Skip to Content

March 6, 1996 Minutes


Present: VP-AA Gratz, Assoc.VP-AA Cassidy, Assoc. VP-AA Smallwood, Debbie
Banks (Exec-Asst., Academic Affairs); Deans: Beck (Education), Brown
(General Studies), Cheatham (Fine Arts & Communication), Gowens
(Business), Gravitt (Liberal Arts), Juarez (Health Adm.), Martin (Applied
Arts & Tech), Muir (Science), Willoughby (Graduate Studies); Senators
Bible, Caverly, Ford, Glassman, Hunter, Kurtz, Middlebrook, Pascoe, Sawey,
Stedman, Swinney, Weller, and Winek. Absent Senators: Deduck-Evans and
Horne.

Guests: Margaret Vaverek (Library liaison); Mike Moore, and Sandra Akridge.

JOINT SENATE/CAD MEETING CONTENTS:

1. FACULTY SALARY RAISES FOR NEXT YEAR
2. DEVELOPMENTAL LEAVE POLICY
3. REGENT'S RULE CHANGE ON PROMOTION
4. COLLEGE OF GENERAL STUDIES
5. ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
a. DEPT. OF THEATRE ARTS to DEPT. OF THEATRE
b. DEPT. OF ART to DEPT. OF ART AND DESIGN
6. NORTH AUSTIN CENTER
7. PROCESS ON NEW DEGREE PROPOSALS
8. GRIEVANCE POLICY--OMBUDSMAN
9. EVALUATION OF DEANS
10. SCH TARGETS
11. MONITORING PROCESSES
12. NEW BUSINESS

The meeting was called to order at 4:04, chairs Gratz and Swinney
presiding.

1. FACULTY SALARY RAISES FOR NEXT YEAR

The discussion revolved around the following points: (1) What
percentage of salary is available for raises and from whence does it come?
and (2) How will it be distributed?

On the first issue(s) there was debate on what monies would be
generated from departmental rebates of 2 percent and what would be
generated from the newly increased student fees--especially when we do not
know what fall enrollment will be. The estimates ranged from 5 to 10
percent of salary. Although the ultimate amount of monies available are
not completely under control of the University, it was pointed out that
student fees were agreed to by ASG and the Regents on the assumption that
it would increase pay by about 5 percent.

The second issue was how to distribute the above unknown
raises--performance and/or merit or bonus, and then there is the question
of equity. Performance has become very close to meaning longevity, and
almost everyone gets it across-the-board. Merit is for past performance
since the last merit increase (1993 was the last time we did this)
and becomes part of the base salary on which subsequent years' performance
is figured. Bonus is an annual recognition of merit (from an ongoing fund
which would produce annual bonuses) which does not become part of the base
salary for future increments. In a faculty poll last spring, the Senate
found that about 80 percent of the faculty were concerned about equity,
i.e. those who were not receiving comparable worth incomes for some reason
(ethnicity, gender, seniority vis a vis new hires, disciplines compared to
"like depts." in sister-schools, etc.).

Apparently the Regents want us to do serious evaluation on the
above. PPS 7.10 steps for performance needs to be re-examined--and
inflation has not been factored into the equation. It was pointed out that
quality team measures and the idea of individual merit/bonus raises seemed
to be somewhat in conflict. VP-AA Gratz pointed out that we were in the
infant stages of quality teams and this was an issue for later
consideration.

These questions will be on future Senate and CAD agendas.

2. DEVELOPMENTAL LEAVE POLICY

We have the Senate revisions of minor word changes and the CAD
changes cutting out librarians and other professionals from eligibility and
limiting leaves to "tenured faculty.' The Senate offered a compromise
reinstating the professionals (as was designated in the enabling Texas
statute, reported in last week's Senate minutes). In the compromise the
Senate agreed to the six consecutive years of SWT employment before the
first leave, as offered in the CAD version.

In response to a question regarding why librarians and other
professionals not attached to an academic dept. should be included, it was
pointed out that in the Senate's Subcommittee report on Librarians' Pay and
Status (March 1995) that this is the direction that the American Research
Librarian Association libraries are going. (ARL includes the 100+ big name
schools.) Research librarians are obtaining advanced degrees in many
disciplines (besides the required MS or MA in Library and Information
Sciences) and some have Ph.D.s in LS or other disciplines. They want the
same opportunities to research, publish, develop academically, and mesh
with academic colleagues. [The University community profits greatly from
this interaction, according to the literature.] In Fall 1994 Texas Tech
librarians achieved "academic status with continuing contract" (see
Subcommittee report) to join other first-class research libraries. SWT
could do the same in these areas, and taking away developmental leave
possibilities is not a step in the right direction for this.

Prof. Pascoe asked on why lecturers who have been in the dept. for
many years (some 20 or more) are not accorded the same opportunity. A
counter question was asked on why depts. had not granted these worthy
persons tenure. Well?

CAD will take up consideration on the Senate's wording at their
next meeting.

3. REGENT'S RULE CHANGE ON PROMOTION

The Regents have proposed that faculty denied promotion are "not
entitled to reasons." Heretofore, those not granted tenure were not entitled
to reasons, but they were "gone." Persons not promoted are presumably with us
for a while and need to know what they should be doing differently. Perhaps
the Regents meant that chairs could share in a general way what faculty need to
do to improve (the Regents' intent will be elicited on this from Board Attorney
Fernando Gomez). While no vote was taken, it seemed that there was general
agreement by CAD and Senate that some kind of generic feedback is needed to
assist faculty to achieve promotion.

One interesting suggestion was that senior faculty ballots on
promotion should have a check-off for areas needing improvement--Teaching,
Scholarship, Service, and Other, with room to write specifics if so
inclined. With statistics in hand, chairs could then give generic positive
suggestions.

4. COLLEGE OF GENERAL STUDIES

Should General Studies (1) disband, or (2) restructure? A
committee of relevant groups (2 from the Senate, etc.) will be appointed to
review and report recommendations to CAD.

5. ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES

a. DEPT. OF THEATRE ARTS to DEPT. OF THEATRE

According to homepages on the Net, major depts. across the country
have changed their names to Dept. of Theatre. CAD/Senate found no
objections and this will advance to the University Council.

b. DEPT. OF ART to DEPT. OF ART AND DESIGN

Again, searching the Net and other disciplinary sources, Dean
Cheatham finds that depts. are changing their names to Dept. of Art and
Design. Dean Martin objected to Art adding just "design" to their name
when so many other disciplines include "design." "Communication design" is
the complete title in the Arts--although dept. names are not including the
whole rubric. One-half of the courses in our dept. are in communication
design and maybe three-quarters of the majors are enrolled in this area.
This will come back to the School of Applied Arts and Technology Council to
discuss.

6. NORTH AUSTIN CENTER

SWT representatives were invited to a recent meeting with
Williamson County ISDs, Chambers of Commerce, Private Industry Development
Councils (PICs), and businesses to discuss the possibility of SWT
establishing a center north of Austin to service the surrounding
communities, especially graduate courses. The State has drawn tentative
districts in which universities can serve, but these are basically in
undergrad courses.

Questions were raised regarding whether this might draw away grad
students from on-campus courses, which then might not "make" and put local
grads at a disadvantage. A major advantage is that we could hire part-time
faculty to teach from a center, whereas under the current rules an
off-campus teacher must be half-time on campus, e.g. at the military bases
in San Antonio.

There will be future meetings in Williamson County and further
exploration of possibilities and ramifications.

7. PROCESS ON NEW DEGREE PROPOSALS

(1) Tracking proposals through the internal machinery is a
problem. The PPS is being worked upon currently. Also, we can develop a
simple form to track where proposals are at a given time. Currently, they
seem to fall into an abyss for many months before surfacing for
consideration at the last minute before they go to the Regents.

(2) The financial analysis sheet for new programs needs to be
revised. Prof. Swinney's and VP-AA Gratz's analysis sheets seem similar
and the Coordinating Board has been complaining that its budget analysis
format is not complete. Swinney and Gratz agreed to get together on their
template and share it with the academic community. More complete data for
evaluation of programs should come from this effort.

8. GRIEVANCE POLICY--OMBUDSMAN

The Ombudsman's term expires September 1 and the machinery to appoint a
replacement needs to be activated. That machinery, specified in the grievance
policy, consists of a search committee of six--three Senators selected by the
Senate and three deans and/or chairs appointed by the VPAA. Selections for this
committee will be made soon.

9. EVALUATION OF DEANS

RTA'd.

10. SCH TARGETS

Prof. Sawey noted that the methodology was "appallingly flawed."
This topic will appear on subsequent agendas.

11. MONITORING PROCESSES

RTA'd.

12. NEW ITEMS

(1) The three-week mini-semester was discussed. About 40
courses will be offered this spring. After meeting with support services,
etc., Assoc-VP Smallwood indicated that the pilot program this May would be
available on a one-day registration and up-front payment plan. Perhaps
next year students might be able to pre-register in January and avail
themselves of aid-packages. Ways in which students might try to manipulate
the system were discussed.

(2) Pay for faculty at $2,000 per course was considered. This
is beneath the long-semester and summer pay of regular faculty. Will
regular faculty agree to work for $2,000 a month for full time work?
Assuming that a faculty person taught 4 courses a long-semester, that is
$16,000 a year at this rate. Will regular faculty do this? Is this a
reasonable policy? The issue will be examined.

Meeting adjourned at 6:06 p.m.


Ramona Ford
Secretary