THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO
DOCUMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE MEETING OF
The third Regular Meeting of the Faculty Senate for the academic year 2000-2001 was held in room 4.03.08, John Peace Library Building, on February 13, 2001 at 3:30 p.m. with Dr. Patricia Harris, Chair, presiding, Dr. Raul Aranovich, Secretary.
Present: Raul Aranovich, Guy Bailey, Mark Blizard, John Bretting, Ruben Cordova, Mansour El-Kikhia, Keith Fairchild, Patricia Harris, Kellye Jones, Michael F. Kelly, James McDonald, Sandy Norman, Tom Ricento, Kent Rush, Deborah Schwartz-Kates, Raydel Tullous, Anthony Van Reusen, Diane Walz
Absent: Sos Agaian (excused), Deborah Armstrong, Ron Ayers (excused), Russell Briner (excused), Wanda Hedrick, Robert Hiromoto, Louis Mendoza, George Negrete, Jeanne Reesman, Walter Richardson, Jr., A. C. Rogers, C. S. Shih, R. K. Smith, Arturo Vega (excused)
Total members present: 18 Total members absent: 14
II. Minutes of the October 24, 2000 Special Meeting and the November 14, 2000 Meeting were approved.
A. Provost - Dr. Guy Bailey
1. Dr. Bailey provided information previously requested by the Faculty Senate:
· The individual designated to sign visas for UTSA faculty is Sylvia Medel, Office of Multicultural Programs. The alternate individual is Ann Margaret Trujillo in the same office.
· The current members of the University Faculty Review and Advisory Committee are Dale Truett, College of Business; Rosalyn Horowitz, College of Education and Human Development; C. H. Shih, College of Engineering; Donald Hodges and Bonnie Lyons, College of Liberal and Fine Arts; Patrick Nash, College of Sciences; and, Derral Cheatwood, College of Urban Professional Programs.
· A packet of material related to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Reaffirmation of Accreditation report was distributed. Dr. Bailey noted that the University had responded to all SACS requirements except for some follow-up related to assessments.
2. Dr. Bailey reported that The University of Texas System was also studying assessments of student learning. Assessment accomplished by reporting data on graduation rates, research dollars, and faculty publications is already being done. UT System, however, is studying additional ways to assess student learning. The former provost from UT-Brownsville, Dr. Ray Rodrigues, has been appointed as Special Assistant (for assessment) to the Executive Vice Chancellor. He has been assigned to develop an assessment plan for general education programs across the academic institutions of the UT System. Dr. Rodrigues will visit UTSA on March 5-6, 2001 to meet with the Core Curriculum Committee and other groups of faculty and staff. Dr. Bailey stated that the least intrusive kind of testing, such as embedded assessment, would be the best method. Any assessment of student learning should be devised by faculty and should not involve special testing.
3. Dr. Bailey distributed a report from the UT System Ad Hoc Long-Range Planning Committee. He noted that some questions about UTSA moving toward doctoral-granting status might be answered by the report. He explained that UTSA can determine its curriculum but cannot determine its scope. The scope of any System component would be determined by UT System and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board based on input from the institution. The report shows clearly that UTSA has been considered as one institution that should move toward doctoral status. The report states that Texas needs to produce an additional 500 doctoral degrees per year and needs an additional 50 doctoral programs. It also discusses the proposed creation of Centers of Excellence within existing universities. The System will request funding for these Centers during the current legislative session. Dr. Bailey noted also that a report done by the Rand Corporation for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board had specified the need for research institutions in Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, and San Antonio. This would mean that UTSA should be targeted by the System to move toward doctoral status.
Dr. Tom Ricento asked if the report stated any long-term financial planning beyond the two-year cycle and the commitment to move in a certain direction?
Dr. Bailey responded that there had been no specific discussion of allocations. The UT System's approach would be to ask the legislature for funding of the proposed Centers of Excellence, which would be broad interdisciplinary centers incorporating a number of disciplines working on areas of value to the Texas economy. New funding for higher education is expected to come from legislative authorization of higher tuition and fees. Essentially the legislature is expected to continue the pattern of shifting the financial responsibility for higher education from state funding to students and their parents. The state would then offset part of the increased cost with an expansion of the Texas Grants Program.
Dr. Ricento asked if private endowments were expected to become even more important as sources of funding for the institution.
Dr. Bailey agreed that such funds would be a major resource, along with student tuition and fees. He noted that UTSA had done much better recently in the area of gifts and endowments. Enrollment growth has recently been the primary method used by UTSA and other academic institutions to fund new programs. At UTSA, enrollment growth is expected to remain strong. Dr. Bailey reported that UTSA has been one of the most poorly funded state institutions. This is due to the formula used by the state to determine funding. Student credit hours at the graduate level are reimbursed at a much higher rate than undergraduate student credits hours. UTSA has a large imbalance between graduate and undergraduate student credit hours. The institution is currently working to change that imbalance. Another funding item that has had a negative impact at UTSA has been the tenure-track supplement in the formula. The Office of the Provost has strived to reduce the reliance on non-tenure track faculty teaching undergraduate courses to improve that situation
Dr. Raul Aranovich stated that, compared to other institutions, UTSA was very deficient in their ratio of tenure-track faculty teaching undergraduate courses.
Dr. Bailey agreed and explained that UTSA implemented a plan during the last biennium to hire at least 40 new tenure-track faculty during each of the next four or five biennia.
4. Dr. Bailey reported that, in response to a legislature proposal to merge UTSA with the University of Texas Health Science Center-San Antonio, the UT System had proposed the creation of an institute to develop doctoral programs jointly. The System requested special legislative funding for the institute, which will concentrate primarily on science and engineering programs.
5. Dr. Bailey distributed a draft of a proposed workload policy and requested suggestions and comments from the Senate. He said that the policy was essentially the same policy in place at UT Austin. He noted that one significant change from UTSA's current policy was the increase in weight for courses at the master's level. The policy proposes weights tied to class size but additional weight would have to be phased in until master's courses receive the full 1.5 credits they are eligible for. The new policy is intended to provide department chairs with a tool to work with to move faculty toward 2-2 workloads. The Office of the Provost would like to begin implementing the new policy in the Fall 2001 semester.
Dr. Deborah Schwartz-Kates noted that some departments are already well over 3-3 workloads and that the new policy would not alleviate those situations.
Dr. Bailey replied that some departments would be able to adopt the new policy more easily than others. He said he would look specifically at what was happening in the departments and what was unique to certain situations.
Dr. Kent Rush stated that the proposed workload policy did not address situations for faculty that teach laboratory-type classes, such as music, art, and science courses.
Dr. Bailey requested that any concerns or suggestions on issues such as these be sent to Dr. David Johnson. Dr. Johnson would collect all input from academic administrators and faculty. The anticipation is to send the proposed policy to UT System for approval during the summer.
6. Dr. Bailey distributed a draft of a revised merit policy, explaining that the primary goal was to provide flexibility for departments and colleges within an overall university framework. Understanding that the same policy would not apply to all disciplines, the proposed policy provides general guidelines while allowing for flexibility for different courseloads and different kinds of work expectations among the divisions. Dr. Bailey requested feedback on the policy, as well as recommendations for when it should be implemented, by the end of the Spring semester.
7. Questions to the Provost
Dr. Aranovich asked if the individuals authorized to sign visas could sign all types of visas? Dr. Bailey responded that he thought they could. He stated that the Office of the Provost would still like to hire a part-time staff member whose sole responsibility would be handling faculty visas.
Dr. Mansour El-Kikhia asked if equity salary adjustments were anticipated for next year? Dr. Bailey replied that funding from the legislature was not expected, but there would be pay raises as well as an extension of the compression exercise.
1. Dr. Harris noted that there would be a special meeting of the Faculty Senate Thursday, March 22nd. The purpose of the meeting will be to hear from the Academic Policy and Requirements Committee on a proposed reapportionment so the new elections may be held. The Special meeting will also provide additional reporting time for the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee to present its survey findings and discuss other items on its agenda, such as intra-departmental conflict and periodic performance evaluation developmental plan, and an opportunity for the Ad Hoc Committee on International Programs to report its findings and recommendations to date.
2. Dr. Harris stated that there might also be a special meeting in April, in addition to the regular meeting. This is due to the need to review and approve a proposed and possibly amended new faculty appraisal/merit plan, a new course evaluation instrument, and new bylaws proposals from the Academic Policy and Requirements Committee, before the Assembly meeting in May. Dr. Harris reported that an ad hoc committee would be appointed to review the Merit Proposal and Workload Policy presented to the Faculty Senate by the Provost and present recommendations at the April Special Meeting. Dr. James McDonald has agreed to chair that committee.
3. Dr. Harris informed the Senate that she and Dr. Sandy Norman were scheduled to meet with President Romo at 9:30 a.m., February 16th to discuss independence of the Senate from the Assembly. During that meeting, Dr. Harris will also follow up on the Senate's request to constitute a University Committee on the Advancement of Women.
4. Dr. Harris reported that The University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council had proposed a policy on receivership. After additional revision, the Council, through its representatives, will distribute the proposal to UT System components for their respective consideration.
5. Dr. Harris presented a report of the entire record of the Faculty Senate that was prepared from her content analysis of all minutes of the Senate. She stated that Senate minutes show increasing time spent in discussion and asking questions, and unfinished committee work. There have been relatively few outcomes and actions have been mostly reactive. The question is whether or not the Senate has addressed issues of greatest concern to faculty. Dr. Harris noted that problems might be due to the number and type of committees; types of tasks committees have been working on; commitment to address finite tasks in a brief timeframe; and, the composition of committees. She suggested that the Senate might need more committees with more Senators on them. Other questions the Senate should ask itself include:
· Should the Senate be better linked into other Committees elsewhere in the University?
· Why didn't Senate make initial proposal regarding changes in faculty appraisal and merit?
· Why does it take so long to finish manageable tasks?
6. Dr. Harris reported on issues related to post tenure review and faculty development:
A. Different post tenure review models
§ UTSA's model: Periodic, consequential with no development plan
§ Alternative 1: Triggered by poor annual reviews; development plan for some; consequential
§ Alternative 2 (highly regarded): Periodic, tied to development and resources for all faculty
§ Resources in advance to spur development (e.g., tied to sabbatical or course releases)
§ Resources afterward to reward development (e.g., money or course releases for publications)
· Need for faculty to keep abreast of technology, globalization, student diversity, and learning patterns
· Faculty careers have different "seasons"
· Need to give faculty opportunities for renewal
· Opportunity for faculty and their departments to reassess faculty fit to department and university
· Opportunity for faculty to benefit from their own self-reflection and that of their colleagues
· Opportunity to provide full professors with continuing rewards, to offset compression
· If there are not developmental plans for all, universities use resources to only "reward" poor performers
· Gives faculty recognition by peers
§ Studies compared "triggered, consequential" (Model 1) with "Developmental" (Model 2)
§ Department chairs and faculty surveyed in four universities where all tenured faculty would have been through the process at least once (15,000-30,000 enrollment)
§ Model 2 faculty and chairs significantly more likely than Model 1 faculty and chairs to regard PTR in the following ways:
· PTR worth time and effort (remember that in Model 1, PTR is only a means for punishing faculty)
· Positive exercise for department
· Improves productivity in unproductive faculty
· PTR sustains vitality, beneficial to faculty member's work and vitality
· Maximizes faculty skills and interests
· PTR is not a threatening experience
D. Different models of developmental plans
§ South Carolina Coastal - this is a triggered system. Rating of conditional triggers plan (faculty member can not go straight to unfavorable). Faculty member allowed to develop plan for first year, if no improvement, committee makes plan
§ Other universities: The plan is developed in coordination with others (dean, chair and/or department). The Developmental Plan Committee usually includes peers and can include representation from teaching and learning center. Deans and/or department chairs are involved. These committees can also include an advocate chosen by faculty member being reviewed.
1. Ad Hoc Committee on Evaluation of Administrators - Dr. Keith Fairchild, Chair
Dr. Fairchild distributed copies of the Executive Summary of the Committee's evaluation of Mr. James Broderick, Director, Division of Visual Arts. He reported that the results were basically very favorable. Dr. Fairchild proposed that, because of restructuring, the following schedule should be in effect for the next round of evaluations: 50% of continuing directors/chairs in 2001-2002, the remaining 50% of continuing administrators the next year, and, all of the new academic administrators the third year. The Committee recommends that the evaluation schedule for administrators above the title of chair would be determined by lottery. Dr. Fairchild reported that the Committee was reviewing the evaluation forms to ensure that they were appropriate for the various administrative positions. He said that the evaluation of Dr. Joe Stuessy, Director, Division of Music, had been conducted and the Committee would present that report at the April meeting of the Faculty Senate.
2. University Curriculum Committee - Dr. Russell Briner, Chair
Dr. Aranovich presented the Committee's report on behalf of Dr. Briner. He reported that the College of Education and Human Development submitted four certification degree program modifications to the Faculty Senate for approval. The members of the University Curriculum Committee reviewed and discussed the programs and the modifications proposed. No changes were suggested in any of the programs, but concerns were raised related to the large number of hours (130 to 139) required for completion and the core curriculum courses as specified in the programs. Therefore, the committee members decided that, prior to making any recommendations, they should meet with representatives of the programs from the College. The proposed program changes were triggered by changes made by the State of Texas requiring new measures for teacher certification. The Committee, however, had concerns about the length of the programs and felt that many courses were "double dips" from the core curriculum also used to satisfy the degree requirements. The Committee will request additional information from the College and will continue to review the proposals.
Dr. Van Reusen noted that the expectation in the College is that the State of Texas will mandate more certification requirements on a regular basis over the next few years.
Dr. Aranovich reported that the Curriculum Committee had also been charged to determine the extent of courses with duplicate content that may be offered in different disciplines. The charge was also to consider the handling of faculty in one discipline teaching a course in another discipline. Since the interdisciplinary studies programs seem to be the discipline where these areas were more likely to occur, a questionnaire was sent to the Associate Dean of the College of Education and Human Development. The reply was not received in time for the Committee to evaluate the responses, so the charge remains under consideration and a report will be provided at the next Faculty Senate Meeting.
3. Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee - Dr. Robert Hiromoto, Chair
On behalf of Dr. Hiromoto, Dr. Raydel Tullous distributed a packet of material containing data from the "Faculty Survey on Promotion and Tenure Policies and Procedure" administered by the Committee. She noted that the survey was intended to determine what faculty knew about the current tenure and promotion policies and how the policies are implemented. Dr. Tullous reported that the Committee was emailing the results of the survey to the tenured and tenure-track faculty for informational purposes.
1. Report on UT System Accountability Proposal - Dr. Betty Travis
Dr. Travis reported that one of the members of the Board of Regents, Mr. Charles Miller, had stated that a version of TAAS testing could be extended to universities. Two types of tests were initially discussed. One was a system-wide test, prior to graduation, for all students in their majors. The other test would be on core curriculum courses. The UT System Faculty Advisory Council met with Mr. Miller several times to discuss this type of testing. The members of the Council stated that, if testing must be conducted, it should be done in a method that is the least harmful for the students. This might be accomplished by imbedding the test into final examinations or other course materials. Initially there would be three components to any standardized testing: mathematics, composition, and critical thinking. The expectation is that some form of testing will be implemented during the Fall 2001 semester. Dr. Travis said that the project being conducted by Dr. Rodrigues of UT System would include the appointment of a committee at each component to implement the process and guide the assessments. Faculty members of that committee would attend a workshop in March to meet with faculty from all the other academic components of the System to devise the assessment. She asked that any remarks that faculty would like to see directed to the Board of Regents, and especially to Mr. Miller, be forwarded to her.
1. Dr. Tullous distributed a memorandum updating the results of the Teaching Effectiveness Survey relating to the weights on the teaching categories. The memorandum and attachments were to be emailed to all faculty.
2. Discussion was held regarding the lack of any e-mail distribution list for faculty. It was agreed that lists need to be created for tenured and tenure-track, as well as non-tenure track faculty. Dr. El-Kikhia said he would contact the Office of Information Technology to determine how this could be accomplished.
VI. Meeting adjourned.
Comments or questions to firstname.lastname@example.org