Skip to Content

Feb 28, 1996 Minutes

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

Guests: Exec-VP Abbott, Chief John Megerson (UPD), Margaret Vaverek; Mike
Moore, and Sandra Akridge.


13 DEVELOPMENTAL LEAVES (Policy and Forms)
32 PARKING (Guests: Exec-VP Abbott and Chief Megerson)

The meeting was called to order at 4:05, chair Swinney presiding.

13 DEVELOPMENTAL LEAVES (Policy and Forms)

Wording changes were adopted by the Senate on the application form.
Basically the form now asks for two pages (about 500 words) on: (1) The
project you intend to pursue; (2) The merits of that project; (3) The
methods you will employ; and (4) How the project will benefit your
teaching, research, and/or professional development. In the past, the lack
of "methods" was the downfall of most rejected projects. If you are
applying by the April 1st deadline, pay attention to these areas.

As discussed at last week's meeting, in November 1995 the Senate
forwarded PPS 8.02 to the Council of Academic Deans (CAD) with a few word
changes. CAD has now 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.

The original PPS more inclusive wording was taken directly from the
Texas Education Code, Section 51.101 definition of who is eligible for
faculty development leaves.

" 'Faculty member' means a person who is employed by an institution
of higher education on a full-time basis as a member of the faculty or
staff and whose duties include teaching, research, administration,
including professional librarians, or the performance of professional
services. However, the term does not include a person employed in a
position which is in the institution's classified personnel system or a
person employed in a similar type of position if the institution does not
have a classified personnel system" (Vernon's Texas Code Annotated).

A lengthy discussion ensued regarding:

(1) Whether SWT was bound to follow the statute definition when
developmental leaves are not funded by the State (State appropriations
cannot be used for leaves so funds come from sources such as Auxiliary
Services). Prof. Swinney talked to the Coordinating Board and received a
letter today from SWT attorney Bill Fly regarding whether a school can have
a narrower definition, such as the one proposed by CAD. The answer seemed
to be a strong "probably." Also, there was a question raised on whether
Senate Bill 1 has overridden the previous Code on this issue.

(2) SWT practice has been to grant developmental leaves to tenured
faculty. However, it is not clear whether other professionals were aware
that they were technically eligible and whether they actually applied for
leaves. Certainly the professional librarians were unaware of this until
the Senate's subcommittee on Librarian Pay and Status included the
information in their report last spring. [Note: The subcommittee report
urged that SWT adopt "academic status with continuing contract" which is
not the same as "faculty status" but gives professional librarians the
effect of tenure. This is the direction that major university and research
libraries are going and that Texas Tech adopted in Fall 1994. At one point
SWT librarians had "tenure" but it was withdrawn. Only two librarians have
been here long enough to have tenure under the previous system. The adding
of the word "tenured" by CAD further limits applications from groups
currently included in the wider SWT and Texas Code definitions.]

The question of language was RTA'd for discussion in next week's
CAD meeting.


Several items were mentioned as possibilities for the meeting:
Next year's faculty raises, developmental leave policy, Regents' Rule on
promotions, process on new degree proposals (tracking, financial
analysis), evaluation of Deans, SCH targets, monitoring processes (e.g.
chair evaluation, budget committees, etc.), etc. CAD will also have items
they want to discuss.

32 PARKING (Guests: Exec-VP Abbott and Chief Megerson)

The following areas were discussed: (1) Where does hang-tag and
fine money (reported to be about $1 million) go? (2) Will additional
enforcement help restricted (red zone) parking and do ticket writers pay
for themselves? (3) What happens when Pit parking and other construction
area parking goes and why cannot anyone park in peripheral lots?

(1) VPSS Bill Nance will be giving us specifics on where the money
goes in late March. We do know that in general it goes to the UPD, to
creating and maintaining parking areas, and to general funds which are
spent on other University activities.

(2) A number of steps have been taken recently to free up red and
green zone spaces: In the Fall 1995 semester over 27,000 tickets were
issued and 291 tow-aways were ordered with local tow companies with whom we
have a contract. (Some very small unspecified amount of tow costs comes
back to the University.) Those who already have three tickets are towed.
A few tickets were dismissed (visitors, etc.) but many
faculty/staff/students do not pay tickets. Some appear to perceive tickets
as "the cost of doing business." Seniors and those who have left school
fall through the cracks of "holds" on grades, etc. A "feeler" is out to
companies who track down such delinquencies to see if it would be
cost-effective to pursue. A "boot" on cars which have previous tickets has
also been considered. A $10 (plus $15 regular ticket) fine would be
required to remove the boot. $5 would go to UPD and $5 to the scholarship

Yes, ticketers probably pay for themselves, although we have the
above problems on collecting on tickets. Eight new ticketers (students who
work for UPD) are going to be hired. New guards at check point booths are
also going to be hired and hours extended to help night class faculty.
Several senators expressed the idea that booth guards need more training on
not letting unqualified persons through the gates.

(3) The issue of whose lot is whose arose and why faculty
cannot park in the Stadium lot (commuters) and ride the bus (paid for by
student fees and available to faculty for $30 a semester). Apparently once
upon a time, faculty could park in peripheral lots currently designated
"students only." It was said that although some of these lots were next to
faculty lots (which were full at peak hours), student peripheral lots were
often half empty but faculty cannot now park there. Some departments, such
as those in Education, have a large number of faculty who must come and go
during the day to review interns at placement sites. Returning to classes
they often have no place to park.

Chief Megerson reported that a number of actions have been put in
place and investigations in other areas were ongoing. For example, the Rec
Sports parking situation is now ameliorated. Some of the Pit parking will
be shifted to the Sessoms lot, depending on how much room GCB construction
will need. Motorcycle spaces are being moved into new areas, freeing up
auto spaces. A new lot is going to be opened up on Lindsey St. More
ticketers during the last month were placed in the 5 to 9 evening slot to
ease night parking and provide more safety by their surveillance for
students/faculty and their cars. Ticket paying and parking permit
applications are being separated to prevent lines--and drop boxes for
applications for permits are being installed.

However, actions regarding a policy for faculty to park in student
lots will have to come from the Parking and Traffic Committee, which the
UPD would then enforce. Peripheral lots could then be labeled generic
parking, if demonstrated that they were indeed partially empty at peak
hours. Faculty "pay-per-ride" on buses would also have to be worked out in

The Senate commended Chief Mergerson on his initiation of
improvements in the short time he has been here.


The minutes were approved.


(1) The Senate received a draft memo from the President's Cabinet to
Department Chairs calling for proposals on how departments could utilize
HEAF funds (limited to $50,000 per dept.) to upgrade computer use to
connect faculty to the Internet or assist faculty to "strengthen academic
programs in concert with strategic plans." Plans must be submitted by
April 1st and distribution will begin June 1, 1996. See department chairs
for guidelines.

(2) A report dated 2/19/96 was received on the Faculty
Grievance Committee recommendations regarding Prof. Terry Tilton v. Dean
Muriel Muir. The issue was SWT withdrawing from a three-year commitment to
NASA/JOVE partnership grant to Prof. Tilton. The Committee in a four to one
decision found in favor of Prof. Tilton. According to our policy, President
Supple must act on the Committee's recommendation within twenty working days.

Meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Ramona Ford