Meeting: Faculty Senate Meeting, November 12, 2003 Wooten Hall, Room 322
Absent: Barton, Bustinza, DeCarvalho, Grable, Harris, Harris, Johnston, King, Osadchy, Parks, Pelton, Plummer, Rohwer, Smith, Wilhite
Guests: Felicia Coleman, Academic Publications; Hale Newcomer, Faculty; Kathryn Gould Cullivan, Asst. Dean, Arts and Sciences; Paul Dworak, Compliance Officer; Virginia Wheeless, Assoc. VP, Institutional Research and Analysis; Jeff Andrews, NT Daily; Marcus LoPopolo, SGA Rep.; Journalism Students: Jennifer Carter, Tasha Meyers, Kristie Rodriguez, Shakeira Gillis, Tim Baren, Pete Oliva, Elizabeth Guthrie, Kelly Autrey, Jennifer Smith
Opening: Frances Van Tassell, Vice Chair of the Faculty Senate, called the meeting to order at 2:05pm
She welcomed new senators Kim Grable from Group I and John Holt from Group VIII.
Information Items:
Dialogue with Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Howard Johnson. Provost Johnson opened the dialogue with some introductory comments. He noted that he does not have a good sense of the maximum capacity of UNT at this time. He wants to ensure that the University can make changes and continue to build on technology, humanities, fine arts and the College of Engineering. He plans to utilize new synergies by pulling programs together and is in the process of formulating an academic plan. He stated that academic affairs drives the institution and that we must strive to educate the entire student. We must also ensure that our students are technologically equipped. In response to a question about low faculty morale, Provost Johnson stated that faculty must be a part of the process. He also asked what the institution and its governance systems were like when faculty morale was high. Regarding where the university is in the process of responsibility centered management (RCM) he stated that it appears to be a work in process and one management tool among many. Regarding undergraduate research, he stated that it is a part of his vision and is an extremely important tool for encouraging graduation education. In response to a question about the School of Community Service he responded that he really did not know much about the school but would be meeting with the dean to learn more. Regarding the university budget, he was not sure what role the faculty or the Senate should play. Regarding the proposal for an ombudsman, he expressed concern that he would like to know more. Regarding external funding, he noted concerns about the infrastructure. Regarding the role of intercollegiate athletics, he said faculty input and perhaps a faculty oversight committee could be pursued. Regarding a university identity, he stated that the university needs an identity, and to accomplish that “we have to work together.”
Report from Dan Naegeli, Director of UNT Student Employment. Naegeli noted that he was new and wanted to share some observations. He said that the student employment component of the office was strong but attention needed to be paid to helping students with various aspects of their career searches. He stated that his staff members need to reach out to students and faculty. Staff members have now been assigned to each school and college. He stated that his office needs to be a key marketing arm for the University.
Report from Phil Turner, Associate Vice President for Distance Education. Associate VP Turner provided information on the UNT eCampus system. The system will provide a “one stop” information source for distance education courses at UNT. Faculty who teach online courses are encouraged to visit the site and provide input regarding their online courses.
Approval of October 8, 2003 Senate Minutes: The minutes were approved as presented.
Old Business: None
Committee Reports:
Committee on Committees: Senator Tarlton presented the report and read additional nominations. Acceptance was seconded by Senator Getty. The report was accepted unanimously on voice vote.
Vice Chair van Tassell reported on the questions
presented to administrators on November 5. Questions and responses were as
follows: (1) How have the reserve funds been used each year for the past 10
years? What were the beginning and ending fund balances? What expenditures
were made from the fund and for what purposes? What contributions were made to
the fund and from what sources? Response: Pohl had data for the past
five years. There are two types of reserves: Education and General Reserves
(E&G) and Board Designated Tuition Reserves. The Board Designated Reserves can
be used for any purpose. Two expenditures from reserves have been made in the
past five years. In 2000-2001, $2.5 million was spent when total income to the
university exceeded total expenditures. The beginning balance of the reserve in
2002 was $32 million, including approximately $29.5 million in Board Designated
and $2.6 million in E&G. In 2003, approximately $7 million in reserves will be
spent: $3.6 million on the athletic facility and $3+ million on the EIS. (2)
What is the rationale for the current organizational and reporting structures of
the Office of Equity and Diversity and the Offices of Equal Opportunity?
Response: Pohl stated the office of Equity & Diversity previously had two
conflicting missions: 1) EEO compliance and investigation and 2) service and
outreach to the broader community. He stated that the EEO and investigative
functions were moved under the legal office. One reason was to remove the
appearance of conflict when the Office of Equity & Diversity was faced with
investigating complaints about itself. The Equal Opportunity Office is now
staffed by a one-half FTE attorney. Pohl noted that when a new General Counsel
is hired for the UNT System the arrangement may be changed. (3) Can you
explain/clarify how the 2003-2004 faculty raises of 2% will be distributed?
Response: Pohl stated that he has had discussions with Provost Johnson but
no final decision regarding distribution of the raises has been made. He stated
that two options were merit or across the board. (4) To whom should we refer
community representatives who approach the Executive Committee with serious
concerns regarding the development of the golf course? Response: Pohl
stated that the concerns should be referred to Rich Escalante, Vice Chancellor
for Planning who is working with the Master Plan and advisory committees. (5) It
appears to the Executive Committee that cuts in instructional budgets have been
used extensively in balancing the current university budget while administrators
and staff members continue to be hired in record numbers and at record
salaries. Specifically, there are new staff members in the Chancellor’s Office
and the Office of Vice President for Research. While the EC does not question
the need for any of the persons or positions, adding staff and administrators
while cutting funds for instruction appears to be counter productive and
opposite to the approach adopted by other institutions. Please explain why
instructional funds for summer were cut when non-instructional,
non-revenue-producing positions were added in the current budget. Response:
Pohl went through a variety of expenditures and, at the end of the meeting,
distributed a report entitled FY 2003-2004 Comparison of All Funds Budgeted and
Expenditures. The figures were the same as those provided by Diebel to the
Faculty Senate during his budget presentation. He went on to state that the
bigger issue involves the University moving to a “market model will likely
involve aggressive pricing of tuition and fees. He stated that students would
be asked to pay for 1) increasing salaries; 2) improving the student faculty
ratio; 3) funding student scholarships and 4) improving facilities. He also
stated that he did not know if students would be willing to pay for these items.
Discussion returned to the issue of administrative costs, which have apparently
risen from 22 to 38%. The EC agreed that questions regarding budgetary matters
should be addressed to both Pohl and Diebel. (6) At what cost to the university
is the decision to delay complete construction of the chemistry building? Is it
true that completing only one section now will result in a significant increase
in the total cost by completing other sections in the future? Response:
Pohl stated that the increased costs for the delay would be $300,000. President
Pohl left the meeting.
Chair’s Update:
In the absence of Chair Pelton, his report was deferred to the next meeting. Two important items: use of reserve funds for athletics and a report from the Texas Council of Faculty Senates.
Committee of the Whole. Marcus Lopopolo, SGA representative, shared thoughts and concerns regarding the imposition of responsibility centered management on the academic processes of the university. He suggested that it appears RCM is being imposed from above without input from faculty or students. He asked senators to communicate with him regarding their concerns. Senator Conover suggested that the major increases in parking fees be studied. She also asked that Senators sit in the center of the meeting room to allow visitors to fill in on the sides. Senator Van Tassell expressed concern about the lack of faculty input into all planning processes at the university, particularly budgets. Senators Benjamin expressed concern about the lack of faculty representation in decision-making. Senator Tam suggested that the Senate needs a way of tracking the action taken (or lack thereof) on Senate resolutions and other recommendations. Lopopolo said that the SGA had instituted a system for tracking SGA proposals and resolutions. He said a similar system might work well for the Senate.
Group Caucuses. Group I was asked to caucus on a representative for the Committee on Committees.
Next Faculty Senate Meeting is December 10, 2003 at 2 p.m. Senators were encouraged to attend.
Vice Chair van Tassell adjourned the Senate at 3:50.
Send comments or questions to Sue Young, syoung@unt.edu, at the Faculty Senate Office, Telephone (940) 565-2053.