Skip to Content

June 7, 1995 Minutes

Present: Caverly, Deduck, Ford, Hunter, Lyman, Middlebrook, Pascoe,
Sawey, Swinney, Weller, and Winek.

Absent: Bible, Glassman, Horne, and Stedman .

Guests: VPAA Gratz; Prof. Christopher Frost; Mike Moore, Sandra Akridge.


47 SUMMER TASK FORCE REPORT (Guest: Prof. Chris Frost)
108 BUDGET CYCLE, FY96 (Faculty Raise Strategy)

The meeting was called to order at 4:03, Chair Swinney presiding.

47 SUMMER TASK FORCE REPORT (Guest: Prof. Chris Frost)

The Task Force expects to have recommendations ready by late
October. For the past three months they have been working to reach
faculty, staff, and students through meetings and E-mail to identify issues
of concern. During the summer a stratified random sample of students who
were enrolled in Spring 1995 but not in the summer will be surveyed to find
out why they are not in school, e.g. taking courses elsewhere, working,
etc. A sample of those enrolled in summer school and their needs will also
be made. An Austin American-Statesman article of 6/6/95 indicated that
summer enrollments were up for the seven Central Texas colleges and
universities, except for SWT and UT-Austin.

Three groups in particular are of concern: (1) Public school teachers
have a shrinking summer vacation which does not fit the current schedule
(and it was noted in passing that summer graduate student enrollment helps
to subsidize long-semester undergraduate costs); (2) Undergraduates might be
assisted in graduating earlier if a flexible schedule with more courses were
offered, especially in upper division major areas; (3) Businesses are wanting
more education for their employees as corporations restructure/re-engineer; and (4) Faculty and staff needs for
family responsibilities, research time, and perceptions of how much time is
needed to cover course material must be considered.

Upper-division and graduate courses on nights and weekends and on a
flexible schedule are apparently in the most demand.

The Task Force is leaning toward (1) A trimester system, in which a
one semester summer would be the equivalent of one long-term semester
(18 hours possible) with one registration period. This would take stress off
of staff on two registrations, require that summer schedules be produced
earlier (meaning summer budgets will have to be known at an earlier date by
departments), and require that departments will have to evaluate what is
being offered to the advantage of students and faculty. (2) During the
summer semester, the Task Force suggests maximizing flexibility--seven
possibilities for courses of varying hours per week and starting and ending
times. (3) A two-week break in July would save the University an
unknown but large amount of money in utilities, etc. (maybe $250,000, taking
the middle range projection) while giving students time to pursue research in
courses which meet on both sides of the hiatus. Cost savings should be
returned to enhance the summer budget. (4) Marketing of the flexible
program should be actively pursued with alumni, teachers, and businesses
who want to send personnel. This might include summer camps for
children while parents are engaged in course work and family is housed at
Aquarena Springs. Faculty on a trimester system could teach spring and
summer or summer and fall and free up a long-term semester for Fullbrights
or other long-term semester projects.

Discussion followed regarding: (1) Faculty pay in summer (perhaps
1/12th of nine-month salary for each course taught); (2) Faculty choice of
courses, departmental level assessment of what is needed, students' needs,
pedagogical requirements for course length, etc.; (3) Concern over where
summer funds are coming from (summer has not been a priority item in the
budget), summer shutdown savings, early information for budget planning
(a year ahead would be helpful, according to Prof. Frost); (4) Dorm
use--not primarily regular students in the summer but relies on summer camps.
Residence Life likes the longer period at the end of summer to paint and

This item will be on the agenda in the Fall.

108 BUDGET CYCLE, FY96 (Faculty Raise Strategy)

The President's Council will be meeting on this soon. It looks like
the 3 percent performance raise is fairly well assured. How much is available
on top of that is unknown to us. A memo from Dr. Susan Griffith and
salary data comparing SWT to AAUP and Coordinating Board state data
(both averages by rank and by median of top quartile) and SWT vs. national
averages were examined.

Discussion included performance vs. across-the-board, merit (which is
added to salary base) vs. one-time bonuses, lump-sum vs. percentage of
salary. A motion passed (with two nays) to support performance raises on
percentage of salary for the 3 percent we are fairly sure to receive,
rather than lump sum. [Note this reverses the position held by the Senate in
March.] A motion was made that for the additional monies above the 3
percent performance, if the amount available were small, an experiment with
individual bonuses rather than merit added to base salary be undertaken; if
the amount available were large, we would like to reconsider merit
distribution. The motion passed.

A third issue examined was the proposed "Presidential Team Bonus
Awards." The draft proposal suggests that academic departments use a
team approach to plan departmental improvements and mechanisms for
assessing: "customer satisfaction, employee empowerment, dynamic
teamwork, visionary leadership, decisions based on data, and continuous

Non-continuing grants of between $10,000 and $50,000 could be awarded
to up to 10 departments. The draft notes that this requires data to be
collected and analyzed to demonstrate continuous improvement in the above
areas. The Assessment Advisory Committee, the Quality Team, and the
University Planning Council can assist departments with training,
assessment tools, and so forth. Application for funds may begin in
February, 1998.

After some discussion the Senate moved and passed a motion that it
was hesitant to support this plan for group bonuses until more is known,
and would like to have a Senate representative on the Committee to explore
the plan's possibilities. Following is the text of the Senate's
recommendations with regard to raises in FY96:

"As we promised to do at the last PAAG meeting, the Senate has
carefully reexamined our predilections regarding faculty raises for next year.
Working on the assumption that the reallocation program has produced
enough revenue to fund a 4% faculty raise and still allow money for new
initiatives under the Strategic Plan, we offer the following recommendations
for your consideration:

"1) There should be a 3% (i.e., 6 step) "performance" raise. Guidelines
for implementation would be current University policy, that is, paragraphs 5
through 9 in PPS 7.10.

"2) The remaining money should be allocated to a "merit pool," which
would be distributed under the guidelines in paragraphs 10 through 16 of
PPS 7.10, except that merit, this time, as an experiment, would take the
form of a bonus.

"The Senate believes that this is an ideal time to try the
individual bonus concept. Continuing dissatisfaction with traditional
merit and emerging interest in the team bonus idea creates a convenient
window of opportunity to try bonuses. If the experiment works we will
have discovered a better way to do merit; if it does not, the money will
be available the following year for reallocation to performance, merit,
team bonuses, etc.

"3) With regard to the team bonus draft discussed at the Quality Breakfast
last week, the Senate is skeptical. At first glance we are not sure that the
departmental competition it could provoke would be any healthier than the
individual competition which has always undergirded the traditional merit
system. Nonetheless, the underlying idea of attempting to find effective
ways of promoting collegiality is very appealing to us, and we would like to
participate in the planning process. Thus, we would welcome the
opportunity to appoint an appropriate number of Faculty to the committee
which will be established to work on this project."


A memo from VPAA Gratz of 4/3/95 proposed changes in Faculty
Handbook wording regarding tenure and promotion to associate professor
(Handbook p. 25, par. 5 and p. 26, par. 1) to read: "While the granting of
tenure and promotion are two separate and distinct actions, the granting of
tenure and promotion to associate professor normally occur simultaneously.
In the extremely rare cases where an individual is promoted to associate
professor prior to being granted tenure or is granted tenure without being
promoted to associate professor, granting promotion to a nontenured faculty
member does not guarantee that tenure will be given, and vice versa." And,
"No faculty member will be promoted to associate professor with fewer
than six years of full-time university-level teaching experience, or to
professor with fewer than ten years' full-time experience."

Discussion included the following points: Actually promotion is
often somewhat stiffer (particularly with regard to publication) than tenure,
although this may differ by School. For those who have acceptable
publication before they are eligible for tenure, this is a way to increase
salary and keep people. On the other hand, there are those who must come
up for tenure who are not ready for promotion as they have things in the
pipeline, are working on a large project, etc. which have not come to
fruition. Some senators questioned whether the two "normally occur
simultaneously" and whether it is "extremely rare" that one is tenured before
being promoted. The proposed wording makes it sound like either "up or
out." (There is always a possibility of going off tenure track for a year or
two to stop the tenure clock, but that is not a comfortable idea and the
practice does not to AAUP standards.)

Some who have come in under the current Handbook want to go up
for promotion early, but are being told by their Deans that they will be
rejected higher up. VPAA Gratz said 6 or 7 went up "early" this year and
were approved. This would not be possible under the new wording,

The Senate asked for data on the numbers of those who were granted
tenure and denied promotion. The VPAA promised to get this data.

Also, it would be interesting to compare criteria used for promotion
and tenure among the Schools. While both are based on teaching,
scholarship, and service, apparently emphases and expectations vary
between the two across Schools.


RTA'd for July meeting.


RTA'd for July meeting.


RTA'd for July meeting.


The minutes were approved.


The July meeting was changed to July 19, 1995 in Alkek 105, 2:00-

The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Ramona Ford