Skip to Content

Sept 11, 1996 Minutes

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

Guests: ExecVP Abbott, Assoc.VP Cassidy, Chief Megerson, Prof. John McGee
(Ombudsperson), Prof. Wilbon Davis; Mike Moore and Ms. Shirley Pilus.


PARKING (ExecVP Abbott & Chief Megerson)

The meeting was called to order at 4:05, Chair Bible presiding.

PARKING (ExecVP Abbott & Chief Megerson)

Attention was called to the e-mail of 9/5/96 regarding the locales
of 130+ additional Red parking spaces carved out of existing zones.
Confusing signs are being corrected, e.g. Cogen lot #221. The N. Lindsey
lot will be paved this fall and a temporary lot "may" be opened at Sessoms
and Comanche.

The color of lots can be determined only by the Parking and
Transportation Committee, but new spaces within existing lots can be teased
out by UPD. The P&T Committee will be reconstituted by next week, it is
hoped, and can address such questions as whether some lots can be
designated as both Red and Green. [Note: Red used to be able to park in
Green lots, which worked rather well according to some senators.]
Question: Didn't lot #221 turn from Red to Green without P&T's approval?
Answer: Don't know, but will find out.

It was pointed out that about $8,600+ in outstanding fines are owed
by Red tag holders and this will be on the University Council agenda
tomorrow 9/12/96. After 3 tickets, one can expect to find one's car in a
towing company's parking lot. Every 3 months a list of ticket holders goes
to the appropriate Dean to try to do something about it with faculty and
staff. There was a little confusion the first week of school when some
faculty received warning stickers and some received tickets. Apparently
warnings were given when parking was "ambiguous" and tickets were given for
blatant violations.

Students in residence on campus are arriving now with almost one
car each. Over 900 were issued Purple commuter tags because there were not
enough spaces on campus. A new shuttle which runs from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
will soon be in place from Strahan parking to the dorms. In addition, a
guarded storage area is being considered in an off-campus area for students
who use their cars only on weekends.

In support of the "Red trumps Green" idea, i.e. faculty/staff can
park in Green zones, it was noted that administrators have parking spaces
reserved but faculty do not although they must be there for classes. Ergo,
if we are going to establish a hierarchy (which is repulsive to us all on
the Senate), it may be that it is more important for the faculty to be on
time to class than for an individual student. [Not mentioned, but
interesting, is the question of whether faculty being on time is more
important than the administration being on time. Hmmmm.]


Dr. Cassidy presented a report from the Bonus Pay Subcommittee of
the Executive Planning Committee. A total of $531,327 ($320,000 for
faculty) is available for bonuses from the previous departmental rebates.
An hour long debate ensued over whether bonuses (which are one time rewards
and are not added to the base salary) were (1) super-merit awards, (2) for
something unusual attached to Strategic Plan initiatives (emphasized by
Pres. Supple and available to individuals or groups), or (3) intended to be
merit awards in years in which merit increases were not available (an idea
which some senators thought they were voting for in their support of
bonuses last spring).

After a lengthy discussion on various points, it was decided to RTA
the decision until the previous minutes of Senate deliberations and its
decision Spring 1996 and the results of the faculty survey done prior to
that were reviewed. It seems that the faculty who responded were generally
not in favor of the bonus concept. A particular problem brought up in
discussion was that under the proposed decision-making process,
departmental chairs would be making decisions and these were the persons
who awarded merit (i.e. new and vague criteria are problematic). One
suggestion was that faculty submit their own nominations for special
consideration to an outside committee--either outside the dept. or outside
the University. Other problems included that 25% receiving bonuses were
far too many--fewer recipients and more dollars and publicity were
suggested, if this were to be something like the Excellence in Teaching or
Research awards. Also, yet another blizzard of paper work and the failure
of "stars" to want to toot-their-own-horn to submit their names were
indicated as drawbacks.

A motion to put the bonus monies into the merit pool was tabled by
a vote of 8 to 4. It was agreed to get data on merit increases in the last
cycle, [Presumably this gives some idea on how and why merit is distributed
across campus. This is open records info.] and to look at the Strategic
Plan criteria and Spring 1996 survey data and minutes again. More later on




After discussion, a motion was passed to invite Profs. Wilbon Davis
and Chris Frost to membership on the Committee.




The minutes were approved with the addition of more detail on the
faculty Research Enhancement Grants, as suggested by Prof. Folse.


(1) Senators were reminded that their attendance was expected at
the University Council tomorrow, 3:00-5:00, in the Family and Consumer
Science Bldg.

(2) Ballots for the first round of Piper Professor, department
liaison to the Senate (for those depts. which do not have a senator), and
tenure-track faculty representatives to the University Council. The ballot
looks a little different this year (in the interest of saving paper) so
read the directions that come with it.

(3) Prof. Stimmel distributed the last TACT Quarterly Bulletin
which contains the proposed Texas A&M University rule on post-tenure

Meeting adjourned at 6:08 p.m.

Ramona Ford