Sept 17, 2003 Minutes
Guests: Dr. Lugones, Dr. Echeverria, Ms. Hinojosa, Ms. Kilman, Ms. Npea, Ms. Flinn, Ms. Guerralez, Ms. Talley, Ms. Doverslerge, Ms. Vaverek, Mr. Korn, Mr. Doerr, Dr. Blanda, Dr. Hodges
Chair Stone called the meeting to order at .
I. Anti-discrimination policy
President Trauth said this university had taken the issue twice to the regents unsuccessfully. She argued for having a proposal that is more than just
This is not an automatic approval, but many of the regents may not realize that this stipulation is in the anti-discrimination policy of many universities, including A & M,
Senator Sawey asked why we did not have this approved here at this university on this campus. President Trauth said there was considerable discussion on whether the president has the prerogative to simply change the local policy.
She said she could not plead ignorance or naiveté if she were to simply change the policy herself by fiat. She wants to maintain a relationship of trust with the regents, in order to have the regents trust her on such issues as the $3 million pay raise. According to Senator Sawey, Gilda Garcia said it was going to go into our policy, but then the president did not sign it.
Senator Conroy pointed out that we are not asking the president to make an executive decree and that the decision did not rest on her shoulders alone.
The statement change was the product of a process that included support from both the faculty senate and the student government.
Senator Brennan asked what would happen if the regents say no, and President Trauth answered that we would just start it up all over again. She said that if she says no to them, she would have to turn in her resignation.
Senator Conroy said some things are worth standing up for.
President Trauth reiterated her support of this principle, citing the Charlotte Big Brothers Big Sisters policy and her outspoken support of that policy.
II. Enhanced Status for Librarians
Associate Vice President Wyatt updated senate on the way we got to our enhanced status guidelines. Dr. Supple was leaving and Dr. Trauth was coming on, so this was delayed for a time. It has been a collaborative process, according to Dr. Wyatt.
Senators Peeler and Rao mentioned that sometimes a chair would be a good representative on this committee.
Senator Brennan said there was one big question, which encompassed such problems as the lack of inclusion in faculty meetings and emails. They wonder about new job codes and where they will be situated. They don’t want tenure, but they want to be a part of the academic community.
Dr. Wyatt said these would be extracted from the superset of staff job codes. They will still be mapped to staff. Dr. Wyatt said they could get the librarians on the right list, with Senator Sawey’s help, and he was open to working on any problems.
Ms. Vaverek asked why this could not be the way it is in other schools.
Dr. Wyatt said it was an identity issue, and he did not see a connection between collaboration and where a job title sits. Moving job titles would not solve the list problems or committee assignments, time-sheet problems, etc. We will address them specifically.
Senator Brennan said part of it was a matter of respect in the title. They do different things from staff activities.
Senator Conroy said this was a part of academic affairs.
President Trauth said there are three different models, and she agreed the issue was one of respect. She said the responsibilities of faculty would be a necessity for having the faculty title, and this would include scholarly engagement, etc. It would also mean a re-structuring of the career ladder, a change she did not believe would advantageous for librarians.
Dr. Wyatt added that there was a clear sense of the faculty position on these topics, based on surveys conducted.
Senator James asked Dr. Trauth what steps would be possible to increase the respect for librarians, and she said engagement in committees was one important factor. Dr. Wyatt said the routine list serve and research grant issues were also important, and they intended to address these concerns.
III. Status of Work Load Policy Revision
Associate Vice President Cassidy discussed recommendations with Dr. Gratz, and
Dr. Gratz did not recommend that it go forward. Appeal after three days
raises a couple of questions; it’s too late by that point in the semester.
Workload should be open and transparent. We are required to report to coordinating board that we have a twelve-hour load for all faculty members. We added 27 “mays” into the document to allow flexibility and get the deans in the loop.
Senator James said part of it was that this was not always distributed equally in the department. The report allows everyone to know who is teaching what, and it allows openness and equity across the board.
President Trauth said there were two different issues. One is reporting procedure; the other is faculty ability to have the assignment changed. Given the timing, changes are not ordinarily possible at that point in the semester.
Senator Sawey asked where this policy revision is at this point, and Dr. Cassidy said that he would like to have consultation with deans.
Chair Stone said they support transmittal to faculty, not supporting 3-day protest. Unless the entire workload is published it is easier on the department level.
Chair Stone asked if it would be released to personnel committee in each department. President Trauth did not see a problem with releasing the departmental workload report to departments.
IV. Faculty Salary Increases
President Trauth told the regents we needed to get a raise in January. Despite the deficit situation, she said she could identify $3 million for a 3% increase. In addition, she brought up an equity study of faculty salaries to benchmark us with other comparable institutions. The regents agreed to both of these.
Dr. Trauth said we should have merit every other year, tied to years when the legislature is in session. Documentation has already occurred. Personnel committees would pick that up and use that in judgments. Trauth is looking at requiring personnel committees to make recommendations to chairs. She would like to have some differential between faculty and staff. There is time for the senate to talk about the issue, but the framework is one of having some merit.
We would have to look at performance since the last time we had merit.
Several senators voiced the idea that merit was divisive and so inconsequential that it was hardly worth considering. Jon McGee said the difference between highest and lowest is so little that this is not worth the ill feelings it causes.
Senator Shah asked why we have salary equity studies, if nothing is going to happen.
President Trauth said we had $1.5 spread over two years, then another study again, then $750,000 again. This is a start, with an underpaid faculty. She is committed to increasing the size of the entire faculty and salaries for everyone. We will have to have personnel committees making this judgment concerning merit.
V. Academic Integrity Committee
Trauth said that the policy has been revised, but not all faculty are completely sure that this change is necessary. Fine faculty members have developed revisions, and faculty senate should look it at.
The honor code and upps would both change, and there was concern about this.
The upps would go into the traditional upps cycle. Sept. 11th there was a draft of the policy given to chairs and deans. It will be revised and brought to faculty senate.
VI. Review of PAAG
The senate resolved to do more on Sexual Orientation and explore ways to apply more pressure to the regents and the administration to resolve this issue.
VII. Committee on Committees
Senate decided to collapse and get rid of temporary faculty committee, and blend it into the academic governance committee. Senator Gillis said adding to academic governance would be important. Give the committee the charge to start the work. Handle consensual dating, also possibility of forming graduate student association, adjunct professors, etc.
Senator Sawey moved and Senator James seconded a motion to have this done.
Senator Conroy seconded. Stan Carpenter was selected. Senator Shah said he would replace Lu Montodon, who has declined to serve. There are two librarians on the library committee, and historically, we’ve only had one. Ms. Hinojosa said her tenure was not up yet, and this was probably a typo. Michael England wants to be called Tim. Chair Stone said he would make corrections and get the report delivered.
VIII. Research Enhancement Report (Dr. Blanda)
University Research Committee (formerly Faculty Research Committee) Dr. Blanda reported on research enhancement.
Senator Conroy pointed out that the Faculty Reseach Committee listed on the Committee on Committee's roster was inaccurate and should be removed since the senate appoints members to this committee directly, without Committee on Committees recommendations. Senator Conroy said we should strike the Faculty
Research committee from Committee on Committees report. We launched major
revisions, all electric submission, numerical, normalization, triggering funding based on a score.
Dr. Blanda recommended for Fall 03 seven items. Someone should cover cost of printing. Proposals will go to deans’ office, and deans on request of committee members will print them. Better clarification of tenure and tenure-track status. Cover page revised. Other than pdf, they should do applications as word files now. More consistent budget sheet will break out cost to allow more flexibility for bonus points for first-year and tenure-track faculty.
Dr. Blanda pointed out blank spots in Applied Arts, Health Profession,
Anthropology, Fine Arts, etc., saying these need to be filled, if possible.
Senator Shah asked if chairs could serve, but Dr. Blanda said there might be conflict of interest, but he would want to have representation from each college. College representatives are elected every spring.
Dr. Blanda pointed out the timeline and the importance of following it strictly.
Senator Brennan asked for instruction on problems of ranking, and Dr. Blanda said they would instruct on that and formatting issues as well.
Senator Conroy asked about subcategories and Dr. Blanda said they were decided last year and they could be revised each year. There are 46 people on this committee and $210,000 to distribute.
IX. Modern Language Department Election Problem
We do have a liaison, Miriam Echeverria, and Dr. Nestor Lugones was elected.
We could stick with last year’s or accept agenda that department will elect this week. Apparently another election has happened, so we needed to decide which elected slate faculty senate should accept. We will keep the liaison as it is. Senator Conroy asked again how many graduations we have to attend. We should only have one. The Handbook committee will work on this. April 1 is the deadline.
Chair Stone announced that the original release date of evaluations will be moved to Monday. The new chief of police is looking for members from faculty senate to serve on a new committee.
Minutes of all August 27, September 3, and September 10 were accepted.
Several senators asked if the Piper professor announcement had come out. It had, but email is slow.
Senator Bell-Metereau asked for a volunteer for minutes next week. No one volunteered.
Under New business, Senator Hawkins said we need discussion of Budget to make a statement.
Approved Faculty Senate Minutes submitted