Skip to Content

June 16, 2010 Minutes

Members present: Senators Feakes, C. Hazlewood, Payne, Brown, Huling, Martin, Morey, Furney, Stone, Wilson, Lane (for Conroy)

Guests: Hodges, Payne, Biedermann, D. Hazlewood, Barrera, Ogletree, Sigler, Autrey, Fischer

Meeting called to order at 3:00.

University Curriculum Committee Report: The Committee recommended approval of four proposals:
1. Add an undergraduate certificate in Health Information Privacy and Security;
2. Add a graduate certificate in Health Information Management;
3. Add a graduate certificate in Forensic Psychology;
4. Add a Doctor of Education and Doctor of Philosophy in Developmental Education.

The Senate voted to suspend normal voting rules so that it could approve the three proposals for new certificate programs. Discussion then centered on the need for both an EdD and PhD in Developmental Education. The Senate will return to this proposal at its July 7 meeting.

PPS and UPPS Review:
1. PPS 3.08: Credit by Examination. Dr Fischer has suggested a number of revisions to the policy so that departments could offer grades of A and B in addition to CR for hours earned through Credit by Examination. Dr. Fischer explained that such a change would allow students to earn grades that accurately reflect their proficiency in language courses, as well as insuring that Modern Languages places students more effectively in their courses. Among the concerns expressed about this proposal by Senators was that such a change would allow students to earn grades for one exam rather than actual coursework, and that it might put even more pressure on the graders of examinations to justify their ratings. However, some Senators feel that the revisions to the policy will allow departments to decide for themselves if they want to offer grades or continue to offer only CR for such examinations. The Senate will return to this issue at its next meeting.

2. UPPS 04.04.07: Nepotism and Related Employment. Senators discussed whether the current policy covers potential nepotism situations across university offices, by which decisions in one office must be vetted by another office. While such situations do not directly involve related employees in supervisory relationships, they can affect what decision might be reached on important issues including hiring. In addition, perhaps the document should be revised to offer procedures for conducting tenure and promotion deliberations; some departments require, for instance, that faculty members leave tenure and promotion meetings when their spouses or family members are being discussed and votes taken.

3. UPPS 07.10.01: Honor Code. A faculty member has asked that the policy be revised to include a timeline within which appeals must be heard, so that students can have decisions in a timely manner, even during the summer months. The faculty member also requested that wording be changed to clarify the chain of reporting for decisions on appeals. The Senate will consider these issues at later meetings.

University Committee Representation: The Chair distributed a list of university committees that include members appointed by the Faculty Senate. Nominees are needed for several of these committees.


Mace Bearers and Tenure-Track Faculty Luncheon: Volunteers or nominees are needed to serve as mace bearers at summer commencement ceremonies. The Chair also noted that the luncheon for new tenure-track faculty takes place on August 23 in Alkek 105; she encouraged Senators to attend.

Faculty Senate Committee Assignments: The Senate returned to the 2010-2011 roster of Senate committees. A number of changes were suggested, with nominees for a few positions still needed.

Course Release for Significant Service: For the fall semester, the Senate will request one course assigned time for the Chairs of the Honor Council and the University Research Committee. Possible spring requests include assigned time for the Chairs of the Academic Computing Committee and the Faculty Handbook Committee.

New Business:
1. A faculty member inquired about the possibility of conducting online the university-wide student evaluation questions, created to fulfill the requirements of HB 2504. The Chair noted that the subcommittee tasked with creating those questions explored the feasibility of such a plan, but decided that offering the evaluations online would lead to far lower student participation in the evaluation process.

Minutes of 5/12/10 were approved.