Skip to Content

March 5, 1997 Minutes

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

Guests: Assoc.VPAAs Cassidy and Tangum; Profs. Ali (Comp.Sci.), Conroy
(Art), Caruana (Clin.Lab), Davis (Comp.Sci), Folse (Sociology), Kimmel
(Geography), Ombudsman McGee (Fin/Econ); Mike Moore, Shirley Pilus.


CAD REVIEW (Prof. Bible)
FACULTY RESEARCH COMMITTEE (Assoc.VPAA Tangum, Profs. Folse and Conroy)
MINUTES OF 2/26/97

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

CAD REVIEW (Prof. Bible)

In the ongoing quest as to how to use faculty salary "bonus pool"
money, CAD received a draft proposal for distribution of faculty "awards"
based on: (1) Major Presidential Awards for Excellence in Teaching,
Scholarly/Creative activities, and Service. $5,000 each for the top two in
each category and the addition of up to six runners-up in each category (a
possible one from each of the other schools) at $1,000 each. [This is 6
top winners and a possible 36 runners-up, if the committee so chooses.]
(2) Strategic Plan Initiative Awards ($2,000 to $5,000 per individual).
This would be new and the Executive Planning Council and CAD would identify
a limited number of multi-year goals related to the Strategic Plan and
school deans and VPAA would select individuals or groups to receive the
award based on contributions to these long-range outcomes. [For example, a
stellar performance by a committee of six could be awarded $30,000.]

There was discussion at CAD regarding the maximum of $66,000 for
Teaching, Scholarly and Creative, and Service awards versus the rest of the
$360,000 for Strategic Planning Initiatives; it was noted that the Strategic
Planning category does contemplate teaching, scholarly, and service
activities as well, so that the two categories are not mutually exclusive.

This is a draft which will be discussed further at various levels, so
send in comments to your senator or liaison. The good news is that we have
something on paper to discuss.

FACULTY RESEARCH COMMITTEE (Assoc.VPAA Tangum, Profs. Folse and Conroy)

(1) Prof. Edward Seifert (EAPS) was appointed to the Committee
as a replacement.

(2) Guideline revision: Assoc.VP Tangum explained the spirit
of the legislature in the funding of these grants was to get faculty
started on their research and grant writing, which will help the
individual, the University, and later lead to external funding. This is
also the philosophy of THECB, according to Roger Elliot, CB assistant. Of
the fifty persons who received grants in FY96, however, eleven have applied
for external funding since then--six from Liberal Arts and five from
Science. This is why the Faculty Research Committee, in its current
revising of the guidelines, suggests the following to encourage faculty to
apply for external grants:

"Faculty who have received two Research Enhancement Grants and also
have applied for external funding will be given priority for subsequent

In the discussion which followed, Prof. Conroy noted that there are
differences among the disciplines in availability of outside grants,
meaning some depts. may have to rely more on internal funding. Further,
there are positive outcomes from research other than generating outside
money. Prof. Tangum noted that while not enough faculty at SWT were
applying, our track record for receiving outside grants which we apply for
is 40% compared to the national rate of 18%. It would be interesting to
know the success rate at other Texas universities, and what percent of the
faculty apply for external grants each year.

ORSP is still offering regular workshops on grantsmanship and Prof.
Folse offered two sessions last fall for those applying for our Research
Enhancement Grants. There is help available.

Other aspects of the guideline revision discussed were: To include
a statement of a "required" report on outcomes which Prof. Tangum will keep
track of, and to insist that a report must be turned in on a previous grant
before a second one is applied for (Perhaps an explicit form for
reporting?); To raise the ceiling on grants ($8,000-10,000?) and on the
current $3,000 salary level (Larger grants might be considered for team
projects?); To reconsider the calendar (Perhaps only one deadline with an
earlier submission date?); To request IRBs before the release of funds, but
after proposal has been approved? (Currently these are required before the
proposal is considered when research deals with human subjects.)

(3) Procedures in last round of proposals: Prof. Folse
explained the Committee's decisions, including the mixed reviews coming
from the School level committees on two proposals in question.

In two motions the Senate agreed to accept the Committee's
decisions and to ask the applicants to revise and resubmit in the
supplemental round. The vote was nine to three on the first proposal and
unanimous on the second.

The Senate asked the Committee to return when the concrete
guidelines are prepared and also to clarify the application guideline
statement that there be no more than five pages of text in the description
of the proposed study, and in addition to that are the addended pages of
supporting documents, budget request form, CVs, etc. (up to ten pages


RTA'd due to time.

CURRICULUM COMMITTEE (Profs. Caruana and Kimmel)

Prof. Caruana distributed the Committee's report for explanation
and discussion:

(1) Add a Minor in Nature and Heritage Tourism with two new
courses (NHT 4301 and NHT 4302). The rest of the courses for the minor are
already in place in the ten participating depts. from several schools.
THECB requires the NHT prefix for the core courses in this area. The SCH
goes to the dept. of the teacher of the course. The governing body will be
composed of representatives from each of the ten depts. and will report
directly to the VPAA since a number of schools are involved.

[Questions were also asked about the Center for Nature and Heritage
Tourism, which was not part of the report. Prof. Kimmel explained that the
Center, which will eventually be housed at Aquarena Springs, will solicit
grants to fund research and education projects, equipment, and graduate
students. In addition, the Center gives SWT more exposure--for example,
MIT has recently contacted us regarding our program--and should attract
graduate and undergraduate students. Prof. Kimmel is the director of the
new Center which was approved by PC in January 1997. The governing board
will be the group from the participating depts., as mentioned above.
Current expenses are being borne by grants received by Prof. Kimmel.]

(2) Music proposes a name change from a major in Music
Performance to Music Education under the Master of Music degree. A
restructuring of the major in Music Education is also requested, but will
require no new courses.

(3) Computer Science will add a major in Software Engineering
under the Master of Science. No additional courses or expenses are
involved. With our proximity to Austin, we expect to attract graduate
students and formula funding for this area is at a higher than usual rate.
[This latter bit of news led to speculation on changing dept. names, e.g.
Historical Engineering, etc.]

A motion was made and passed to accept the Curriculum Committee's
Report with thanks.


PAAG agenda for 3/19/97.

(1) Renewable terms. Chair Bible reported that at a
recent meeting, Dr. Supple stated that one of the problems with the concept
of renewable terms for chairs and deans is that the Board of Regents does
not favor multi-year as opposed to one-year contracts. The Senate would
like to hear more on this, especially since it has appointed an ad hoc
committee to explore this issue.

In the discussion, it was pointed out that people are
appointed to three-year terms on various posts despite the fact that we are
all on one-year contracts even with tenure. People are routinely appointed
to three-year terms (to committees, to the senate) which has nothing to do
with their employment contracts. Chairs could be subject to three-year
terms with renewable terms dependent on faculty and dean review.

(2) Grade change policy

(3) Status of disabilities draft.

(4) Faculty workload policy.

(5) North Austin initiative.

(6) $500,000 walkway in Aquarena--which is an excellent
idea, but we need more details.

(7) Nature and Heritage Tourism Center

MINUTES OF 2/26/97

Regarding last week's minutes, it was noted that the discussion of
which faculty are eligible to file grievances erroneously defined "rank" as
instructor and above, which would eliminate lecturers. The Faculty Consti-
tution defines "faculty" as "those persons, exclusive of assistant
instructors, who hold academic rank," and all such faculty, which includes
lecturers and part-time faculty, can file grievances.

The minutes were approved with the deletion of the paragraph on
"faculty who could grieve."

The meeting adjourned at 6:14.

Ramona Ford