Meeting
: Faculty Senate Meeting, April 10, 2002, Wooten Hall, Room 322Absent
Guests: Suzanne LaBrecque, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs; John Todd, Special Assistant to the Vice President for Academic Affairs; Margaret Vestal, Academic Affairs; Kent McGregor, Faculty Senate Benefits Committee Chair; Emile Sahliyeh & Joneel Harris, Academic Affairs Committee; and UNT Daily Reporter
Opening: Juliet Getty, Chair of the Faculty Senate, called the meeting to order at 2:00.
Approval of Minutes: March 13, 2002 Senate minutes were approved.
Old Business: Faculty Senate Survey. Chair Getty informed Senators that the initial survey instrument was submitted to the Executive Committee. Existing survey questions were kept, others were added, minor grammar changes were made, and objectives were added. Senators were asked for suggestions as to how the questionnaire should be distributed. Senator Tarlton suggested email groups, linked to WebCT. A question was posed as to confusion likely in following WebCT directions, as noted last meeting. Senators were assured that since this is truly a survey, there should be fewer problems with the online system. The report was approved. The questionnaire will be distributed online as soon as possible.
New Business: None
Committee Reports:
Committee on Committees: no report
Committee on Benefits: Kent McGregor reported on the committee’s responses to this year’s charges, as follows:
The committee recognizes the need for employee withdrawal from the sick leave pool on an intermittent basis for such instances as cancer treatments. Current policy allows only continuous withdrawal. Investigations are being made as to aligning the Denton and South Dallas campus policies.
No new insurance offerings occurred for this year. The same issues related to insurance carriers exist this year as last, that include: a) long waits at clinics, b) delays in obtaining necessary paper work for referrals from PCPs, c) cost of co-pay, which is likely to increase as the Texas legislature considers health plans, d) prescription drug plan limits, as this plan is the most costly part of the program, and e) TEXFLEX – personnel report problems getting tax sheltered monies returned when unused.
The Employee Assistance Plan has 15-16 months remaining before a decision must be made as to its continuation. Human Resources will review the program to determine the need to continue or not. Usage has been low (6-8%) but that is typical with such plans. If the Plan is refunded it must become a line item in the budget.
Additional Issues allow new items to come before the committee. One issue has arisen regarding news that the Texas legislature is considering allowing employees to change from ORP to TRS, or to possibly discontinue contributions to ORP and begin TRS.
The committee made no recommendations, thus no vote was necessary.
Scholarship Committee. A written report was provided by Carolyn Cunningham. Senator Newell raised an issue regarding continuing scholarships for students. An effort has been made to control the problem of continuing students not receiving continuing scholarships when appropriate. Typically, if the student’s performance is sufficient, the scholarship is reissued. There is a problem with getting immediate data regarding returning students and their continuing needs.
Academic Affairs Committee. Chair Getty informed Senators that the report would be discussed and voted on for each part rather than the whole. She urged senators to remember the rules of debate. Emile Sahliyeh presented the committee’s report. Since Senators had not received the email written report in advance, adjustments were made to facilitate consideration of parts of the report. Transparencies were immediately made for discussion of the plus/minus grading system. While these were being produced, the VPAA’s report was provided by Dr. LaBrecque (see below).
Item 1: Annual Admissions Report. The policy for admitting the top 25% of new-to-college freshmen has been working well. Jonell Harris presented a transparency depicting the quartiles policies. Within the top quartile, the top 10% is automatically admitted and the next 15% are guaranteed admission; however, if a student in this quartile presents scores of below 950 SAT or 20 ACT, he/she must enroll in PSYC 1000. In the 2nd quartile, minimum scores are set at SAT 1010 and ACT 22. For the 3rd quartile, scores must be 1180 SAT and 26 ACT. For those in the 4th quartile, admission is on an individual review basis. The University Committee approved new standards in the fall of 2001, with the top quarter retaining automatic admission, the 2nd quarter requiring scores of 1010SAT/22ACT, for the 3rd quarter a change to 1050 SAT/23 ACT, and no changes to 4th quarter.
This item of the report was approved unanimously.
Item #2 of the report was held until next Senate meeting so senators could receive and review the written report in advance.
Item #3: 2001-adopted plus/minus grading system - The purpose of presenting this item was to discuss the implementation of the grading system. Dr. Sahliyeh reminded senators that the plus/minus grading system was approved last year with the decision that implementation would occur when the planned new student information system is in place (anticipated by April 2005). The AAC, however, was charged by the University Committee to make a presentation for implementation plans at this time. He reported that the AAC considered various models and reviewed various universities that use a plus/minus system. A transparency was provided that depicted other university policies for implementing the plus/minus system; some of these capped the GPA at 4.0 while others used a 4.3 or 4.33.
The AAC recommends the following breakdown for GPA in the UNT plus/minus system: A+ 4.0, A 4.0, A- 3.7, B- 3.3, B 3.0, B- 2.7, C+ 2.3, C 2.0, C- 1.7, D+ 1.3, D 1.0, D- .7, F 0.
Chair Getty opened the floor for discussion asking first for comments or questions in support, then in opposition. Senator Newell asked if there is a difference between an A and A+ since both generate a GPA of 4.0. Senators were assured that this point received much discussion and analysis in the AAC and the determination was made that use of a 4.3 cap would create more problems than it would have benefit. Senator Jordan asked what are the problems discussed related to using a 4.33 cap. The AAC believes that not many students would obtain a GPA above 3.7, thus without knowledge of how the new student information system will work, it is unknown as to the true impact of a 4.33 cap.
Senator Windsor asked if other issues of implementation were discussed by the AAC, such as the problems of computer variances. The AAC did not consider implementation issues other than the GPA at this point, preferring to wait until the new student information system (SIS) is in place. Harris responded that the new system should accommodate extra digits and should accommodate "history" files so that current and new grades could be considered in the same system. When the new system is in place, data will be entered first in the framework of a complete academic year. Harris informed senators that other implementation issues will arise, such as the impact on the honors status.
Senator Benjamin reminded senators that the vote had been only to approve a plus/minus system, with the agreement to wait for operational implementation until the new SIS is in place. Senator Wallace asked how the GPA is currently calculated and if the new EIS will change the calculation procedure. Harris responded that the calculation differences will affect the issue of honors status. Senator Jordan asked if the proposed system will affect students on probation. Harris responded that there will not be such effect. The Faculty Senate last year approved a policy requiring all students to maintain a 2.0 GPA across all courses.
Senator Jordan presented a motion to add an A+ at the 4.3 level. Senator Tam seconded the motion. Discussion followed.
Senator Miles expressed concern that most systems use a cap of 4.0 thus a 4.3 could present a problem for students later attending other universities, thus he spoke against the motion. Senator Benjamin spoke against the motion, commenting that when comparing across universities, mathematical averaging could result in losing some GPA. Senator Tam reported that some schools on the East Coast use a 4.3 cap and they see that as a good incentive for students to excel.
Senator Jordan expressed concern that for grades other than the A, grade points exceed the base letter level, but the proposed system does not. Senator Staff reminded senators that UNT has a duplication policy, so any student obtaining an A- could retake the course to attempt an A grade. Senator Benjamin suggested that few students achieve a 4.0 average, thus few would reach a 4.3, so that accommodating these potentially few students might be less desirable than the negative impact of a cap above 4.0 on a much higher number of students. Senator Miles addressed the duplication issue, stating that some students who obtain a B grade now retake the course to attempt an A and they could still do so.
Chair Getty called for a vote on Senator Jordan’s motion. The motion failed by voice vote.
Senator Glover asked why the grade points were spread out on the presented transparency. Sahliyeh responded that there was no particular reason.
Senator Miles presented a motion to remove the designation of A+ since there is no difference in GPA between an A+ and an A. Senator Windsor seconded the motion. Discussion followed.
Senator Benjamin spoke in support of the motion, stating that students would be confused with an A and A+ system. Senator Jordan suggested that there would likely be questions from students since other grade points have a plus grade, but the 4.0 would not. She asked if the plus grade will be noted on a student’s transcript. Harris stated that it will. Senator Weiller asked how distribution would occur for 4.0 for an A as well as for an A+, suggesting that an A would be a subjective judgment on the part of the professor. Sahliyeh responded that there is a relationship between GPA letters and grade numbers. Harris responded that we can not truly predict the process until the SIS is in place.
Chair Getty called for the vote on the motion to delete the A+ from the proposed implementation design. The motion passed by voice vote.
Senator Plummer presented a motion to reconsider the whole issue of a plus/minus system. Chair Getty ruled this motion out of order at this point, reminding senators that the Senate previously approved this measure, thus today was too late to move to reconsider. Senator Benjamin suggested that the Senate could, at some later date, present a motion to not use a plus/minus grading system.
Senator Windson stated that even if an implementation policy were approved today, implementation will not go into effect until at least 2004. Harris stated that the new EIS is anticipated for late 2003.
A senator asked if SMU had been contacted to ascertain the success of their system since it seems apparent that the AAC is recommending the policy used by SMU. Sahliyeh responded that the intent was not to adopt the SMU policy, but that simply SMU’s policy coincides with that proposed by the UNT AAC, thus SMU was not contacted. Senator Miles reported his experiences with both a plus/minus grading system and one without, stating that he could present an argument against or support for either system, as both have positive and negative outcomes. Senator Jordan expressed concern that an open forum did not occur for the plus/minus system. Sahliyeh reminded senators that such forums did occur prior to the approval of the plus/minus system last year and as a result, 75% of the faculty voted to support a plus/minus system via an electronic vote.
Parliamentarian Newell reminded senators that today’s debate is limited to the issue on the floor, that of implementation. Senator Cox spoke in favor of a plus/minus system as a means of motivating students.
Chair Getty asked for a vote by hand to approve the AAC recommended plus/minus grading system implementation as amended. The implementation policy, as amended to delete the A+ cap, was approved by a 25 for and 3 against hand vote.
Information Items: Associate Vice President La Brecque presented the VPAA report for Provost Kesterson. She informed senators of the following items:
Vice Chair’s Update: In Vice Chair Oxford’s absence, a written report was provided that identifies questions and responses in the April meeting of the University Committee with the administrators. Paraphrased questions and responses follow.
1. Q: n reference to the UPC vote to endorse the concept of a line item commitment by UNT to the Arts, please explain the administration’s view of such a line item commitment.
A: The UPC voted that UNT’s commitment to the arts should be a budget theme, not a line item. Due to budget concerns, President Pohl did not include the arts as a theme this year. In the future, the Provost’s office will fund the Visiting Lecture Series. Various arts-related groups and activities across campus do currently receive funding. It was suggested that a brochure be prepared to describe UNT’s commitment to the arts.
2. Q: Regarding the COE dean’s request to present to the Board of Regents her perspective of the future of teacher education at UNT, what is the administration’s vision for teacher education at both the Denton and South Dallas campuses.
A: Both Drs. Kesterson and Pohl assured that teacher education and preparation are very important to UNT and that Dean Keller’s response to President Pohl indicated that she does not envision universities withdrawing their programs in light of alternative routes to certification offered via other entities, sometimes in competition with universities.
3. Q: What is the administration’s and Board of Regent’s vision for UNT at Dallas? Will the Dallas campus duplicate or compliment Denton programs? Will some programs remain in Denton while others are moved to Dallas?
A: No definite decisions have yet been made. Two town hall meetings will be held for general discussion about the future of UNT at Dallas, on April 8 and April 12 from 9:00-10:30, where input by faculty, staff, and students will be solicited.
4. Q: How are changes in policy and/or charter handled after the Faculty Senate approves them? When are such changes typically reflected on respective web sites?
A: See Policy 10.1 for the "Policy on Policies." Margaret Vestal should be contacted as the liaison with the Faculty Senate, to ensure accuracy and expediency of changes being implemented and to work to implement a tracking system.
5. Q: Please provide an update on budgeting themes for the upcoming year, indicating percentages assigned to each.
A: The themes are the same as last year, with the addition of the Engineering proposal. President Pohl stated that he has not assigned percentages this year to each theme due to budget concerns and uncertainties. He affirmed that salaries are his top priority.
6. Q: What plans are in place for various plots of area land purchased by UNT?
A: President Pohl awaits a response from Fred Pole before addressing this question.
There were no questions related to this report.
Chair’s Update: Chair Getty provided information regarding the following items:
Committee of the Whole: Senator Pelton reminded senators of the visiting lecture speaker, Michael Moore, on April 14. Carolyn Carter reminded senators to watch for electronic voting soon on three items: 1) Senate charter changes, 2) evaluation of administrators, 3) election ballot.
Adjournment: Chair Getty adjourned the meeting at 3:30.
Send comments or questions to Sue Young, syoung@unt.edu, at the Faculty Senate Office, Telephone (940) 565-2053.