APRIL 9, 2003
Meeting:
Faculty Senate Meeting, April 9, 2003, Wooten Hall, Room 322
Absent:
Boukerche, Chandler, Cho, Doherty, H. Harris, Hastings, Hill, Huff,
Jordon, King, Levin, Little, Parks, Pemberton, Staff, Tarlton, Taylor, Wallace,
Wilhite, Windsor, Woods
Guests:
Suzanne LaBrecque, Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs; Eric
Wilson, Student Governance Association representative
Opening:
Jeffrey Oxford, Chair of the Faculty Senate, called the meeting to order
at 2:13 p.m.
Approval of
March 12, 2003 Senate Minutes The
minutes were approved as circulated, with edits submitted by Richard Rafes,
indicating 5.1 (rather than 1.5) million dollars for Liberty Christian and 300
beds for Traditions Hall (rather than eliminating 300 parking spots).
Old Business: None
New Business: Faculty
Development Leave (Policy Manual 15.1.11). (Handout provided) A change of title was presented as a motion by the Executive
Committee as a result of discussions with administrators, to eliminate in the
title and throughout the policy document any reference to the policy being
“faculty.” If faculty who are
not 100% teaching will have opportunity for leave, a better name for the policy
is to eliminate the term “faculty” leaving the policy as “Developmental
Leave.” Senator
Pelton made a motion to accept; Senator Cox seconded. Senator Conover stated
that the original intention of the policy was for a faculty development leave,
so she is unsure about a need for change. This opens the policy up to doctoral students and
instructors; in fact, the entire university.
Senator Bustinza asked if this could be kept as faculty development, but
better defined as intended to be all-inclusive of faculty, including adjuncts.
Senator Mueller stated that the definition of eligibility is that the
person is employed full-time by the university, thus graduate students would not
qualify. The only change proposed
is to remove the term “faculty” from the policy. Senator Getty expressed
agreement, noting that eligibility guidelines state faculty or staff so if staff
members are eligible, faculty should be removed from the title. Senator Benjamin
asked if an administrative assistant would fall under either Class I, II, or
III. Chair Oxford stated that his
opinion is that administrative assistants would not be eligible as the policy
states the staff person must also be teaching. Benjamin pointed out that the
policy states either/or, not both. Senator
Windsor commented that he reads the “or” as belonging to the next clause.
Benjamin stated agreement and corrected his concern.
Senator Tam asked to what it would refer if faculty were removed when it
states “in relation to above.” Oxford
responded that faculty member refers to persons who meet the qualifications in
the first sentence. He reminded
senators that we are not debating the policy, even though there may be
disagreement with the policy; only the name is in debate today.
Benjamin stated that if we change the name now, it would be difficult to
use the policy for faculty. Conover
asked for clarification in the wording in the policy, noting that the term
“or” (item 1 under Class III) is confusing.
Oxford responded that the EC sent this to the Provost whose opinion is
that the deletion of the term “faculty” would not change the policy.
Senator Shiner asked what the policy really intends.
Senator Miles stated that the policy is intended to include
administrators, which is the issue that brought forward a discussion.
Tam stated that the original document included faculty and administrator,
and that the clause “hereafter the …” includes librarian and
administration faculty, thus there is no need to remove the term “faculty.”
Senator Mary Harris stated that the applicability policy refers to
administrative staff. Mueller
suggested that the policy be returned to the Executive Committee and made a
motion to table the issue and return it to the appropriate committee for further
evaluation. Benjamin seconded.
Vote to table: motion carried with one opposition.
The following two resolutions were presented:
1.
Presented by Senator Miles, from the Executive Committee. This resolution supports the position of provost/VPAA as the
second-in-command
Whereas academic endeavors lie at the heart of the
university; and
Whereas
consideration of these academic endeavors needs to be the guiding force behind
the operation of the university; and
Whereas
the growth in the student body that UNT is currently experiencing and expected
to experience throughout the foreseeable future
Whereas
said growth in the student body will logically require a proportionate growth in
tenure-track faculty lines; and
Whereas
the changing and difficult times in which we presently find ourselves
necessitate particular attention to the distribution of
Whereas
the anticipated addition of another Vice President (for Research and Technology
Transfer) to the University Budget Committee
Whereas
the Provost and Vice-President for Academic Affairs has historically been
considered the second-in-command at UNT; and
Whereas
the normal university structure at quality universities throughout the Untied
States is that the Provost and Vice-President for
Therefore
be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of the University of North Texas supports
the organization of administration of the
Vice-Chair
Pelton offered a friendly amendment to capitalize Vice President in the 6th
“whereas.” All senators were
in favor of this resolution.
2.
Presented by Senator Mueller, Chair of University Review Committee. This
resolution supports implementation of the URC recommended
Whereas, the
University Review Committee has identified the need to expedite the
grievance/appeals process; and
Whereas,
the URC, in accordance with its charter, has made recommendations to meet this
need; and
Whereas,
the recommendations were forwarded to the Provost and Vice President for
Academic Affairs one year ago; and
Whereas,
the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs has given his tacit approval
of these recommendations; now
Therefore,
be it resolved, that the Faculty Senate of the University of North Texas
endorses the approval of the Provost and Vice President
Oxford stated
that the Executive Committee has also looked at the grievance timeline
recommendations and wishes to support the URC proposals.
The resolution was supported by all senators.
Committee Reports:
Committee
on Committees.
Senator Miles reported that the committee has no recommendations.
Academic Affairs Committee. Senator
Sahliyeh was unavailable, thus Joneel Harris reported for him an item related to
HB 588 that has a decision deadline of April 18. For Fall 2004 Undergraduate Admission Standards, the Academic
Affairs Committee brings a recommended change in the policy. The current UNT
policy calls for automatic admission of the top 25% of high school graduates. We
are now required by law to review the policy. Numerous other universities have followed our lead, but none
of our peer institutions. The
political climate is now shifting toward combining emphasis on access and equity
along with quality. The proposed policy change is for automatic admission to the
top 10% of high school graduates with a 950 SAT or 20 ACT. This is a proposed
business process change to tighten the individual review guidelines and to
endorse a new Deferred Scholar Program to enhance options for applicants who may
be admitted by individual review. Senator
Getty asked where PSYC 1000 falls in this change. PSYC 1000 stays in place for
the top 10% with scores lower than the ACT cutoff.
Others in the top 10% or next 15% will be carefully reviewed.
The 15% of applicants with SAT scores below 950 will be required to take
PSCY 1000. On the Coordinating
Board website there is listed all institutional requirements, for persons
interested in reviewing UNT peer institutions.
Senator Miles asked if Harris knew of what Tech is doing regarding
exceptions for candidates who fall under individual review.
Based on their SAT reviews, TECH has either defined their cohort to not
include certain ACT scores or have changed the way they compute ACT scores.
In admissions, ACT may be treated in individual components for admission
purposes. The highest component
scores could be taken, with two test indices, so we could take the highest of
each test taken. Senator Kinsley
asked what would be the impact if the proposed policy were in place now. This
policy would allow for looking closely at those students who need to go under
individual review. Senator Oliver
asked about ethnic breakdown comparison. These
groups were comparable to percentages in individual review.
Harris assured that we do not to hamper admission to students who have
the ability to be successful at UNT. Decisions
are made under blind review; however, in individual review, the ethnicity is
evident even though there is caution to base any decision on the ability to be
successful. Senator Benjamin
seconded the motion. Miles
asked whether UNT is above or below other institutions and about how the
proposed number was selected. He
also asked if we know what a 950 translates to percentile wise.
Harris stated that percentiles relate to a particular group tested.
Senator Mueller asked for clarification of the motion. The motion is to endorse
a policy change. Miles stated his
hope that the score would at some point be raised even higher, especially as we
define our peer institutions. Cut-off
scores are simply to facilitate the admissions process; other criteria exist for
admission decisions. The motion carried with no opposition.
Faculty
Handbook Committee. The written report was not provided but will be presented in
May.
University
Library Committee. A written report was provided.
Information Items: Vice President Kesterson’s Report:
VP Kesterson was not available and Dr. LaBrecque stated there were no
items from the VP’s office.
Vice Chair’s Report: Vice-Chair Pelton reported on the Executive Committee meeting
with administrators last week, noting that a printed packet of information that
includes the following was available at the front of the room.
1.
Appendix I: budgeted positions for 2003-2004 before the hiring freeze.
2.
Appendix II: budgeted positions for 2003/2004 after hiring freeze
(evidence of massive reduction in hires after the freeze)
3.
Appendix III: budgeted positions 2003-2004 unfilled lines (based on
budgetary constraints).
4. Appendix IV: resolution supporting VPAA
position in organizational structure
5. Appendix
V: resolution supporting implementation of URC timeline
6. Appendix
VI: Texas Faculty Senate resolution
Senator
Miles clarified that data on Appendix II marked with an asterisk, in some cases,
refers to visiting positions. We
don’t know if positions will be filled; offers may have been made pending
funding approval.
1. A
resolution is brought forward by the Executive Committee, seconded by Senator
Miles, as a result of the last meeting of the Texas Council of Faculty Senates
which reads as follows:
Whereas
the primary mission of the state colleges and universities of Texas is education
and instruction,
Whereas
the core values and goals of the state colleges and universities of Texas
reflect and support this mission;
Whereas
the state colleges and universities of Texas must preserve and protect their
basic ability to deliver quality instruction to a record
Whereas
recent and pending budget restraints require state colleges and universities of
Texas to do more with less (i.e., deliver more
Whereas all members of the Texas higher education community must bear the burden of ensuring that we weather the budget crisis without sacrificing quality;
Whereas
the faculty in the state of Texas are willing to assist in devising ways to
determine how to do more with less, and they are willing
Therefore
be it resolved that the Texas Council of Faculty Senates, an organization
representing the leaders of the faculty senates in the state of Texas, supports
the efforts of faculty to participate in this process and believes that the
burden of doing more with less must not be interpreted to mean the faculty
should be paid less and/or that the faculty should assume a greater overall
workload. While the Texas Council
of Faculty Senates believes that colleges and universities should be free to
make adjustments as needed to meet their budget restraints, these adjustments
must be done within the constraints of fair pay for a reasonable workload.
Colleges and universities must recognize that teaching load is only a
subset of workload. Any adjustment in teaching load therefore must mandate a
corresponding adjustment in service, research, and other work activities.
Furthermore, in the spirit of shared sacrifices, we ask all Texas
colleges and university administrators to shoulder a just portion of this burden
by limiting their own increases in compensation packages to a percentage no
greater than that received by the faculty at their institutions.
To do so otherwise will harm the missions, values, and goals of the state
colleges and universities of Texas.
Senators unanimously approved the resolution.
3.
The administration was queried about a change in the reporting structure
in the UNT Office of Equity and Diversity.
To provide a way of protecting both the complainant and the accused and
to protect the integrity of the process, President Pohl is reported to require
that the investigation process report to the previous administrative position
currently governed by Dr. Richard Rafes. The
EC had concerns about Rafes overseeing this process as he is an advocate for the
university thus OED complainants presented before him might be a conflict.
President Pohl does not think there is a conflict. Miles noted that Pohl said if this change in reporting
process were to be implemented, it would not occur until there is a separation
of Rafes from the legal counsel position to the Vice President for
Administration position. Pelton
stated that he has a different understanding and will ask for clarification as
to whether this is pending or not. Mary
Harris asked what the common reporting process is at other institutions.
Pelton sated this UNT process would be fairly non-conventional in
comparison to others. The OED usually acts as an autonomous body.
Pelton will research this question and report back.
4.
There is little to report regarding the status of Faculty Merit and
Excellence monies.
5.
When asked about the UNT student-funded recreational facility and what
faculty will be required to pay there, in comparison with fees at the
6. An
IRB procedures issue, regarding delays in the process of IRB
request/applications, was presented. Doctoral
students may use the expedited process if the requirement is to fulfill course
needs. Kesterson has requested that
Pelton meet with the IRB for clarification of the policy. Senator Roberts asked for administrator
information regarding photography and video-taping of people who are not aware
of the event or have not given written permission.
What is the determination? May
teachers videotape themselves if students are included in the video?
What is the administration directive?
7. On
the issue of administration versus teaching costs, Pohl provided the EC
information showing that UNT costs in relation to other institutions is
sometimes related to the size of the institution.
Mueller stated that these figures include total expenditures but what the
EC asked for was percentage of salaries and wages.
There is a lack of clarity as to what is exactly in the E&G.
There is also a summary by each academic unit, regarding operating
expenses. This is a bit ambiguous
due to variances of accounts across units.
Miles suggested that another issue is to request data revealing change in
expenditures over the last several years. Mueller
suggested a ten-year spread.
Chair’s
Update:
Chair Oxford reported that semi-finalist candidates for the Provost
position are coming in for one-day campus interviews at this time. The three
finalist candidates will be in for two-day visits/interviews this semester.
Committee of the Whole
Eric Wilson (SGA) presented an information report
about the Pick-a-Prof (PAP) online
program that has become controversial. The
SGA contracted with PAP (out of Austin) for one year for $2000. There is an
expansive section on this link for professors. Features of the program include
grade histories taken from university records, student evaluations/reviews,
student government customization, schedule planning, etc.
Student reviews give information regarding exam type, homework load,
lecture style, attendance policy, etc. There
are 70,000 student reviews posted. Students
rate instructors high more frequently than low, so this is not a case of
complaining students. For the
professor report, there is a link for personal review, profile information, and
student feedback system. UNT
students may give mid-semester feedback about identified professors.
Professor feedback does not include personal comments (those are
available only for students). Miles
stated he has logged on to see what is there and asked what the contract entails
for UNT. The contract provides a
service that had been on a five-year trial period, so the contract was needed.
SGA pays the contract fee to allow students to use the service without
fee. Miles asked if students have
to log in from a UNT computer to be recognized.
Wilson believes it is restricted to current students.
Miles asked if the SGA has considered gaining access to evaluations
administered by departments. Wilson responded that students like to use the web
for quick response and ready data. Miles
encouraged the SGA to think about use of this data.
Tam asked how many students are currently using this service. Wilson reported 4,800 users with 2000 reviews thus far.
A visitor, recognized by a senator to speak, stated that Pick-A-Prof
is good at catching unqualified students who attempt to enter but are not
qualified. Goggins asked how grades
are acquired. Wilson responded that
grades are public information. Getty
stated that she has entered as a student and found it possible to submit
comments, but she did not follow through to submit the comments.
Wilson assured that had she submitted comments, the system would have
caught that she was not a student. The
SGA ad campaign and word of mouth have gotten the message out about the service.
SGA has a budget that covers programming and public relations costs,
under which this comes. Oxford
demonstrated how to access the site/service online.
2.
Chair Oxford thanked everyone for participation in the evaluation of
administrators and noted that the response rate was significantly higher
3.
Senator Bond asked for information on raises.
Oxford responded that only step raises will be given this year, to the
best of our knowledge at this point, so only faculty moving up in rank will
receive a raise.
4. The
May Faculty Senate meeting will be held the week after commencement.
Election of officers will be needed at that meeting.
The June meeting will be held as scheduled.
Chair Oxford adjourned the Senate at 3:25 P.M.
He called the EC into session for five minutes.
Send comments or questions to Sue Young, syoung@unt.edu, at the Faculty Senate Office, Telephone (940) 565-2053.