Faculty Senate Meeting
Sept 17, 2012
Call to Order.
The first meeting of the Faculty Senate was called to order by Senate President Elizabeth Heise
at 1:00 pm on Sept 17, 2012 in SETB Conference Room.
Minutes.
Philip Samponaro moved to approve the June minutes, and Dianna Garcia-Smith seconded.
Passed.
Senate President Report.
Elizabeth Heise reported on system Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) meeting attended the
prior week. Encrypting University computers is a key issue. FAC is developing a list of data, and
possible area of infringement on individual intellectual and real property rights. Some campuses
are using the system mandate to encrypt personal computers. Other issues under review are the
HOP Conflict of Commitment and Influence, and Nepotism (new interpretation of Title 9)
policies. Next meeting includes the Texas Representative who served on Higher Education
committee to discuss upcoming legislation and his vision for funding higher education.
Provost Report.
Provost Alan Artibise addressed five topics: (1)Board of Regents (BOR) approval of the Request
for qualifications (RFQ) to hire a master planning group for UTB2.0 UTB campus and RFP for
donated or to-sell/lease properties; (2)funding requests of the Legislature; (3)Reduction in
workforce process; (4)Facilities/space issues; and (5) Faculty appointment letters. At the
completion of his report he fielded questions within these topics, and the discussion is included
below.
RFQ for master planning group. A firm will be appointed by early November to work with
UTB, facilities, and the UT System. Thirty firms attended the information session held the prior
week, and approximately 150 firms have downloaded the RFQ. Decision on this RFP for
donated/sell/lease facilities will occur early next year so the master planning group can assist in
the decision. In response to questions about the proposed budget, criteria, and expertise standards
he urged faculty to go to the UT system website and download the RFQ and RFP. He stated,
“both documents are useful in understanding the vision for UTB 2.0.” He said the “BOR meets
in the spring so the final decision/appointment will be made then.” If done correctly, he said, “10
years from now UTB will be on the front page of the Chronicle as the institution in the world.”
Legislative meeting. On Wed, Sept 22, he will attend meetings in Austin to ask for $150million
for a new building, an enhanced fund for math and science, and funding for transition-related
expenditures.
Reduction in Workforce. Reduction of faculty is completed. Seven faculty members filed
formal appeals, and the process is ongoing through the fall semester. Professional staff right
sizing begins early in calendar year. Staff, as with faculty, will be given the choice to retire or
voluntarily resign with an incentive. Following the legal and system requirements, the process
will be completed late in 2013 calendar year, and possibly into 2014. Reduction of staff will be
“ongoing” as Texas Southmost College (TSC) takes over various functions and responsibilities
that UTB had provided in accordance with legal requirement, sometime late in the calendar year.
Facilities/space issues. “This academic year will be complicated,” according to the Provost.
TSC advertised last month for eight professional positions, to be appointed in the middle of
October. The process for moving UTB faculty and staff into UTB buildings to empty TSC
buildings will begin soon. The Provost, for example, will relocate by the end of 2012.
Faculty Appointment letters. Appointment letters will be sent, most likely, next week. Delay
occurred as we examined the market analysis and made market adjustments, which will be
applied in those categories. In response to questions, primarily from Senators Bill Davis and Lou
Falk, he explained the process for the market adjustments and applying/receiving exceptional
merit. “We had a limited amount of spending money, $180-200,000, and went as far as we can.
I’d love to get to 87%, but we can’t afford it.” Many faculty members, as President Garcia stated,
are above the market number. “The $180,000 is reflected in the letters of appointment. We do
(award monies for) promotion and tenure every year—that is important—I feel equally strongly
about exceptional merit and market adjustments. I still state clearly: as soon as we can afford to
get there we will get to 100%, because as President Garcia said we tend to hire people now at
market or above—many at 100%--not everyone today is below 87%.” E. Heise stated, “At
average, half of people at peer institutions are below the average.” The Provost stated: “we want
to take people who are way below—whatever reason—to pull them up as quickly as possible.”
It was agreed that a discussion, and breakdown of the numbers, could be presented at next
month’s faculty senate meeting.
The process for funding exceptional merit was also discussed, and the Provost stated: “We do not
use a percentage. We fund those who qualify, so, yes, the number of faculty who receive
exceptional merit may change.” He stated that the process to follow to apply starts with the
individual Faculty member department/colleges and up to the Dean. L. Falk clarified: “Do we
submit to the Dean’s office? If you don’t meet all the criteria, will you still get exceptional
merit?” The provost stated, “Not set in stone; some departments use personnel committees, some
nominations—each faculty member should follow department guidelines.”
In addition to these topics, faculty inquired as to whether the 4/4 work load will remain, and he
replied, “Yes, that is the minimum.” He will also “look into” faculty concerns about the
restructuring of the IT department, and the current lack or response and/or unavailability for
assistance. Provost clarified that the answer was “yes” to the use of Digital Measures to prepare
workload portfolios, and would get that clarified, as well as training for faculty, by October 9.
President Garcia’s report.
President Garcia discussed the launching of the 21st Century Commission—taken from the
Chancellor’s designation of UTB as the “University of 21st Century”—to articulate plans for the
future to assist in the work of the planning group hired for the building of a new campus. She
clarified that the Commission’s purpose is not to develop a strategic plan, but a vision—with the
“how to” to come later: work for the Provost. The “strategic planning process will begin in
January 2013 of what has churned to surface from the four meetings and how we can do what we
chose to do.” She stated the idea came out of a meeting with Faculty Senate executive officers
who told her “faculty want to be involved in creating the vision for UTB 2.0.” Four meetings,
face-to-face, online, and streamed at locations in the lower valley, will be held. The first meeting
is scheduled for Sept 27 and three additional two-hour meetings October 4, 10, and 17.
She identified seven categories for discussion: (1) What are the unique attributes of an education
of UTB—stating that the Chancellor wants UTB to be “a distinctly different campus.” (2) What
are the pathways through college to 21st century careers—acknowledging students who enter at
different points? (3) What is a successful student model—and what can we do more “to get it
right?” (4) What will “student life” look like in the 21st century—“how does it connect to UTB
mission and student personal and academic success (5) What types of innovative technology for
teaching/learning/connections can we do “that elevates our teaching and advances learning to
connect to UTB? (6) How will we fund this 21st century University—and “how do you know
when you have enough funds?” (7) How can we engage mothers to make a difference?
President Garcia stated the “guiding principles” came from Deans/Chairs who suggested: (1)
environment that develops a complete graduate—one that has 128 hours and degree but highly
defined critical thinking and a capacity for life-long learning; a good citizen; (2) place of
innovation—we want to claim a place of innovation and agility, not of rooted tradition, of
experimentation and adaptation in pedagogy; and (3) affordability and accessibility—can’t
invent what our market can afford and access.
B. Davis asked if the Transition Advisory Committee “would do this on broad scale—will we get
with the planning group?” President Garcia said, “No, they (planning team) will be selected early
November. The purpose of these meetings is to “give them some things we have already decided
on as we work with them to plan the facilities and technology for the next 50 years.”
Any suggestions for community members, including those from Matamoras, or ideas for
discussion should be sent to VP RuthAnn Ragland. Questions about whether green or sustainable
issues would be addressed, whether the City of Brownsville would be involved/integrated were
answered “yes.”
Rumors of UTB becoming a charter institution, or an online-only institution were answered by
President Garcia and the Provost, as “no”—emphasizing again that UTB will always have a core
physical campus, while being open to ideas that are “creative, innovative, agile” in delivering
what students need to learn.
Presentations.
Graduation Coach, Daniel Aguilar (on military reserve duty) was scheduled to present. Associate
VP Sylvia Leal presented for him. She outlined the responsibilities for a graduation coach for the
students, including how he communicated with students, and reports to the student success task
force. She fielded questions from faculty who shared concerns about his coordination with
academic and faculty advisors whose duties and responsibilities require them to inform and
monitor a student’s progression through his/her academic work. She re-emphasized that his role
was not academic advising and not counseling, that his focus was to motivate students to stay on
track to graduate in four years.
Committee Reports
Second Vice-Chair, Bobbette Morgan
Updated website to reflect Faculty Senate from Academic to senate. She demonstrated how
to locate the website which includes Senate members, minutes, new constitution, and
committees. Contact her with any errors noted.
New Senators. Vice-Chair, Kevin Buckler
Introduced newly elected Senators. Change to Faculty Senate from Academic Senate resulted
in elections in all academic areas. See Faculty Senate website for complete roster of Senators for
2012-2013 (and subsequent) years.
Nominations to Senate Committee. K. Buckler stated that he was continuing the process of
seeking nominations for remaining Senate seats.
Senate Committees. K. Buckler presented the slate of committees and members. K. Buckler
moved to accept the slate of committee and members, Diana Dominguez, seconded. Passed. List
of Faculty Senate Committees and the committee members can be found on the Faculty Senate
webpage.
HOP Revisions
A. HOP 7.7.2 (second read) Graduate Faculty
K. Buckler moved to table; L. Falk second, passed.
B. HOP 7.7.8 (second read) Periodic Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Tenured
Faculty
K. Bucker moved to table, D. Garcia-Smith, passed.
New Business
Core Curriculum Revision.
Provost fellow Mark Horowitz presented information on the task force created in fall 2011to
review the existing University General Education Core Curriculum, and to bring the current Core
into compliance with the THECB requirements and guidelines that go into effect in fall 2014.
As a recent task force meeting, the committee members voted to have the task force become an
ad hoc committee of Faculty Senate. L. Falk moved to accept the recommendation that the
General Education Core Curriculum task force becomes an ad hoc committee, and D.
Dominguez seconded the motion. Passed. K. Buckler said he would populate the committee with
one representative from each department who offers general education courses plus a
representative from every college. In addition, current members, as much as possible, will
remain on the committee. K. Buckler moved to accept slate and L. Falk, seconded the motion.
Passed.
M. Horowitz briefly outlined the task force’s approach to restructuring the general education
core curriculum. He suggested that faculty “go to the THECB website, look at the pdf, and see
the emphasis on the 21st century, real world capabilities.” Key differences in the new core
include streamlining—reduction from 48 to 42 credit hours, determination of what courses will
be kept or new ones added, and alignment of new core with the new student learning objectives
(included within eight foundational components). The new core objectives will be mapped to a
foundational component, with student credit hours tied to each. As with the “old” core—not all
core objectives are required in each foundational component area.
The process must be completed by the end of this semester—so take back the information to
your department faculty. In addition, faculty members need to think of measures—
assignments—that will assess what are needed in courses. Karon Jahn clarified that SACS
requires the assessment of students to determine whether they have achieved the THECB
objectives upon graduation (or earlier). E. Heise stated that the task force unanimously voted for
all 6 hours to go back to the department, therefore, department program of study will get an
additional 6 hours. Also, every program of study will go back to University Curriculum Council
for review. Steve Lovett asked “when do we tell our department curriculum committee to create
new courses?” E. Heise replied, “Fall 2013 to add courses to programs; Spring 2013 for
recommendation to General Education Core Curriculum (CARS/PARS). Departments can begin
work (PARS/CARS) in spring 2013—to meet catalogue deadline. Finally, all general education
courses will need to be recertified by UCC in spring 2013.
Faculty Handbook.
Need to develop university faculty-handbook.
HOP Faculty Policies.
E. Heise and K. Buckler introduced the process of working on sub-committee work within the
Faculty meeting. Several Senators expressed concern over the process, citing lack of time to
review the materials to discuss, and fatigue at the time this important work occurs in the meeting.
A compromise was suggested that sub-committee members of each area for discussion (see
below) would receive an email with the information and come prepared to work in groups at the
October meeting.
Faculty Probation Granting of Tenure
Faculty Promotion
Faculty Responsibilities and Workload
Periodic Comprehensive Performance Evaluation/Tenured Faculty (tabled)
New Business.
Nursing faculty representation.
Discussion centered on the lack of representation of community college professors on Faculty
Senate for the 2012-2013 academic year from the nursing faculty. K. Buckler moved that the one
additional Senator from the College of Nursing to represent those faculty through May 2013 (as
amended from ‘end of the split.”) D. Dominguez, seconded. Passed.
UNIV course. L. Falk expressed concern for prescriptive requirements of the UNIV course
(mandatory book, others who grade assignments, access to his gradebook) as an infringement on
academic freedom. Senate agreed to ask VP Ethel Cantu to address the issue in October.
Welfare Committee. L. Falk inquired as to where the Welfare Committee stood in the new
Faculty Senate. The new committee (see faculty senate website) is Faculty Salaries and Benefits.
Discussion ensued around topics for this committee, i.e., Workload 4/4 “minimum” and
unwillingness to honor equivalencies or lack of teaching faculty or consistency across
departments. E. Heise clarified that the workload policy is 18 spread over the academic year.
Announcements.
None.
Adjournment.
L. Falk moved, D. Garcia-Smith seconded. Passed.
-endRespectfully submitted by Karon L. Jahn