NOVEMBER 14, 2000

The second Regular Meeting of the Faculty Senate for the academic year 2000-2001 was held in room 4.03.08, John Peace Library Building, on November 14, 2000 at 3:30 p.m. with Dr. Patricia Harris, Chair, presiding, Dr. Raul Aranovich, Secretary.

  1. Call to order and taking of attendance

    Present: Sos Agaian, Raul Aranovich, Deborah Armstrong, Ron Ayers, Guy Bailey, Mark Blizard, John Bretting, Russell Briner, Ruben Cordova, Mansour El-Kikhia, Keith Fairchild, Patricia Harris, Wanda Hedrick, Robert Hiromoto, Kellye Jones, Michael Kelly, James McDonald, Louis Mendoza, Sandy Norman, Walter Richardson, Jr., A. C. Rogers, Kent Ruth, Deborah Schwartz-Kates, Raydel Tullous, Anthony Van Reusen, Arturo Vega, Diane Walz

    Absent: George Negrete, Jeanne Reesman, Thomas Ricento (excused), C. S. Shih, R.K. Smith (excused)

    Total members present: 27
    Total members absent: 5

  2. Minutes of the September 12, 2000 were approved, except the attendance record was modified to reflect that Dr. Louis Mendoza's absence as excused and that Dr. Ron Alexander was in attendance in his capacity as temporary replacement for Dr. Anthony Van Reusen.
  3. Reports
    1. Provost - Dr. Guy Bailey
      1. Dr. Bailey reported that the University Faculty Advisory Review Committee currently consists of five members, one from each college and one appointed by the Provost. Since there are now six colleges, in order for each college to be represented the membership should total seven. Dr. Bailey asked the Senators if their preference would be to keep the membership at five or to adjust the membership to seven.

        Dr. Keith Fairchild stated that he would support increasing the membership to seven so that all colleges would be represented.

        Receiving no objections, Dr. Bailey stated that he would request elections in the appropriate colleges and would notify the Senate of the committee membership when it was finalized.

        Dr. Raul Aranovich asked if the member appointed by the Provost had to be faculty.

        Dr. Bailey responded that his appointee was chosen from a list of all full professors.

      2. Dr. Bailey reported that some problems in International Programs had occurred during the recent transition. One of the more serious problems involved the admission and advising of international students. A committee with representation from the Office of Admissions and Registrar, Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, and Office of the Provost developed a set of procedures to ensure that international students were admitted, registered and advised in a timely manner. Dr. Bailey reported that the name of the Office of Multicultural Programs would be changed and its scope expanded to include the admission of international students and the study abroad program.

        Dr. Aranovich asked if there were problems regarding the TOEFL scores of the international students who were admitted and whether those students were required to take the English courses offered by the Division of Bicultural-Bilingual Studies.

        Dr. Bailey replied that everything was going well with the Division's handling of the American Language Institute, but he would check with the Division Director to see if there were any problems related to the TOEFL scores.

        Dr. Bailey reported that another issue in the Office of International Programs was that student fee funds had been used inappropriately for faculty travel abroad. To correct this, discretionary money had been provided to Dr. James Almazan's office to fund travel abroad and faculty should apply to that office. It is anticipated that these funds would be allocated directly to the colleges in the future.

        Dr. Bailey reported that the UT Health Science Center has previously handled visas for new faculty at UTSA. That process has never worked satisfactorily and the Office of the Provost plans to hire a half-time staff person to handle faculty visas in the future.

        Dr. Walter Richardson asked if faculty should apply to their divisions for foreign travel funding.

        Dr. Bailey replied that procedures would be appropriate if the division had funds but faculty could also apply to International Programs.

        Dr. Deborah Schwartz-Kates expressed concern that the removal of the Office of International Programs would present a compromise for divisions or units that are negotiating contracts and establishing relationships with foreign universities.

        Dr. Bailey responded that Dr. Almazan's office would be responsible for agreements with foreign universities. The Office of Multicultural Programs would be responsible for student exchange programs.

        Dr. Aranovich asked who would be designated as the official at UTSA to sign forms for international students or for faculty who apply for green cards. He also asked if green cards would be processed in house in the future.

        Dr. Bailey said that he would notify the Senate when the official was identified. The goal is to have someone trained to process green cards by Spring 2001 when faculty start to be hired.

      3. Questions to the Provost:

        Dr. Mansour El-Kikhia asked why deans were not more involved in the budgetary process. Dr. Bailey replied that the deans are very involved in the process. Each dean is provided with data on all money that is allocated to the colleges. The process by which the funds are allocated is also provided in a very clear manner. Each of the deans has a college-by-college comparison that lays out all of the discretionary money. Certain things, like summer school profits, generally are not known until late in the process. Dr. El-Kikhia suggested that the budget process should include a committee from the Faculty Senate. Dr. Bailey said that there would be a Senate Committee to work with the Office of the Provost during the Spring 2001 semester when the budget is received from the legislature and funds are allocated.

        Dr. Anthony Van Reusen said that faculty had asked him where they could obtain the full text of the accreditation report from the Southern Association of College and Schools. Dr. Bailey replied that he would bring copies of the report to the next Senate meeting.

        Dr. Richardson asked if UTSA was in compliance with the Fair Employment Practices Training requirement. Dr. Bailey responded that most faculty had attended and the university is currently in good shape.

        Dr. Bailey distributed a report titled, "Actual Annual Performance Measures."

    2. Senate Chair - Dr. Patricia Harris
      1. Dr. Harris introduced two new Senators from the College of Engineering: Dr. C. S. Shih, Civil Engineering and Dr. A. C. Rogers, Mechanical Engineering.
      2. Dr. Harris reported on the main issues discussed at The University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council meetings of October 5-6, 2000:

        • An accountability initiative introduced by Regent Charles Miller demonstrates the trend toward accountability in learning and the push to have more measurement of accountability at the university level. A proposal developed by UT System Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Joe Stafford, suggested measures of teaching and learning, research, and service to the public. The most controversial item in Dr. Stafford's proposal was the emphasis on measuring learning. It would be possible to have testing of students in core curriculum areas and then testing in the major. This is potentially upsetting to faculty and administrators. UT Dallas and UT Permian Basin have issued declaration in opposition to the proposal. Dr. Harris suggested that the Faculty Senate might not want to issue a declaration that would not have significant impact at this time. She reported that Dr. Betty Travis would meet with Regent Miller to discuss what action could be taken by a Faculty Senate that would have more impact to help shape an accountability proposal. Dr. Travis will report on that meeting at a later time.
        • Dr. Harris reported that Senate Bill 1261, Fields of Study, asked university to facilitate a greater number of credits from the community colleges into four-year institutions. The object of the fields of study programs was to produce 5,000 more college graduates per year to bring the State of Texas to the national average. This legislation has become a matter of great concern for some disciplines. There are currently Fields of Study programs in General Business and Early Childhood Education and a program pending in Music. She noted that she had particular concern since faculty in her area had not been informed that these programs were being developed.
        • The UT System FAC had been given a presentation on domestic partner benefits. Mr. Ray Farrabee and Dr. Scott Polikov had given opposing points of view about whether or not the UT System could provide health benefits for domestic partners.
      3. Dr. Harris reported that the Academic Policy and Requirements Committee had done preliminary word identifying issues related to bylaws questions and how the Senate should proceed with governance issues. It was the sense of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee that Dr. Harris should meet with President Romo to solicit his input about UTSA's governance system and then report back to the Committee.
      4. Dr. Harris said that the issue of redundant courses in Interdisciplinary Studies has been presented to the Faculty Senate. In response, Dr. Harris charged the Faculty Senate's University Curriculum Committee as follows:

        The Curriculum Committee is charged with examining issues related to the duplication of course offerings across disciplines, and curriculum-related problems arising from the dissolution of multi-discipline divisions into single discipline academic units. The Committee should address at least the following questions:

        • Should courses with duplicate content be offered in different disciplines?
        • If duplicate courses are eliminated, but one discipline's course is a requirement of another, which discipline should accrue the credit hours?
        • If a faculty member in one academic unit earns a course release as a result of teaching a large section in another academic unit, which academic unit should fund the faculty member's replacement? That is, which unit should pay the costs of funding a part-time faculty member to replace the released faculty member in the subsequent semester?

        The Curriculum Committee should examine these issues and deliver a report of its recommendations to the Senate at its next officially scheduled meeting in February.

      5. Dr. Harris reported that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee had agreed to study the generic issues of what should be done in cases of interdepartmental strife. She charged the Faculty Senate's Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee as follows:

        The Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee is charged with examining the following questions related to the problem of serious intra-disciplinary conflict.

        • What constructive remedies should be implemented in response to serious intra-disciplinary conflict, short of receivership?
        • At what point should receivership be implemented? Should faculty be given notice of pending receivership?
        • If a department is subjected to receivership, what safeguards should be implemented to ensure the representation of affected faculty members' interests?

        The Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee should examine these questions and deliver a report of its progress to the Senate at its next officially scheduled meeting in February.

      6. Dr. Harris reported that as far as she could determine the proposed Grievance Policy was still with the Office of General Counsel at UT System. She will continue to attempt to determine the status of the policy.

        Dr. Art Vega asked what policy the University was currently operating under.

        Dr. Harris replied that the policy as contained in the Handbook of Operating Procedures was the operating policy. Since there appear to be misperceptions among faculty relating to the policy, Dr. Harris plans to distribute copies of the Grievance Policy, along with a cover memorandum highlighting its salient features.

      7. Dr. Harris reported that the Provost had asked the Senate for names of individuals to be appointed to an ad hoc committee on salary equity between the genders. Those names had been forwarded and Dr. Bailey was in the process of contacting the individuals.
      8. Dr. Harris presented a resolution regarding staff scholarships:

        The Faculty Senate wishes to express its heartfelt appreciation for the good work of the staff at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Furthermore, the Faculty Senate wishes to express its support for making educational opportunities at UTSA more accessible to the staff. Thus, we ask the Administration to consider the establishment of a Staff Scholarship Fund, which would be directed to defraying the cost of tuition for those staff who enroll in a course of study at UTSA.

        Dr. Bailey said that a source of funds would need to be identified. Everybody believed that the idea is good, but the resources to implement it have not been available.

        Dr. Wanda Hedrick suggested that faculty might want to contribute to the scholarship fund as a means of giving to the University community if they were given an opportunity.

        Dr. El-Kikhia made a motion to approve the resolution. Motion passed. The resolution will be forwarded to the President and to the Provost.

      9. Dr. Harris reported on the issue of operating protocol for the Faculty Senate. She said that a member of the Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Salary Compression has expressed concern that the faculty may not have been fully informed of what was contained in the committee's report. This raised the issue that it was a Senate committee and the report should have been made available to the Faculty Senate first. Reports and resolutions should be prepared in advance of Senate meetings and copies forward to the entire Senate to allow time for review and preparation of questions during discussions at the meetings. Dr. Harris asked that all committees provide copies of correspondence to the Faculty Senate Chair.
      10. Dr. Aranovich asked about the appointment of an ad hoc committee to study the impact of the dissolution of the Office of International Programs. Dr. Harris requested that Dr. Aranovich forward suggestions of faculty for membership on this committee.
    3. Committees

      1. Ad Hoc Committee on Administrator Evaluation - Dr. Keith Fairchild distributed the Executive Summary of the Evaluation of Dr. Christopher Borman, Director of the Division of Education. The other evaluation from the previous year on Mr. James Broderick, Director of the Division of Visual Arts, will be distributed at the next Senate meeting. For the current academic year, a formal evaluation will be conducted on Dr. Joe Stuessy, Director of the Division of Music. The resolution passed at the Faculty Senate Special Meeting of October 24, 2000, will be forwarded to the University Assembly for approval.
      2. Ad Hoc Committee on Course Instructor Survey - Dr. Ron Alexander reported that the Committee had met several times during the previous spring semester, had received input from the Senate's Teaching Effectiveness and Development Committee, had solicited and received input from faculty of various colleges and divisions, and had solicited and received input from the Office of Institutional Effectiveness. In addition the individual committee members had reviewed selected sources of published information including over 20 journal articles and books having as their focus the measurements and evaluation of teaching effectiveness. Based on its activities, the Committee developed the conclusions and objectives contained in the report (copy attached and made a part of the minutes).

        Dr. Harris asked about the timeline for the continued work of the committee.

        Dr. Alexander replied that the Committee planned to present recommendations on how to proceed relative to new instruments and consequent faculty development efforts to the Faculty Senate by the end of the Spring 2001 semester.

        Dr. Aranovich pointed out that during the current restructuring process, many colleges were reexamining the faculty evaluation process in general.

        Dr. Mark Blizard of the School of Architecture noted that the current instrument was not relative to the studio model of teaching used in his discipline.

        Dr. Alexander agreed that these issues need to be considered. The Committee will review several existing instruments to determine if they can be custom fit to different teaching formats and objectives.

        Dr. Robert Hiromoto said that he felt the problem was that the instruments were evaluated without context to what the instructor actually does. Typically in the past, some directors have done a good job of evaluating their faculty because they have understood the program of the unit. Other directors have based their evaluations strictly on the instruments of the student evaluation. He said that the move to department chairs from division directors would, possibly, remedy the situation since chairs would more likely be individuals who are part of the programs, who would understand what courses were being taught, who will interact with the faculty and who would know what the faculty contributes, inside and outside of the classroom.

        Dr. Harris noted that all these concerns were mirrored in the SACS report on Faculty Performance, Incentives and Rewards and the Academic Policy and Requirements Committee has been charged with determining how to implement the recommendations of that report.

      3. Chair of the UT System Faculty Advisory Council - postponed.
    4. Other
  4. Consent Calendar - Graduate Council

    Recommend approval of the addition to the Graduate Catalog of two concentrations to the Master of Arts degree in Education: 1) Instructional Technology; 2) Kinesiology and Health Promotion. Approved.

  5. Unfinished Business

    Dr. Richardson suggested that the Faculty Senate Bylaws should be changed to allow a division director to serve as a Senator. He also noted that it appears that the Senate's Executive Committee had been making an increasing number of decisions for the Senate. He stated that the Senate should be a deliberative body and, while the Executive Committee could decide some issues, there were many things that should be decided by the entire Faculty Senate. Dr. Harris responded to the concern about having a division director serve in the Faculty Senate by providing the history of the University Assembly Bylaws change prohibiting division directors to serve. She reported that Dr. Sam Kirkpatrick had introduced the change to the bylaws during an Assembly meeting without providing the appropriate notice or vote. Therefore, the change is not being treated as a valid change to the University Assembly Bylaws. Dr. Harris stated that she feels that nothing she does as a department chair contradicts her service to the Faculty Senate and vice versa.

  6. New Business

    1. Dr. Wanda Hedrick asked for an explanation of how department chairs would be appointed when the academic structure was changed. Dr. Harris replied that it was her understanding that faculty could not elect their chairs, so two nominations would be sent forward. The dean of the college would select the department chair from those recommendations.
    2. Dr. Van Reusen requested that the following issues be addressed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee:
      • the need to ensure additional resources and support for the Office of Catalogs
      • determine the status of the college and undergraduate program review process
      • determine the status of evaluation of the core curriculum
  7. Meeting adjourned.

Comments or questions to