Skip to Content

Feb 11, 2004 Minutes

Chair Stone, Senators Sawey, Peeler, Gillis, Conroy, James, Shah, Rao, McKinney, Hindson, Bell-Metereau, Brennan, Gordon, Hawkins. 

University Star reporter


Guests: Dr. Frost, Ms. Frisbey, Ms. Beck


Chair Stone called the meeting to order at 4:02.


I.    Senate approved the changes to the evaluation instrument, deciding to print

on one side in order to allow comments on the back of the sheet.


II.   Advanced hours: Senator James moved we endorse, and Senator Gillis seconded to change the minimum number of advanced hours from 40 to 39.  It doesn’t apply in most majors, 120 is minimum allowed hours total.  The senate decided to change to 39 from 40 advanced hours, and it passed unanimously.


III. UPPS 04.04.52 Retirement programs.  Subcommittee headed by Barbara Sanders, said changes seemed to be legitimate, and they recommended endorsement.  Senator Shah asked if we have to check these with faculty and distribute.  It is a legislative mandate, so their opinion would have no effect.  We’re in a transitional stage, and human resources cannot really interpret the law clearly.  There may be further changes from the state in this area.


IV. PAAG follow-up memo discussion


Senator Hawkins asked about our question on Dr. Gratz’s role in the future.

Chair Stone thought he might be working on the American Democracy project. 


Senator Hindson asked if athletics might be one of his responsibilities.


The provost will have an assistant provost.  This will be a future PAAG item. 


Senator Bell-Metereau asked if we have data on the relationship between faculty and administrator salaries, as compared with comparable universities, mean salaries of chairs, deans, vice presidents, and faculty, for comparable schools. 


Senator Hawkins said that the same process for justifying faculty positions should be applied to justifying the need for administrators.


Senator Brennan said that the read-across plans lose sight of the goal of having ideas “bubble up” from the faculty.


Senator James said that to address this issue we could review the process in the future.


Chair Stone said that committees could meet with departments and representatives and discuss items missed in the original discussions and recognized in the read across.  They could verify their interpretation of the reports.  Currently, not everyone has seen the college plans.


The research “read-across” report plan will be addressed further, since not everyone agrees with the summaries.


Senator Conroy said that we see the read-across committee reports as a limited tool because they have the potential to be a dysfunctional screen of department goals. 


Senator James said that this problem could be solved by asking for a feedback loop before it goes back to the president. 


We will look for the comments on post-tenure review at the next PAAG meeting.


Senator Sawey asked if everyone knew that the geography chair search is aborted. Dr. Glassman, the chair of the search committee, is going elsewhere to be a dean.


The senate discussed how difficult it is for faculty to be “whistle-blowers” on problems, because of the risk to their careers.  The only recourse faculty now have is the evaluations.


Senator Gillis asked if the letter could be revised to replace the word “issues” with “committees.”


III. New business

Senator Brennan reported on curriculum issues.  All curriculum proposals are due in Micky Henry’s office by April 1.  We need to give the information to our deans by March 22.  We could ask for copies of the proposals and see if we can see any problems. 


Senator Hindson asked why we should have the deans in the process. 


Senator Gillis said that the deans are looking for possible duplications.


Senator Brennan said that since we come in so late, we could perhaps see proposed changes at an earlier stage.


Chair Stone said that the deans had that duty, but they didn’t really do it.

The committee could be looking at such issues.  Instead of having deans comment to CAD, they could send them back to the curriculum committee.  The faculty senate could look through these.


Senator Gordon mentioned that the doctoral programs proposals have to get the backing from central administration.  By the time it gets to the curriculum committee, it is already decided.


Senator Bell-Metereau said that also the committees didn’t want to go to all that trouble if it was not going to be accepted by the president’s cabinet. 


Senator Gordon said that once it went for editing, the department couldn’t really make changes.


Senator James said it might be best to wait for the new provost to come on board before requesting changes in the process.


Senator Conroy asked if we could get a restatement of the charge to the curriculum sub-committee.  Does the senate want the subcommittee to be more responsive to the senate and faculty at this point?


Senator Brennan said that the committee members looked for minor errors on their own, perhaps because it’s easier that looking at the big issues.


Chair Stone said that the proposals should come up simultaneously in order to make it easier for us to judge and select the best proposals. 


IV. University Fund Drive

Dr. Chris Frost, Ms. Beck and Ms. Frisbey reported on the university fund drive.  Dr. Frost said that faculty could support whatever part of the university they wish to support. 


Assistant Director of Sports Recreation, Ms. Beck, reported on some changes and the teamwork approach.  Groups will be recognized for getting a certain percentage of giving.  They will have an ice cream social to create a sense of community.


One major area of giving is the Jerome and Cathy Supple Professorship in Southwestern Studies.


Having a scholarship in the name of a child is often beyond individual families who have lost students.


The beauty of the campus is another area for giving. 


Senator James asked how much of giving is confidential.  In some areas, people feel intimidated into giving. The report breaks out people by deans and departments, and in the past this has resulted in people having lists of people who gave.  The group is looking at how to change this practice.


Senator Conroy asked if donations in kind could be factored into participation totals. 


Senator Bell-Metereau said that one problem with this was receipting.


Senator Rao asked if the contributions are limited in how much goes to the department.


The donors’ wishes are always honored.


Dr. Frost said that the IRS won’t allow individual raffles.  Some amounts may be given as a drawing that will go to a particular unit.


Chair Stone reported that the faculty senate is not included in the university refresh cycle and therefore will not get the computer we have been expecting.

Senator Conroy suggested that Dr. Gratz may want to assist us because he said he was going to get one for us.


Senator Peeler asked if we had spoken with Jane Hughson. 


Senator James said that the faculty senate link was not yet up, so Chair Stone said he would email Milt Nielsen.


Chair Stone asked what people wanted to do with the information on faculty raises.


Senator Hindson said that some faculty got no performance raises.


Senator Shah will sort the data by departments and then he will send out the link to Chair Stone, and the link will be available by Friday. 


Chair Stone said we must get past minutes approved.   Jan. 21 minutes were



Senator Conroy asked about the group advocating for a larger senate.


Senator James said that some faculty didn’t realize that all departments are represented by faculty liaisons.


Senator Hindson asked if we should invite Dr. Shelly to discuss the issue.


Chair Stone said that Health Professions would have ten representatives and education would have four.  Big colleges lose votes and little ones become very powerful.  It would also be difficult to have a substantive discussion among forty-nine people. 


Senator Peeler said that we should disseminate how much we accomplish and what we do.  When Dr. Shelly came to speak to the department of Theatre and Dance, Senator Peeler was asked for his views.  Faculty are not clear on the process.

We need to let our faculty know what we do and how we’re effective. 


Senator Bell-Metereau suggested developing a small set of talking points to deliver a consistent message to faculty on the details and consequences of the proposed plan.


Senator Brennan said that we should not become defensive, because people will not necessarily do anything about it. 


Senator Rao asked what are the advantages of our current system, and Chair Stone commented on the representative nature of the liaison system and the workable size of the current senate, which fits the room allocated for Faculty Senate use.


The proposed change is to have a representative for each department, not the number of faculty.  This would be against the interests of Liberal Arts, Business, and Education. Dr. Shelley has just been named associate chair of the dept. of Geography. If the senate gets a petition with 10% of voting faculty, we’re obliged to issue a ballot on this.  It has to pass by 2/3 vote and 40% of total voting faculty have to vote.  There are about 680 voting faculty.


Senate decided to make this an agenda item for the following meeting.


Senate adjourned at 6:05.


Approved minutes submitted by Rebecca Bell-Metereau 3/15/04.