THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO
DOCUMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE MEETING OF
The fourth Regular Meeting of the Faculty Senate for the academic year 2000-2001 was held in room 4.03.08, John Peace Library Building, on April 10, 2001 at 3:30 p.m. with Dr. Patricia Harris, Chair, presiding, Dr. Raul Aranovich, Secretary.
Present: Raul Aranovich, Deborah Armstrong, Ron Ayers, Mark Blizard, John Bretting, Ruben Cordova, Mansour El-Kikhia, Keith Fairchild, Patricia Harris, Wanda Hedrick, Robert Hiromoto, Michael F. Kelly, James McDonald, Louis Mendoza, George Negrete, Thomas Ricento, A. C. Rogers, Kent Rush, Deborah Schwartz-Kates, Raydel Tullous, Anthony Van Reusen, Arturo Vega, Diane Walz
Absent: Sos Agaian (excused), Guy Bailey (excused), Russell Briner (excused), Kellye Jones, Sandy Norman, Jeanne Reesman, Walter B. Richardson, Jr., C. S. Shih, R. K. Smith
Total members present: 23 Total members absent: 9
II. Minutes of the February 13, 2001 Meeting were approved.
A. Provost - Dr. Guy Bailey
Written report of Dr. Guy Bailey, Provost, attached to and made a part of these minutes.
1. Dr. Harris made the following announcements:
a. There will be a Special Meeting on May 4, 2001 in the Regents Room from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. Luncheon will be served. Items to be discussed include:
· Revising or affirming the language of the by-laws.
· Report from Academic Policy & Requirements Committee regarding a proposal for conditional admission of international students.
b. Unresolved issues the Senate needs to take up this year:
· Possible approval of changes to the Handbook of Operating Procedures regarding tenure and promotion. An ad hoc committee is to be appointed to review these revisions.
· Creation of developmental remedies for faculty who receive an unsatisfactory periodic performance evaluation. An ad hoc committee, chaired by Ron Ayers, is to be created.
2. Dr. Harris reported that a degree proposal for a Ph.D. in Music Psychology had been received after the agenda had been distributed. She asked if there were any objections to placing the proposal on the Graduate Council Consent Calendar. Receiving no objections, the item was added.
3. Dr. Harris requested that the regular order of business be suspended to permit Dr. Raul Aranovich to make a report and a recommendation regarding the election of faculty representatives to the University Assembly. Receiving no objections, Dr. Aranovich proposed the following resolution:
In light of:
a. exigent circumstances brought about as a result of university restructuring;
b. outmoded provisions for reapportionment in existing Assembly and Senate by-laws;
c. the interest of maintaining faculty representation of the Senate; and
d. the need to prevent interruptions to the execution of Senate business,
the Senate moves that the presiding officer of the University Assembly, Dr. Ricardo Romo, direct the Senate to carry out elections for new senators in compliance with the following apportionment. The Faculty Senate shall be composed of from each academic department, division or school, one tenured or tenured-track faculty member elected by the voting members of the general faculty of each respective department, division, or school.
The following issues were then discussed:
Timetable for election? As soon as possible
Would each department, division or school conduct its own election? Yes
Term of office? Two years
Dr. Aranovich made a motion to approve the resolution. Motion passed.
1. Teaching Effectiveness and Development Committee - Dr. Eugene Dowdy
Dr. Dowdy presented a resolution representing several years work by the committee. He stated that he "would characterize the resolution as being a first step towards a revamping of the way that we not only assign merit increase to teaching, but the way we evaluate our teaching." The proposed resolution was presented as an Attachment A. Discussion followed: 1) the 40%-60% question - the student teaching evaluation; 2) that #8 not be the sole reason that merit in teaching is given or denied; 3) the creation of a model that could be followed by all departments, divisions or schools or allow the model to be created by the individual department, division or school; 4) Dr. Raul Arreola's book; 5) separating the resolution from the recommendation, and 6) the development of two separate resolutions.
A motion was made and seconded that the resolution be tabled. The motion was then withdrawn.
It was decided that there be two resolutions. They are as follows:
(1) "The criteria for evaluating faculty teaching should be developed for each department by its faculty no later than May 31, 2002."
The resolution passed.
(2) "The student survey of teaching should be used primarily for formative purposes and should be applied uniformly within departments. Student evaluations should carry a weight no greater than a majority of the total score in the merit evaluation of faculty teaching."
The resolution passed.
2. Ad Hoc Committee on International Programs - Dr. Raul Aranovich
Dr. Aranovich presented a report on the University's involvement in international affairs resulting from, among other items, the restructuring of the Office of International Affairs. Dr. Aranovich read portions of the executive summary including:"The areas in which the shortcomings of the current administration of international affairs are most evident are the management of the study-abroad programs, the welcoming and orientation of international students, assistance for faculty and post-doctoral students in processing of visas other than the F and J type, funding opportunities for faculty engaged in overseas research projects, the expedient development of bilateral agreements with foreign universities, and the handling of exchange scholars in programs such as the Fulbright Scholarship. Some of the current problems with international affairs at UTSA were inherited from the administrative arrangements prior to the restructuring of the Office of International Programs, but many more are a direct result of decisions taken during the restructuring of that office.
1. UTSA lacks a clearly identifiable and highly visible office where faculty and students can find resources and information regarding international affairs.
2. The personnel to whom certain duties of the Office of International Programs were reassigned received these duties as an overload on their existing responsibilities.
3. There are no effective procedures to coordinate the efforts, resources, and initiatives of the various offices handling international affairs after the dissolution of the Office of International Programs.
4. The current arrangement did not expand the responsibilities and resources of any of the offices involved with international issues at UTSA to cover the needs of foreign faculty, exchange scholars, and international students.
To remedy the current situation, we propose that a dedicated Office of International Affairs be created where many, if not all, of the functions and responsibilities regarding international affairs can be centralized. Such an office would be a natural point of reference where all matters about international affairs can be referred to and a clear point of contact for faculty and students interested in international opportunities. The head of this office will be able to address quickly and effectively any problems that may arise in the complex management of international matters and will be able to draw a pro-active policy to advance UTSA's international profile. This office should be responsible, among other things, for study-abroad programs, welcoming international students, exchange scholars, and foreign faculty, processing all Visas, including H Visas, and agreements signed with overseas institutions and funding and sponsoring overseas research projects from UTSA faculty. This office will have primary responsibility for all orientation sessions for foreign faculty and international scholars, as well as advising, providing information and offering logistic support for faculty and students interested in pursuing academic opportunities overseas. The proposed office will also coordinate the procedures for admission and handling of international students with other offices at UTSA. This arrangement is commonly found across research and doctoral universities, and it should be the course to follow if UTSA has hopes of becoming a flagship institution of South Texas."
It was decided to accept the final two paragraphs of the report/memo as a Senate resolution. A motion was made and seconded to adopt the resolution. Discussion followed. The motion passed.
3. Ad Hoc Committee on a Course Evaluation Instrument - Dr. Ron Alexander (for Dr. Elaine Sanders)
After research and examination of recommended instruments, the committee selected two instruments that the members felt were appropriate or acceptable. (1) the IDEA instrument which was developed and supported by the University of Kansas, and (2) IAS. Although both instruments will be more expensive that the current instrument in terms of its use and application, the IDEA instrument was the more flexible of the two, and (2) was a more efficient instrument. The committee recommended that the IDEA instrument be adopted because they felt it allowed for formity, input from individual faculty for particular and individualized objects, and a variety of analysis. A second recommendation had to do with the use or misuse of the ordinal data gathered relative to its evaluation and analysis.
There were five resolutions:
1. To replace the current instrument with the IDEA instrument. It was seconded, and discussion followed including the cost issue. Passed.
2. The second resolution is that the period of adoption will be no greater than two years before an evaluation takes place and will be evaluated by the Senate the third year after adoption. Passed.
3. The third resolution is that Faculty and Administrators charged with the evaluation of faculty teaching must be trained in the appropriate interpretation of the scores by the Teaching and Learning Center. Passed.
4. The fourth resolution is that the overall score gleaned from the IDEA evaluation may not rest predominately on any one score. Passed.
5. The fifth resolution is that the Senate prohibits the misinterpretation of ordinal scores as integral data. Passed.
4. Ad Hoc Committee on Merit Proposal - Dr. James McDonald, ChairReport to be presented at the Faculty Senate Special Meeting on May 4, 2001
5. Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Salary Compression - Dr. Keith Fairchild
The committee has conducted a market salary exercise and wants input from the general faculty but wished to 'run it by' the Senate first. This suggested a number of questions:
1. Should we be looking at market salaries only, or should we be addressing compression as it exists?
2. Regarding the pool of schools we are using, should we use the same pool or expand the pool?
3. Classification of faculty. (It is currently decided by the department chair?)
4. The question of salary adjustment for merit.
5. Adjustment to alleviate compression should be applied to which merit ratings?
6. What kind of adjustment for years in rank should there be?
7. Do you want to have access in the process of recommendations? Or do you just want us to do it for you? Do you prefer a general model like we have been using?
Discussion followed regarding the input of the Provost's office. The survey is to be sent to the general faculty by May 17th, but the Committee wanted to get feedback from the Faculty Senate first. The Senate was to have one week to look over the survey and return it by May 24th so that it could be distributed to the general faculty.
1. The PhD in Cell and Molecular Biology was approved.
2. The PhD in Music Psychology Program was discussed. A concern was raised regarding the hiring of five new faculty members in the Music Department. The caution was acknowledged, and the program was approved.
Proposal to add CS 4933, Internship in Computer Science. Motion to table the proposal. Motion passed.
VI. Meeting adjourned.
Comments or questions to firstname.lastname@example.org