Skip to Content

Nov 5, 1997 Minutes

Present: Bible, Conroy, Deduck-Evans, Ford, Hays, McGee, Oliver, Pascoe,
Renick, Sawey, Simpson, Stimmel and Winek.

Absent: Bechtol and Irvin

Guests: Pres. Supple, VPAA Gratz, VPAA Cassidy, VPAA Smallwood, John McGee
(Fin & Econ), Margaret Vaverek (Lib), Jeff Noether (ASG), Lance Moore (ASG), Ed
Mihalkanin (PolSci), Grady Early (CompSci), Ev Swinney (Hist), Rebecca
Bell-Metereau (Eng), Mike Moore and Dylan Sides (Star)

I. Faculty Salary Equity Process
II. University Calendar
III. Classroom Utilization
IV. Use of Social Security Numbers for I.D. purposes
V. Administration Articulation of Tenure and Promotion Criteria
MINUTES OF 10-29-97

Chair Bible called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m.


I. Faculty Salary Equity Process

Over a year ago the Council of Women came before the Senate with some concerns
including the issue of salary equity for women faculty. The Senate shared this
concern, but wanted the study broadened to include all faculty. Joe Meyer from
the Institute of Research and Planning constructed an instrument to investigate
this issue. A later version of this instrument included input from a Texas A&M
consultant whose salary equity study had held up in court. Based on the
results of the study, Deans were presented with a list of faculty whose salary
fell one or more standard deviations below the mean for their rank and years of
service. The Deans were then given the opportunity to adjust faculty salaries
as they deemed appropriate up to the mean salary.

A Faculty Review Committee was selected to work with the administration on this
issue. The concern of some was that once the committee was organized, it never
met as a formal body again although Dr. Gratz consulted with individual
members. Concerns were also raised about the methodology used by Mr. Meyer and
why only faculty with salaries below the mean were reviewed. Questions were
raised about faculty with law degrees and whether to treat these degrees as
"professional" or terminal degrees; if they had been treated as terminal
degrees most of these faculty would have received a salary adjustment, but the
administration, seem- ingly without much discussion, decided to characterize
them as professional. Other faculty were concerned about the purpose of merit
and performance raises if all faculty salaries were to be periodically

Regarding the law degree issue, Chair Bible noted that it has been well settled
on this campus for some time that such degrees are terminal degrees and thus
are the equivalent of a Ph.D.; in particular, he noted that when the AACSB
reviewed the School of Business for accreditation purposes, the school did not
character- ize such degrees as "professional." In light of this, Chair Bible
requested the administration to re-run the salary equity numbers using the J.D.
degree as the equivalent of a Ph.D. and to make retroactive salary adjustments
if holders of the J.D. are, under the new numbers, eligible under the criteria
used to make such adjustments.

It was concluded that salary equity was such an important issue that it
deserved a PPS which documented the process. It was agreed that salary equity
studies should be conducted periodically with the instrument used revised as
needed. Finally, Dr. Gratz agreed to re-run the salary equity computations
using the J.D. degree as the equivalent of a Ph.D and to make retroactive
salary equity awards if appropriate.

II. University Calendar.

The Senate discussed the merits of four different calendars proposed for the
next school year. The goal for many faculty was to develop a calendar that
contained as many FULL weeks of scheduled classes as possible instead of
starting classes in the middle of the week. This would allow departments that
have, for example, a Monday lecture and Wednesday and Friday laboratories to
effectively use the first week of classes. Also various holidays within the
semester and their effect on the university calendar were examined.

The President said that he had seen most of the suggested calendar variations
at other universities and the faculty always based their argument on academics.
Other Senators were concerned that some students didn't attend the first week
of classes because of the late add/drop dates; there was also was concern about
students not attending classes during the three days before Thanksgiving. Dr.
Gratz said he would be willing to sponsor a committee that would investigate
the problem with student attendance problems.

The final vote on the Fall and Spring calendar will be at the next University
Council. Interested faculty are encouraged to attend.

III. Classroom Utilization

Classroom use was briefly discussed. The major concern is that the university,
in the near future, may have too many underutilized classrooms according to
Coordinating Board rules. This may affect the number of new classrooms the
university is able to design into new buildings. It was suggested that a PPS
on classroom utilization needed to be developed.

IV. Use of Social Security Numbers for I.D. purposes
RTA'd due to lack of time.

V. Administration Articulation of Tenure and Promotion Criteria
RTA'd due to lack of time.


Sen. Hays, Chair of the Senate Committee on Temporary Faculty, presented
changes to the part-time faculty PPS which had been recommended by that
committee. Part of the recommendations the committee suggested were based on
comments from a "town meeting" held for part-time faculty. Items of concern

Health benefits Salary prorated over 12 months for part-time people who had
worked at

SWT for over 2 years. Travel money for part-time faculty to stay current in
their academic field.

The committee recommendations were approved with minor corrections.


Sen. Simpson, Chair of an ad hoc Senate Committee on Developmental Leaves, pre-
sented some recommendations concerning the leave process. Clarification of the
time between developmental leaves was discussed. It was concluded that the
applicable PPS, which provides that faculty must provide six years of service
in between developmental leaves, makes it clear that the time span is 6 years
from the end of the first developmental leave to the beginning of the second
leave. It was suggested that an example be included in the application forms.

It was decided that the first 5 developmental leave candidates would be
reviewed at the November 12th meeting and the last 4 candidates would be
reviewed on November 19th. It was also agreed that Senators must attend boths
meeting to be eligible to vote on any of the candidates. Also, a standard
numerical rating sheet was discussed as a means to rank the candidates.


The minutes of the 10/29 meeting were approved as read.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:21 p.m.