, even after the
forms have been signed off on by all appropriate chairs, deans, etc.
Several suggestions were made: (1) An outside systems analyst on contract
could be brought in to streamline our system, saving support staff and
others an enormous amount of time and expense, (2) Forms need to be done
electronically, cutting the paper transfers now required, (3) JCK people
are trying to keep us out of trouble with the auditors by making sure
everyone uses the proper "boiler plate" wording--and secretaries and
account managers need to have these phrases outlined for them to save time.


The draft PPS on hiring of deans and chairs caused some
consternation because it did not mention that search and screen committees
could rank candidates sent forward (the PPS mentioned only "acceptable" and
"unacceptable" votes for all candidates) and one section (#54) said "the file
of the top applicant" would be forwarded. Pres. Supple and VPAA Gratz said
that (1) Ranking should be optional and left up to the committee, (2) The
committee statements on strengths and weaknesses of each forwarded candidate
were essential (This is in the PPS), (3) While it is up to the Administration
to make the final choice, only rarely would a chair search committee be ignored
(e.g. in the case that a department was totally dysfunctional and its choice
was for status quo rather than a chance for change). The problem of verifying
credentials was also discussed and Library Liaison Vaverek pointed out that
the Library reference staff can check this out.

The Administration and Senate present were in agreement that the
PPS was in need of rewording to indicate ranking options and clarify that
the files of all top candidates would go up. It was also agreed that the
decision on this would be in early February 1997 to allow for more input.


Several senators have been getting questions from faculty regarding
SCH rumors, as follows: (1) Whether some Schools are "sandbagging" and
saying they absolutely cannot comply with the SCH/FTE guidelines projected
for 2002. (2) Does this mean that those departments and Schools which
have cut and twisted their programs to comply will be asked to do more to
take up the slack for Schools which refuse and/or find their resources cut
because they "obviously" are good at cutting corners? (3) This is pitting
department against department for a limited pool of students. (4) What
accountability do Schools/Departments have if they do not comply? (5) FTE
is not counted the same in all departments, e.g. teaching assistants, those
on "soft money."

Administrators present replied that: (1) While there is no
immediate accountability regarding who complies, in the long run there will
be as some departments lose lines when attrition occurs; (2) With regard
to competition for a static student pool, demographics indicate that the
State youth getting ready for college are expanding, especially in the high
schools feeding SWT. This is the "baby boom echo" which will last for the
next few years. The two top schools for applications have already capped
their growth and SWT is the fourth most popular school in the State. We
will be able to cap our growth at 25,000-26,000 and be getting better
qualified students at the same time because of the baby boomlet.
Applications for next year are up 11 percent, at this point; (3) The
departmental plans for SCH/FTE are in but have not been analyzed. It will
be informative to see what strategies various departments are using and
these will be disseminated for thought by other depts; and (4) Some
schools, e.g. Business, are now considering what graduate courses they can
offer as minors to students with other majors. Grad. courses are being
pushed as SCH builders, since they count as more SCH and also figure larger
in State funding. [It was mentioned again that SWT is near the bottom in
State funding per student because of our mix of disciplines and grad. to
undergrad. programs. SWT has to switch money from nonacademic programs to
support the academic side because of this.]; (5) With regard to fuzzy FTE
by various depts., it should be uniform except for teachers on soft money
who are not counted as part of FTE. This is some kind of an incentive to
go out and get soft money.


(1) PPS 7.01 appears to be concluded to everyone's agreement
but will appear on the agenda of 1/15/97 for one last hearing and vote,
since the Administration has determined the decision will not be made until
February 1997.

(2) A motion was passed that the next Faculty Senate meeting be
held on 1/15/97.

The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m.

Ramona Ford