Present: Bible, Bourgeois, Caverly, Deduck-Evans, Ford, Hays, Horne,
Hunter, McGee, Pascoe, Sawey, Simpson, Stimmel, Weller, and Winek.
Guests: Pres. Supple, VPAA Gratz, Assoc.VPAA Cassidy; Margaret Vaverek
(Library); Ms. Shirley Pilus, Dylan Sides (University Star), Mike Moore.
CONTENTS:
PAAG MEETING (Pres. Supple & VPAA Gratz)
MARRIAGE WITH TEXAS TECH
REGENTS' DRUG USE POLICY
NEW BONUS PAY PROPOSAL
WORKLOAD POLICY AND SCH'S
QUESTIONS REGARDING EXTERNAL GRANTS
NEW/UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Senate only)
(1) BONUS
(2) DRUG USE
(3) FACULTY GOVERNANCE
(4) UC TENURE-TRACK REPRESENTATIVE
(5) MINI-MESTER
(6) STUDENT DISABILITIES HANDBOOK COMMITTEE
(7) LRC NEW HIRE RESPONSE
APPROVAL OF 10/30/96 MINUTES
The meeting was called to order at 4:05, Chair Bible presiding.
PAAG MEETING (Pres. Supple & VPAA Gratz)
MARRIAGE WITH TEXAS TECH
Pres. Supple was asked about the newspaper report that Texas Tech
was considering forming a system which could include SWT. He said he had
not been contacted about it and all he had were rumors. There is
speculation that the Tech Board of Regents might be anxious to expand to
justify their existing Chancellor and two Presidents (one is for their
Health Center). The "feeling" is that our Board and some key legislators
are not thrilled. We speculated, with great abandon, on what Tech or SWT
had to lose or gain by such a proposal. One gain for a school heading such
a system might be to garner clout with legislators from each area of the
schools in the system. On the other hand, it could be an economic headache
for the flagship school, e.g. bond indebtedness and new programs for
daughter schools.
REGENTS' DRUG USE POLICY
The new policy puts faculty/staff in the same boat as students,
zero tolerance for anyone found in possession of an illegal substance
(which brings up the problem of planting of evidence by a disgruntled
student, colleague, subordinate, superior). Even if one is found not
guilty in court, or if charges are not pressed, one is now subject to
University or Regents' punishment/dismissal. Pres. Supple said that while
he had argued before the Regents to put the students on the same footing
with the previous position of faculty/staff of following whatever the
courts or police did, he could not support the Senate's recommendation to
accept the decision of outside legal process.
In the ensuing discussion it was pointed out that (a) the Regents
Rules are written to allow them to do virtually anything they wish; (b)
this provides a precedent for other areas which are illegal in Texas but
ignored by social practice, e.g. homosexuality can be prosecuted as a
Class C misdemeanor; (c) regardless of the outcome of the criminal justice
process, any disciplinary action by the Regents or the University would have
to be taken in accordance with prescribed SWT disciplinary procedures.
See New Business below for Senate decision.
NEW BONUS PAY PROPOSAL
The new bonus pay proposal which would parcel out $320,000 or so to
a few stellar faculty in three divisions (distinguished profs., runners-up
to excellence awards in teaching/scholarship/service, and teams who promote
departmental or school goals) was discussed. There seems to be a Senate
agreement regarding rewards to the runners-up in all the schools for
teaching, etc. excellence. [This idea was suggested by Prof. Hays some
time ago and received acclaim.]
The other two areas caused a problem. The distinguished prof.
business is weighted toward full profs who already have an advantage in
percentage increases/steps and options for teaching in summers. Pres.
Supple said this would be a rank beyond full prof. (like the SUNY system
has). Still, it is top oriented in a school trying to bring up salaries in
general. This money is coming out of give-backs from depts. which were
originally intended to lift all salaries, or so we thought. When the
Senate first approved some-kind-of bonus concept, we didn't know it would
be taken out of give-backs. [When the Senate found out where the money was
to come from and we also had in hand the faculty survey which was negative to
bonuses, we nixed the idea in its previous form this fall.] The Council
of Chairs has also questioned the criteria for bonuses.
What are the criteria for teams and who selects? Team bonuses are
increasing in corporations because they are said to induce cooperation,
hence effectiveness. How this would be implemented at SWT (or academia, in
general) is unclear. [Let's do some research, get some benchmarks from
other schools who do team rewards.] See New Business below for Senate
decision.
WORKLOAD POLICY AND SCH'S
What is the status of draft PPS 7.05? A pilot study is about to be
undertaken to see what problems are in the workload draft. By August 1997
we would like to take our recommendations to the Regents. Can we build
teaching workload assignment into a reward of tenure and promotion? Pres.
Supple said excellent teaching is not enough for tenure or promotion or
merit. The research must be there for all three. Students are here to be
in contact with scholars.
Prof. Deduck-Evans made an eloquent statement regarding realities
in the classroom: (a) There is scholarship which translates into teaching
rather than published articles; (b) Perhaps most students have not been
attuned to going to college to rub elbows with scholars and the only way we
can catch these students into the world of ideas is through teaching--not
by how many articles we publish or how well known nationally we are. Prof.
Bourgeois noted that at U of North Texas there were two tracks--teaching
and research.
Pres. Supple said that workload would have to be a compromise
between faculty and chair--and dean, if disagreement occurs. Reward is a
decision by senior faculty, chair, school review committee, VPAA, and Pres.
[Currently this appears to be based on publication.]
What if someone chooses to do the minimum in teaching and eschew
service, dumping the teaching/service load on others? Answer: The chair
should not allow this. [Hmmm. What happens if you know what will be
accepted higher up?]
QUESTIONS REGARDING EXTERNAL GRANTS
Not dealt with. Probably RTA.
NEW/UNFINISHED BUSINESS (Senate, after Adm. departed)
(1) BONUS
The majority of faculty rejected bonuses on the Senate survey, and
some deans also do not support bonuses. RTA'd for next week. Some parts of
the new proposal looked acceptable, i.e. bonuses for runners up in teaching/
research/service excellence. Distinguished profs. and team bonuses are
another question.
(2) DRUG USE
The Senate agreed to proceed with our earlier resolution objecting
to zero tolerance and to forward our proposed rewording of the Regents' Rules
directly to the Board of Regents. [While we appreciate the Regents' concern
over someone slipping through the legal cracks, we support the idea of letting
the legal system have the last say.]
(3) FACULTY GOVERNANCE
RTA'd to talk to Prof. Hazlewood, who was chair of the Faculty
Governance Committee, regarding the Committee's survey of departments on
their practices. We invite those with views on the subject to attend when
this appears on the agenda. [This issue arose regarding non-tenured and
non-tenure track faculty participating in departmental decisions, except
for personnel considerations.]
(4) UC TENURE-TRACK REPRESENTATIVE
The two open positions include (a) a fill-in for one year, and (b)
a regular three-year term. Profs. Reese and Kimmel will be consulted on
their preferences for their length of term.
(5) MINI-MESTER
The Senate will get copies of Assoc.VPAA Smallwood's response to
the Senate questions about the subject. RTA'd for his response.
(6) STUDENT DISABILITIES HANDBOOK COMMITTEE
The persons assigned and the structure of subcommittees looks good.
The Senate's questions and e-mail comments from faculty will be
distributed to the members of the subcommittees.
(7) LRC NEW HIRE RESPONSE
A memo from Head Librarian Joan Heath has been received in response
to the Senate questions regarding hiring a Reference/Technology librarian
well above the advertised salary (a practice the audit of 4/96 told us to
quit because it may have the appearance of legal impropriety). Further, it
seems that the area of expertise in computer tech (the given reason for the
higher, off career ladder salary) is not uncommon in recent grads from
library schools, i.e. was this off career ladder salary necessary? [The
Senate has been on record for over two years that librarians are grossly
underpaid, so it was noted that the new person is not so overpaid, but that
he is overpaid compared to equally competent personnel on board, given our
low pay compared to state, regional, and national pay.]
The Career Ladder Quality Team could deal with this, but may be
having some problems currently. The Senate asked its Subcommittee on
Librarian Pay and Status to review the situation.
The Subcommittee on Librarian Pay and Status consists of Profs.
Ford, Bible, Horne, and Sawey and Librarians Bruner, Dalton, Kilman,
Spooner (no longer at SWT), and Vaverek. Prof. Bible will not be able to
serve, given his Senate chair duties, and was replaced by Prof. Stimmel.
Librarian Spooner's replacement was suggested, someone familiar with both
the Career Ladder Team and the recent search.
APPROVAL OF 10/30/96 MINUTES
The minutes were approved.
Ramona Ford
Secretary
