Skip to Content

Oct 8, 2003 Minutes

Present:  Chair Stone, Senators Sawey, Peeler, Conroy, James, Rao, Hazlewood, McGee, Bell-Metereau, Brennan, Hofer, Hawkins, Gordon


Guests:  Blake Locklin, Carole Martin, Jennifer Forrest, Antonio Prasera, Sharon Ugalde, Lucy Harney, Miriam Echeverria (liaison), Emily Gunn, Nestor Lugones


Chair Stone called the meeting to order at 4:00.


I.    Informational and CAD Report was given on Round Rock, students who had

received scholarships.


II.   Modern Languages Department Issues


Faculty from the Modern Languages Department said it was not clear who are voting members.  Full-time members who have taught for at least one 9-month year are voting members. 

Representative elections are controlled within the department.  Unless you’re tenure track or tenured you can’t apply for a research grant.  They asked if the department decides who is the voting faculty or if the faculty senate sets the guidelines for voting for liaisons.  It is set by the senate.  The department election for research enhancement used to receive ballots, according to Miriam Echeverria.  University level matters are defined by the handbook. Dr. Ugalde asked for clarification.  The liaison is elected with Faculty Senate ballots, usually in mid-to late-September, but this year, we have no secretary to do this.   Departments receive a dept. list.   Voting for the representative is done by the department.  Once we have voting faculty, who is eligible to be on the ballot?  Liaison should have the same qualifications as a senator. 


Senator Sawey said someone could be non-tenured, but given the pressures, it was recommended that the individual be tenured.


Several other questions were posed by the faculty:


What elections are run through faculty senate?

Who is eligible to vote?

Who is eligible to stand for election?

The departments will receive the lists soon for voting. Only liaison and senate ballots have come from the senate.  Research enhancement is the same qualification for eligibility, but we recommend someone who is tenured.  Some departments are so small that they may not have a tenured person who can serve.



The members of the French Department were confused about these issues.  They did not know if someone who worked more than 50% was eligible.  This was just a funding issue. 


Dr. Forrest asked which ballots come from the senate.

The Piper process has been revised to eliminate departmental elections.  Dr. Blanda has done revision on the research enhancement committee document.  Dr. Blanda had told Dr. Forrest it had to be tenure-track or tenured about a month ago, but this appears to have been revised since that time.


Dr. Forrest asked if there are guidelines on how they should be conducted in the department.  Chair Stone said there was not one.


Lucy Harney (?) asked if there would be any problem with taking boxes to the meeting room.  They asked if they could do it that way. 


Chair Stone said the ballot must be private and everyone must have the change to vote.


Senator Gordon said if they did it at a meeting some people wouldn’t get to vote. 


The French Department asked if there is no standard procedure.  The requirements are to ensure that the ballot is secret and that this can be delivered anonymously into the box. 


Professor Carole Martin asked if anyone would oppose having the election in the meeting.  This would allow people who wanted to be faculty liaison to speak for their qualifications. 


Questions on Fall Elections of Liaisons for all Departments: Can we manually conduct elections ourselves?  Can we get a loaner to help with this?  Do we have last year’s voting lists?  Chair Stone noted that they’re sitting in a Mac in the Faculty Senate office.  We could generate our own voting lists within our departments and ask admin assistants Senators McGee, Conroy and Hazlewood volunteered to get voter list generated and we can get these lists updated.  We will therefore move forward without an assistant. 


III.  Piper Selection Committee Charge:

Senator Conroy reported on the wording of the committee charge.  We will only be allowed to nominate one Piper nominee.  The three most worthy applicants will be recipients of the Everette Swinney Teaching Award.  From these three the committee will select the best single applicant to be the Texas State University nominee for the Piper Professor Award. 


Senator Gordon said under committee Charge “to select” should be “selecting.”

The change was approved by acclamation.


Chair Stone will send this charge forward.

Gillis and James moved and seconded to approve the charge as amended, and it

passed unanimously.  


IV.   New Business

Senator Hawkins mentioned the sexual orientation clause, and she distributed a handout to bring to the president.  Chair Stone discussed the procedure for going forward with this proposal.


Senator Peeler met with the Dean and he discussed Dean and Chair evaluations, looking for a procedure that would eliminate the “self-selected” aspect.  For example, the chair ranking number one had only one responding faculty.


The sample is not scientific, but it does reflect what some people are thinking.  We get back biased information.


Is the president equally unhappy with student evaluations?  We would love to have 70 to 80% response rate, but that is difficult.  Administration ran it for a while and then discontinued it.  Ann Marie Ellis’ concern is continuity and whether this is long-term.  If the Administration takes over and provides man power, this might be worthwhile, if Faculty Senate still controlled the process.  Having senators and faculty members be more active might increase participation. 


Senator Hawkins asked why it is useful, since things don’t seem to change.


Senator McGee said some changes are made eventually, when there are repeated poor evaluations.


Senator Peeler said we could ask what changes the President might make.


Chair Stone said publication of results might also influence administrators to try to improve.


Senator Sawey brought up an issue for Senator Shah.  He’s posting the minutes and he’s getting email on changes in the tenure regulations.  This should be raised to see what impact this will have.


Senator Hazlewood talked with Dr. Gratz, who didn’t see any problem with changes.  He suggested Senator Hazlewood talk with Mr. Gomez, but he was out of town.  We’re still seeking out information on particular cases. 


Senator Gillis said being able to find out if there is a change or a clarification is important.


Senator Hazlewood said a proposed change is to clarify to make it similar to A & M.  Faculty members who have complaints can file grievances, but cannot claim they have any particular rights.   The honor code went forward to the regents, but not the pps change.  Should we keep the grade change policy?  Disciplinary procedure goes through the VPAA and then to the student affairs officer for additional penalties.  Appeal would be heard by the VPAA.


Senator Sawey brought Wilbun Davis' concern about a smoke alarm going off during an exam.  It turns out an elevator was being worked on.  The secretary called police, but the alarm didn’t go off at university police.  One ranger showed up.


We should contact Dr. Blanda on latest rules on REP.  Dr. Covington should have it on the website.


Every senator will update the department lists in their areas and bring it back next week. 


These are sorted by department and distributed to senators for update the following week.


Voting members are full-time for at least a year.


The meeting was adjourned at 6:05.


Minutes submitted by Rebecca Bell-Metereau October 20,2003.






Do you Yahoo!?

Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears