THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO
DOCUMENTS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE FACULTY SENATE SPECIAL MEETING OF MARCH 20, 2001
The third Special Meeting of the Faculty Senate for the academic year 2000-2001 was held in room 4.03.12, John Peace Library Building, on March 20, 2001 at 11:00 a.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, Robert Hiromoto, Michael F. Kelly, James McDonald, Louis Mendoza, George Negrete, Sandy Norman, Thomas Ricento, Deborah Schwartz-Kates, Tony Van Reusen, Arturo Vega, Diane Walz
Absent: Sos Agaian (excused), Guy Bailey (excused), Russell Briner (excused), Wanda Hedrick, Kellye Jones (excused), Jeanne Reesman, Walter B. Richardson, Jr., A. C. Rogers, Kent Rush (excused), C.S. Shih, R. K. Smith, Raydel Tullous
Total members present: 20 Total members absent: 12
Dr. Vega reported that while the Committee recommends the approval of four proposals for new teacher certification programs submitted by the College of Education and Human Development, there were concerns raised that should be addressed by the entire Senate. Most of the questions coming from the Committee related to the effect of the proposed new curriculum on students in the program and how the proposals relate to core curriculum requirements. These questions were presented to the College and the response attached to the Committee's report. Dr. Vega noted that Dr. Nancy Martin, Associate Dean of the College, was in attendance and available to address these issues.
Dr. Martin stated that the proposals were in response to a change in the state's teacher certification configuration. Currently in the State of Texas, people would be certified as either Elementary (grades 1-8) or Secondary (grades 8-12). The State has now mandated certification in Early Childhood through Grade 4, Middle Elementary (4-8) and Secondary (8-12), so the curriculum had to address the changes.
Dr. Raul Aranovich asked if the increase in the required number of hours was due to the impact of the new certification requirements and could the program be shortened and still satisfy the new requirements.
Dr. Martin responded that the curriculum was in direct response to state standards and the program cannot be shortened. Each of the core curriculum is tied to a state standard.
Dr. Tom Ricento made a motion to approve the four teacher certification proposals. Motion passed.
Dr. Harris stated that during this meeting Dr. Norman would review the proposed changes to the Faculty Senate Bylaws and report on the Committee's justifications, but discussion would be limited to the apportionment plan. Dr. Norman reported the following proposed changes:
Article I - addition of the Provost as a recipient of recommendations from the Faculty Senate.
Rationale: The Provost is the logical recipient of academic initiatives.
Article II.1.A - change membership structure to include at least one faculty member from each department or division.
Rationale: This will ensure representation of all faculty in light of the upcoming restructuring.
Article II.1.B - change membership structure to include one additional faculty member at the rank of Senior Lecturer or Lecturer III for each 20% of major portion thereof.
Rationale: Non-tenure track faculty members are underrepresented in the University's governance system.
Article II.1.C - specify that the reapportionment will be conducted every Spring semester of odd-numbered years.
Rationale: Adds specificity to reapportionment process.
Article II.1.D - state that faculty holding administrative appointments at the level of Department Chair or higher will not be eligible for service as faculty representatives.
Rationale: It appears that the position of department chair will be much more administrative that faculty had first thought.
Article II.1.E - change titles of some ex officio members.
Rational: To match the existing University titles.
Article IV.1 - change the day of meetings from Tuesday to Thursday.
Rationale: So the Senate meetings will not conflict with the meetings of the University Assembly.
Article VIII.4.b - change Academic Policy and Requirements Committee to Personnel and Policy Evaluation Committee
Rationale: To specify the charge to monitor policy and to be the Senate entity that does administrative evaluations.
Article VIII.4.c - change the charge to the University Curriculum Committee
Rationale: To reassign the function of determining requirements for graduation and admission from the Academic Policy and Requirements Committee.
Article VIII.4.d - change the charge to the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee
Rationale: To add the monitoring of Periodic Performance Evaluation procedures and additions to the Handbook of Operating Procedures and the consideration of grievance cases related to academic freedom and tenure to the responsibilities of the Committee.
Article VIII.4.e. - change the Teaching Effectiveness and Development Committee to the Merit, Evaluation, and Rewards Committee with three subcommittees: Teaching Effectiveness and Development, Service Effectiveness and Development, and Research Effectiveness and Development.
Rationale: To expand the scope of the Committee's charge to include Research and Service.
Article VIII.4.f - change the Nominating and Elections Committee to the Nominating, Elections, and Procedures Committee.
Rationale: To add the responsibility of reapportionment and handling of any proposed revisions to the bylaws.
ArticleVIII.4.h - change the charge to the Budget Committee.
Rationale: To add the responsibility of handling exercises such as the faculty compression study.
General discussion was then held about several of the proposed revisions. Dr. Harris requested that the remainder of the discussion focus on Article II, Members, due to the need to conduct an election of faculty representatives for the next academic year.
A motion was made to change the wording of Article II.1.a to "at least one faculty member from each academic department or division elected by and from the voting members of the General Faculty of each respective department or division. Motion passed.
A motion was made to change the wording of Article II.1.b to "one additional faculty member at the rank of Senior Lecturer or Lecturer III for each 20 percent (or major fraction thereof)...". Motion passed.
A motion was made to separate Article II.1.d into two sections. Article II.1.d: Faculty holding administrative appointments at the level of department chair are not eligible to serve as faculty representative. Article II.1.e: Faculty holding administrative appointments at a level higher than department char are not eligible to serve as faculty representatives. Motion passed.
3. Motion made to table the Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on International Programs. Motion passed.
4. Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee - Dr. Robert Hiromoto
Dr. Hiromoto reported that although the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee has an oversight responsibility for faculty issues in the Handbook of Operating Procedures, there have been issues approved by the Faculty Senate that have never been incorporated into the Handbook. In response to this problem, the Committee reviewed minutes of past meetings, and the votes that were taken. This information will be presented to the Faculty Senate at a subsequent meeting. The Committee also conducted a survey in an attempt to determine whether or not faculty understand the various procedures and processes in the Handbook. Since the response to the survey was low, the Committee planned to give faculty a second chance to provide additional input.
Dr. Hiromoto reported that the Committee had met with Dr. David Johnson of the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs on the issue of faculty conflict at the department level. Dr. Hiromoto said that he felt an agreement had been reached that the resolution of any conflict is the responsibility not only of the faculty but also the chairs and, probably, other administrative leaders within the University. He stated that there are two types of faculty problems - professional issues and personal problems. The two must be separated and treated in a manner more in line with the mission of the University.
III. Meeting adjourned.
Comments or questions to email@example.com