Faculty Council
Fall Meeting
November 17, 1976
MINUTES
The Fall Meeting of the Faculty :ouncil was held on Thursday, October 28, 1976, at
3:15 p.m. in the University Center Ballroom. Dr. Jacquelin Collins, Chairman, Executive'
Committee of the Faculty Council, called attention to the fact that, according to the
Charter of the Faculty Council, the President of the University presides over :he
Faculty Council Meeting, and with this comment introduced President Cecil Mackay.
Dr. Mackey responded by stating that in his opinion it is undesirable anC inappropriate for the President to chair the principal faculty body of the university. He
added that he felt that the faculty should decide whether to :function largely tnrough a
Council, through 'a Faculty Senate, or through some other . form of organization Dr.
Mackey said that he would support before the Board a formof organization which the
faculty felt was best. Fe also commented that the agenda for this meeting was not one
which would raise great issues in terms of relationships with his administrat:Ann
although there are some natters for consideration at this meeting which are of importance
to the faculty. He emphEsized again that he was not comfortable being involved in the
Faculty Council and also being the perton who might have to make the final decisiotvan,
issues generated by faculty action. He stated that he would prefer finding same alternative to this arrangement as quickly as possible. Dr. Mackey expressed his hqpe that
the faculty will move qu:ckly toward proposals which would encourage more act ve faculty
participation and more meaningful faculty involvement in decision making. He then
expressed his willingnest to proceed under either of two courses: to absent hiuself and
let the process of "the text in line" take effect, which would leave Prof. Collins,
Chairperson of the Executive CommittEe, in the role of Chairperson; or to pro eed through
the agenda and see how it goes. He Esked for expression of opinions or comme ts. Prof.
Newcomb stated that a conmittee of the Faculty Council is now working on a prcposed
Charter Revision and working on a plan in which it would recommend that this ' . ody be
replaced by a Faculty Senate. Prof. Clarence Bell, Chairman of the committee, reported
that the committee hopes to have a plan to present at the Spring meeting of t`e Faculty
Council.
After some discussion President Mackey suggested that the meeting begin pith him
continuing as Chairperson subject to later determination of conflicts of interest if any
should seem to emerge.
FIRST AGENDA ITEM: APPR)VAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPRING MEETING
A motion for approval Of the minutes of the Spring meeting was made and seconded.
The motion carried and tle minutes were approved.
SECOND AGENDA ITEM: PASS-FAIL POLICY
Prof. Jacquelin Collins was asked to comment on the past action and history of this
issue. He reported that: early this Fall the Gully Committee Report came tc the Executive
Committee of the Faculty Council; tha report was considered and the decision :o 'bring it
to the Faculty Council for its consideration was made; and, at the same time, the
Executive Committee endcrsed the ado?tion of the report by a majority vote. le called
attention to the six paragraphs of the Gully Committee Report included in the faculty
distribution and to the omission of the introductory and concluding paragraphs that
bracketed these six paragraphs in the original report. He emphasized the impnrtance of
these two paragraphs and read them for the purpose of including them in the ciscussion
and as part of proposed action. They are as follows:
2.
"Texas Tech University recognize
educational horizons and to stud
might put them at a competitive
study with pass-fail grading. S
pass-fail should consult with th
area. The pass-fail option is s
point the six paragraphs are inc
for courses completed under the
other institutions and may not c
the need for students to broaden their
in areas of interest in which their bac
isadvantage. Provisions are made for su
udents who desire to take particular cot
ir curriculum advisors for guidance in t
bject to the following restrictions:" (A
uded) and: "Students are cautioned that
ass-fail option may not be transferable
ply with certification requirements."'
ground
ses
is
this
redits
o certain
Prof. Collins conclIxted by advis ng that positive action by the Council a d approval
by the President, on the full recomm datiOns as .proposed, would put all eight paragraphs
in the catalog in place et the curre t pass-fail policy statement.
The six paragraphs et restricti s contained in the report and proposed •r adoption,
together with the introcketory and c eluding paragraphs, are:
1. Undergraduate students may
ke up to 13 semester hours toward satis ing
degree requirements in whic they will be graded on a pass-fail basi .
Courses specified -in the ca alog as available only With pass-fail gr ing,
and courses taken in excess of degree requirements are not included
the
13-hour restriction.
2. No more than 9 Lours of -colt
ments may be taken pass-fai
or department from taking a
a course or courses in his
3. No student on p7obation wil
se work used to satisfy general degree r quire. A student may be restricted by his co lege
course pass-fail which is a pre-requisit for
ajor field..
be allowed the pass-fail option.
4. A student must declare the
the last day on which a gra
dropped. A student who has
quently change :o a letter
first day of final examinat
ntent to take a course pass-fail no late than
e of "W" is automatically given for cour es
chosen to take a course pass-fail may su seraded basis no later than 30-days prior o the
ons.
5. The names of stldents takin
the instructor.
a course pass-fail will not be make kno to
6. Courses taken il the declar
fail unless reqiired by the
minor will decide whether c
a student has daclared a ma
the degree requirements.
d major or minor shall not be taken by p ss department. The department of the major or
urses taken under the pass-fail system, efore
or or minor, shall count toward satiSfyi
On behalf of the Executive Comm ttee, Prof. Collins moved the adoption c this
change in the Pass-Fail Policy. The motion was seconded. Dr. Mackey . advisk. that
when this action comes Do him he wil refer it to the Academic Vice President
He expressed his opinior that the Ac demic Vice President should make the ac 'a
decision in such matters.
Prof. Otto Nelson noved consid ation of the motion paragraph by paragr
motion was seconded.
. The
3.
When a question was -ai$ed concerning the presence of A motion on the flo
and the Nelson motion was ruled out of order, Prof. Roland Smith resolved the
by moving to amend the or .. ..ginal motion to include consideration item-by-item.
motion was seconded, and, after considerable discussion, was passed. During t
discussion Prof. Orb o Chi_ds raised , the question of a quorum. President Mackey
and received consent to voceed on the premise that sufficient notice had been
and that the majority of :he interested faculty was present.
uest ion
This
asked
given
Discussion on numbered paragraph one was preceded by a review of the ent
by Prof. Arnold Gully. P:of. James Harper stated that the system is being us
manner contrary to its purpose. Dean Robert Anderson spoke in favor of the P
policy.
e report
in a
posed
Debate shifted to paragraph two and Prof. James Harper moved to strike t
"more than nine hours of" from the fist sentence. This was seconded but a m
table until completion of discussion Dn all'paragraphs was passed and discuss
Prof. Magne Kristiansen questioned whether or not students were sufficiently
degree requirements. Prole. Neale Pearson reported his experience in support
Harper's position. Prof. William Andrews reported from his study and conclud
the system was a "shelter for people with poor skills." Prof. Monty Strauss
with the observation that the study shows that less than 5 percent are abusin
Prof. Harry Jebsen stated that it is not humanitarian to "turn out students w
read and write." Prof. Fichard Cheatham indicated that he thought adequate o
were included in the various curricula. Prof. Robert Bell pointed out that s
students are working witl a foreign language in all of their courses.
phrase
ion to
n continued.
are of
Prof.
that
untered
the policy.
can't
ions
Prof. Ben Newcomb mcved to remove the Harper amendment to restriction pa graph
two from the table. It as seconded, but ruled out of order. However, a mot n to
over-rule the chair was tossed and discussion proceeded on the amendment. P f. Jebsen
Dean
stated that the issue is one of "required courses" not of"pass-fail options."
Anderson suggested that Lt might be mended to avoid concentration in one are of study.
President Mackey expressed concern f r course differences. Dr. Dennis Cogan oved the
question. The Council approved the revious qt4estion and proceeded to vote. The
Harper amendment failed.
Discussion on parag:aphs three
four stipulating that a student chan
not recover the pass-fai: hours invo
Prof. Strauss noted that a change in
summer sessions. Prof. Cully agreed
ndclour included an amendment to paragra
ing from pass-fail back to a graded basi
ved in the change. This amendment faile .
the wording was needed in order to acco odate
During discussion ol paragraph lye concern was expressed for the accur
recorded. There was a siggestion th t the Registrar report recorded grades
faculty so that there might be a fin I review. Dr. Mackey offered assurance
system would be accountaale.
y of grades
ck to the
that the
Discussion on paragraph six was minimal and, after another question as
presence of a quorum, the vote was t aken on the original motion. It passed
form presented by Prof. Collins: si K paragraphs of restrictions, plus an in
and concluding paragrapt.
the
the
oductory
4.
THIRD AGENDA ITEM: TRAVE
RESOLUTION ... Pres
FUNDS FOR F CULTY
ted by Prof
Eugene Korkowski
It is demoraliz g to the fa ulty within the academic departments af Texas Tech
University that tra -1 funds for the presentation of research at professi)nal meetings
have been frozen at
evious year
levels and have become inadequate to provide for
the increased amount .f research his faculty has generated.
The presentatio of faculty
of educational quali 1, at this U
teaching of the indi idual profewhole; presenting su • h research
individual professor of his dep.
esearch at professional meetings enhances all phases
versity. Such research improves the preparedness in
or, of his department, and of the University as a
kewise increases the visibility and reputation of the
tment, and of the University as a whole,
Present levels • f travel fu • ing, however, serve as a negative incentive for involvement in researc requiring ravel to professional meetings. The faculty member
who hesitates to pub ish, knowinv he cannot afford to travel to present his research,
will be the logical roduct of p esent travel-funding policies, and this drop in research activity will very likely reduce the excellence and prestige of the entire
University.
Therefore, we, he Faculty ouncil, are resolved that Texas Tech University should
appropriate adequate levels of ta avel funding to maintain excellence in research within
the University's aca emic depart ii ents.
We also resolve that the di- tribution of travel money for presenting research
should be equitable, according t. demonstrated research output, among academic departments.
Dr. Mackey stated t at if he un. erstood the issue correctly, it is eitheE a college
or a departmental matter not a matt: r of general university policy. Deans Aihworth
and Graves 'stated that b ,dget prepar- tions on the college and department leveLs were
subject to direction fro 1 the admini- ttation and that it had been stipulated that there
would be no increases fo travel.
'During the discussi 611 which fol
alter the Resolution to ead: "Resol
of travel monies and the r proper di
to the appropriate. facul y coismittee
owed,' Prof. Collins suggested that prof. Korkowski
ed:jhat the Executive Committee refer the matter
tribution to faculty membersYfor academic purposes
to report back to the faculty atHa later date."
Prof. Korkowski mov -d the Facul y Council endorse the Resolution. It was seconded,
voted upon and passed.
FOURTH AGENDA ITEM: ATTE p ANCE AT CO' ENCEMENT
RESOLUTION...Prese
ed by Prof. B. H. Newcomb
WHEREAS, witho t consent of the faculty, departments have been instracted to
recruit a spec fied quota o their faculties to attend Commencement, and to
furnish the na es of those o recruited;
at the req red attendance by faculty at Commencement be.
RESOLVED, (1)
reconsidered b the administration; (2) that the faculty be encouraged to
attend Commenc :uuent by the sbtaining of notable speakers from the highest
levels of the cademic, -, bu mess, government, literary, or scientific
5.
communities, and la? the seekin
honorary degrees.
of faculty consent in the awarding of
Prof. Newcomb moved tha adoption o this Resolution as presented. Prof. M
seconded. Dean Graves acknowledged tha he had instituted the new policy due t
e feels that when only one fourth of the
attendance at Commencement axercises.
is required to be present at any one ti e harmonious arrangements should be pos
ning,
lack of
faculty
ble.
Dr. Mackey commented that he would hope that each college and perhaps even
ment could find some way to take into a count individual faculty members' prefe
He stated that people have various reas ns for not attending commencement.
ach departnces.
There were several comments on the awarding of honorary degrees. After re )onding to
the comments by noting that honorary de rees serve two purposes, academic and o 'ler, and
that he favors faculty input for academ c degrees, Dr. Mackey called for a vote )11 the
Resolution as stated. The motion faile
AGENDA ITEM FIVE: EX-OFFICIO VOTING MEM ERS ON THE TENURE & PRIVILEGE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION.. .Presented by Prof. Br.ggs Twyman.
WHEREAS, the President and Vic President for Academic Affairs are exvoting members of the Tenure and Pi ivilege Committee;
ficio
RESOLVED, that the Tenure and rivilege Committee be requested to inve
cooperation with the Cffice of the President, the desirability of having e
voting members.
igate, in
officio
Prof. Twyman moved the adoption of the Resolution and it was seconded. Dr. Mackey
commented that he felt that he and the cademic Vice President should not be on t his committee. He asked Prof. Twymar to consider amending the Resolution to read: "ex-offi cio members"
rather than "voting members." Dicussio followed during which Prof. J. Smith coin ented that
ch to have the President and Academic V e President
he felt the Committee woulC like very
as ex-officio members. Dr. Mackey resp •nded by stating he would be more than h py to be
available for discussion with the comm' ttee. He stated that his being a member a f the
committee might, in some cases, prejud ce the legal position of the university. The motion
to adopt the Resolution carried.
AGENDA ITEM SIX: OTHER BUSkNESS
Prof. Otto Nelson pro/cased the fo
That Article II, section 4 be
1. Delete th( first two
2. Replace tLem with "Th
serve as Presiding Of
the Chairperson, the
in that order."
arter:
amendment to the Faculty Council
amended as follows:
entences.
Chairperson of the Executive Committee shall
icer of the Faculty Council. In the abs ence of
ice Chairperson or the Secretary shall p eside,
This amendment will be sub ect to acti n during the Spring meeting of the CouncDr. Mackey then asked for other b siness from the floor. The motion was m de to adjourn.
The meeti g adjourned at 5:35 p.m.
It was seconded and passed igf