The University of Texas at Brownsville/Texas Southmost College
Academic Senate Minutes
December 14, 2006
I.
Call to Order
President, David Pearson, called the December 14, 2006 meeting of the Academic Senate to order at
1:17 p.m. in the Gorgas Conference room.
Senate Members in Attendance:
Arney Janna
Cantu Ethel
Castillo, Hector
Celaya Pat (*)
Dameron Charles
Davis Bill (s)
Ferrier Doug
Fuss-Sommer Karen (*)
Gallegos Therese (s)
Heise Elizabeth (s)
Hockaday Mabel (s)
Jones Irma (*)
Jones Leslie (s)
Lacher Joe (s)
Lackey Charles
Maldonado-Maxwell
Martin Jose
Molina Domingo (s)
Monroe Angela (s)
Morgan Bobbette (s)
Nelson Eldon
Pearson David (s)
Phelps Cheryl (s)
Ready Arlene (s)
Shane Martin
Stockton Carl
Sullivan Rodney (s)
Tamez Eloisa (s)
Virginia (s)
Zamarripa Manuel (s)
Larson Julie (s)
Martinez Rosemary
Ortiz Dennis (s)
Peltz Gerson (s)
Phillips Jay
Ragland Ruth Ann
Silva Hilda
Zavaleta Antonio
Senate Members Absent:
Corbeil Rene (s)
Holt Jim
Lanye Charla (s)
Guests:
Linda Fossen
Mrinal Mudgh
Emma Miller
II.
Review and Approval of the Minutes
Dr. Pearson called for review and approval of the minutes from the November 17, 2006 Academic Senate
meeting. Elizabeth Heise moved that the minutes be approved as corrected. Bobbette Morgan
seconded the motion. Motion passed. Dr. Charles Lackey submitted by email the following correction: on
the fifth line of the first page the word ‘acquire’ should be ‘require’.
III.
Presentations/Discussions
Adjunct Faculty Update: Bobbette Morgan and Pat Celaya, Welfare Committee Members
Bobbette Morgan and Pat Celaya distributed the report on Adjunct faculty which was the result of the
survey that was done at the Senate’s summer meeting with the Welfare Committee’s recommendations.
Recommendations were:
Salary
1) Increase adjunct salaries
2) Develop a salary scale for adjuncts to reflect advanced education, experience and relevant
professional experience
Professional Development
3) All adjuncts must meet SACS guidelines.
4) It is recommended that professional development opportunities be available for all adjuncts
5) The Adjunct/New Faculty Coordinator should notify adjuncts of upcoming professional
development opportunities
1
Mentoring
1) Chairs should solicit faculty to serve as mentors to adjuncts and pair professors and adjuncts
based on courses taught, areas of expertise, common times on campus, and similar personalities
or philosophies
2) Invite adjuncts to observe outstanding faculty teaching
Support Services
1) Chair should introduce adjuncts to faculty and support staff
2) Provide a laminated card with all faculty and adjunct phone numbers in the department. Include
number for campus security
3) A larger budget for adjunct functions needs to be available
Interaction with Faculty
1) Make sure that adjuncts are invited to department, school and university social events.
2) Faculty course coordinators need to be designated for courses with multiple sections.
Charley Lackey made the comment that the recommendations didn’t touch on evaluation or reviews as a
part of this report. Bobbette Morgan replied that all adjuncts are reviewed regularly by students with the
evaluations going to the chair of the department. Dr. Lackey indicated that the review process for
adjuncts should be more systematic and regular and that maybe that should be added to this report.
David Pearson commented that he understood this review to be a yearly process and an adjunct wouldn’t
be renewed if they didn’t get positive evaluations. Pat Celaya indicated that these recommendations are
trying to address positive working conditions for adjuncts. Dr. Lackey would like it to include evaluation.
There is a concern of accrediting bodies that too many adjuncts teach a large number of classes.
According to Janna Arney, in the spring, the deans and chairs will be talking about observations for
adjunct faculty and whether they will be done by peers or chairs. After that discussion takes place,
maybe the outcome can be added to this document.
Dr. Nelson asked if adjuncts can attend graduation ceremonies. No one was sure if adjuncts could attend
but UTB does not provide caps and gowns for adjuncts. If an adjunct faculty member wanted to attend
the ceremonies, it would be nice. Dr. Nelson asked if we wanted to extend an invitation to adjunct faculty
to come to our graduation ceremony. Karen Fuss-Sommer extended congratulations to Bobbette Morgan
and Pat Celaya for their hard work on these recommendations. The Welfare Committee will revise this
report to add the additional suggestions and will present the revised report at the general faculty meeting
in January.
III.
Senate President’s Report
Faculty Advisory Council: December 7-8
During its December meeting the Faculty Advisory Council received a briefing from Lewis Watkins, the
recently-appointed Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) for UT System. Watkins is charged with
overseeing a comprehensive system-wide information security program for protecting System information
resources and the privacy of confidential information. He is charged with collaborating with UT System’s
nine academic and six health institutions on matters related to information security and will provide
strategic direction and assistance to the institutions concerning the implementation of institutional security
plans.
“The stakes are high,” Watkins told the FAC. “If we don’t handle information security properly, our
research, instruction could be impacted. Our operations could even be brought to a halt.”
Currently the most important information resources on our campuses include email, Blackboard, WebCT,
and other similar resources. This emphasis on course management technologies is new. If these are
compromised, the entire university can be brought to a halt.
Watkins described how information security is an “interrelated series of problems” that go well beyond the
much-reported loss of Social Security numbers.
The major fear is of a massive denial of service attack. But there are other threats as well, including
organized efforts to steal research data by foreign governments, corporations both foreign and domestic,
2
and organized crime groups. Attacks are now worldwide, and are getting both more serious and more
sophisticated because of the perceived economic incentives.
More prosaically, security is often compromised by “people problems,” meaning people simply not
properly protecting data. These represent a “community problem,” he said, affecting all campus
constituencies—faculty, students, staff, granting agencies, and so on.
Watkins outlined a UT System action plan that:
 Defines accountability at the campuses, charging the President with devoting adequate resources
for information security.
 Requires training information security for all employees.
 Ensures accountability of compliance through automated vulnerability assessment tools.
 Requires faculty and staff to use encryption software, not only for university-owned equipment but
for personal laptops, flash drives, etc., that carry university information.
Additionally, UT System is requiring that:
 Every institution must have an Information Security Officer.
 The ISO reports to the Chief Information Officer, who meets with Watkins at least quarterly to be
briefed on policies and receive updates.
 Each department must designate an Information Security Administrator.
In these ways, Mr. Watkins believes, it is possible to secure information on our campuses in a manner
that “doesn’t interfere too much with our jobs.”
The FAC also received a briefing by Raymond Paredes, Commissioner of the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board, who said that the Coordinating Board had been gathering data on graduate
education in Texas, and the results are “not encouraging.” We have many small graduate programs, he
noted, many of which are not cost effective. Others have low admissions criteria or other standards that
need to be examined. (Some require far too many credits before candidacy, for example, meaning that
completing professional programs can take many years.) According to the Commissioner, such standards
“hold students captive.”
Undergraduate education in Texas is the primary concern, Paredes said. Because of this, the idea is to
scrutinize graduate programs that divert resources from undergraduate programs. Many of the faculty
involved in graduate education are “clearly not prepared to teach and mentor graduate students,” he
noted. He wants the Ph.D. to “mean something,” and he very strongly wants the Coordinating Board to
closely monitor the quality of graduate programs across the state. The question that should be foremost
in our thoughts, he said, is “Are we doing all we can to ensure quality?”
He recommended that all institutions conduct regular reviews of all their graduate programs. His view is
that the individual campuses should impose the strongest monitoring rigor. But the Coordinating Board
plans to consider criteria for applications for new graduate programs at their April meeting.
He noted that that Legislature is very interested in “quality control” in graduate education. But they are
also concerned with outcomes and cost efficiency.
Asked for his views about online graduate programs, the Commissioner stated his belief that face-to-face
instruction and mentoring is the best. The next best is a hybrid program with both online and face-to-face
elements. “I look at online graduate program proposals very carefully,” he said. “I would be wary of
degree programs, at whatever level, that are totally online.”
Finally, the FAC heard from Rep. Patrick Rose, a member of the House Higher Education Committee.
Rose represents House District 45 which covers Blanco, Caldwell and Hays Counties. The FAC also
heard from senator-elect Calvin Watson. Both appear to be fans of higher education, and the FAC used
the opportunity to discuss the issue of graduation rates.
TSC Board Meetings
November 30, 2006
3
The regular meeting of the Texas Southmost College Board of Trustees took place on Thursday,
November 30, in the Gorgas Board Room. Major items of discussion included:
The Board approved the purchase of three lots on Jackson Street adjacent to campus. In accordance
with the UTB/TSC Master Plan, these lots will be used for parking.
It was reported to the Board that UT System has authorized UTB/TSC to purchase 84.2 acres of land in
the area known as Los Tomates Banco, located near the Los Tomates border crossing northeast of our
campus. This is the first time that UT System money has been used for a land purchase at our institution.
As yet no definitive plans have been made for the use of the property, though possibilities being
considered include student housing and athletic fields.
December 11, 2006
The regular meeting of the Texas Southmost College Board of Trustees took place on Monday,
December 11, in the Gorgas Board Room. There were two major items of discussion:
The Board approved a $53,000 bid from Hunter Demolition & Wrecking Company for the demolition of the
vacant La Placita buildings on the Fort Brown Peninsula, making way for the new Center for Early
Childhood Studies.
The Board also approved a $43,061.37 bid from IDEO Art Design for furniture for Mary Rose Cardenas
North and South Halls. The furniture includes wood benches, couches, tables and rugs.
IV.
Partnership Committee Reports
Academic Affairs Partnership Committee: David Pearson, Senate President
The proposed Math and Science Academy was established by the legislature last year. A graduate of
this program, upon completion of two years of the academy will receive a diploma that is issued by UTB
This Academy will be taught by our college faculty with the high school students on our campus, so we
have been granted authority to give a Math and Science Diploma as well as our associate degree (like
North Texas University does). Dr. Stockton thanks Steve Rosales and Dr. Nance-Davis for their work on
this Academy.
The application for our first Doctoral degree has now received SACS approval; but we are still awaiting
approval by Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. Dr. Stockton indicated that UTB will have a
site visit the first week of April from the Coordinating Board. He thanked Dr. Morgan for her many hours
of hard work coordinating the committee to make this come together. UTB has also received approval for
a Master of Music Education and a Master of Art History. The EMT program applied for and received
accreditation as one in 15 such programs in the state. Our Associate Degree Nursing program also
received continued accreditation. Dr. Nelson thanks Joe Lacher for his leadership in this accreditation
work.
Student Affairs Partnership Committee: Karen Fuss-Sommer, Senate Vice President
The committee spent an entire afternoon reviewing and selecting architects for the new construction of
dorms. Domingo Molina asked if anyone from Student Government sat on the committee. Karen FussSommer indicated that yes, a student does sit on the committee. He also asked if the plans include a
cafeteria. The problem identified by all architects about the cafeteria was the minimal budget. There is
not enough money in the budget to put in a cafeteria so it does not include one currently. They are
looking at different meal plans because students want different options. Scorpion Café currently does
breakfast, lunch and dinner on a meal plan that is also available to faculty. The question was asked if
there is some way to lower prices for students at the cafeteria. Someone indicated that there was a
model floating about that includes bringing in stores and using the income from those stores to help offset
the cost of the student housing. There is currently a $13 million budget for the building. Domingo Molina
asks if financial aid covers housing. Dr. Martin indicated that one method of paying for housing is through
the Scorpion Scholar Program which gives full tuition, room and board to top 10% students. Another
method is through Talent Scholarships for housing. Everything is being considered to assist low income
students with housing costs. On the issue of dining facilities, UTB is looking at two possibilities: to share
dining facilities adequate for the 400 students; and bringing open dining facilities with their own café
4
facilities. This would require a certain number of square feet which means increasing construction costs.
UTB is trying to do that by partnering with as many other companies.
Business Affairs Partnership Committee: Pat Celaya, Senate Treasurer
There were three action items: The approval of minutes; a budget amendment for fiscal year 06 and one
for fiscal year 07 related to campus facilities were approved; and an update on the current construction
project by Dr. Moore.
V.
HOOP Policies
Distinguished Senior Lecturer Addition: Janna Arney, Interim Associate VPAA
7.1.1 Recruitment and Hiring of Faculty Report from Dean’s Council/Dean & Chairs; Janna Arney
7.3.4 Faculty and Chairs Merit, 2nd Reading: David Pearson, Senate President
Dr. Arney reported that HOOP Policy 7.1.1 was reviewed by Dean’s Council as well as the Senate so Dr.
Dameron will now take it to Executive Council and President’s Council. This new personnel rank addition
will assist with recruitment and hiring of faculty.
Dr. Arney went over HOOP Policy 7.2.1 and indicated that the Policy has a cover page attached to it in
order to give everyone an idea about the steps or checklist policies have to follow in order to be approved
on our campus. Academic titles, section B 3, the new E section, Distinguished Senior Lecturer. Dr.
Arney added background information at the bottom that is not a part of the policy so that everyone has an
idea where the change originated. UTB would have the option of hiring this new Distinguished Senior
Lecturer. In C, teaching is underscored which was added to the Senior Lecturer.
This policy was initiated by UT System. Someone asked how many senior lecturers were on our campus.
Dr. Nelson said he has one and there are a few others. Why does the policy use the terminology
“augment and complement” in relation to this new rank? Dr. Davis sees this new rank as the UT System
way of hiring someone in the profession that might not have the degrees but professional qualifications.
In Education, they might be able to use it to hire a superintendent to teach a class but not for a full time or
tenure track position. Or they could hire someone in public service (like politics). The language that this
policy has always had has been “augment and complement” and the new addition also uses the same
language. This is a first read for this policy. Therese Gallegos indicated that in the last sentence under
C, the words untenured, tenure track confuses her but it is correct. As a lecturer you are not tenure track.
Dr. Nelson makes a difference between C and D.
The next question was in the use of the word “teacher” and the word “faculty.” Anyone who is on campus
in instruction should be called faculty. C and D should use the word “faculty” not the word “teachers.”
Can we change the word teacher to faculty? Add the words …who will serve as teaching faculty. The
discussion continued. The result after all the discussion is to not change the wording as the policy that
came down from UT System has that wording. Bill Davis commented that the tracking sheet used as a
cover on this policy is a very good idea and is a real plus in seeing where the policy has been and has to
go. Business Affairs produced this tracking sheet as it is responsible for the tracking of all policies.
Karen Fuss-Sommer moved that all HOOP Policies should be presented with the tracking sheet attached.
Elizabeth Heise seconded the motion. Motion passed. Pat Celaya moved to accept the HOOP Policy
7.2.1 as presented. Someone seconded the motion and the motion carries.
7.3.4 Faculty and Chairs Merit policy draft went to Deans and Chairs who made significant changes to the
policy presented by the Academic Senate. The deans and chairs elected not to have two different
parallel tracks for exceptional merit. The chairs, who believe they to be faculty, do not want to be on a
separate track. Dr. Dameron indicated that there was one provision that deans and chairs wanted to
include and that was that when a chair applies for exceptional merit, the chair will not make
recommendation about others in their department going up for exceptional merit. There would still be
recommendations that would come from the department personnel committee and the Schools personnel
committee. Someone asked what happens to the proximal evaluation by the chair? The answer was that
it will not exist. So the comment was made that a faculty member then misses one leg of the evaluation
process. Why did the chairs not want to be in competition against other chairs instead of their faculty?
The chairs felt they wanted to be evaluated as a faculty member against other faculty members. One
comment made was that then the chair should be removed from the administrative responsibility of
5
evaluating faculty. For faculty sitting on personnel committees, it is hard to judge a chair since they have
a reduced load as well as administrative duties.
Bill Davis reminded everyone that the Senate acted upon recommendations of the committees that have
studied the matter over a period of time. The Senate made some sound suggestions about portfolios,
etc. One of the issues was whether chairs should go up for exceptional merit against other faculty that
had no administrative responsibilities. Deans and Chairs have taken all the recommendations of the
Senate Committee out of the policy. Is there a conflict of interest of putting chairs into the process?
Looking at the past, have chairs fared better than faculty in this process? Chairs got slightly more merit
increases but not a significant amount. The difference was slightly more than 14%. The last point is the
most important point: the culture of our university is that chairs are faculty and they are equal in the
department and that they are not the lowest rung of the administration. Dr. Davis suggests approving the
process as changed by Deans and Chairs.
Therese Gallegos indicated that when the recommendation first came up, she felt is was a system that
benefited chairs. It would seem that the very people this policy affects are the same ones that want to put
it back in. She makes the point that Deans and Chairs are asking the very people who benefit from this
policy, to take themselves out of competing with their faculty. It is hard to expect chairs to want to take
themselves out of the running. Cheryl Phelps had a concern that there is a difference in actual load for
chairs in any given semester. The chair has a lot more time than faculty to work on a portfolio since they
may be able to put off some of their administrative duties when a faculty member must still prepare to
teach all their classes. Elizabeth Heise asks if the concern is the different pathways. A department
recommendation as well as a college or school recommendation is what is given to the dean on both the
faculty member and the chair; the pathways are the same. If you have two portfolios with a favorable
recommendation of the chair and one that did not, would there be a bias? Dr. Nelson says he looks at
the portfolio’s as they come to them. Karen Fuss-Sommer indicated that the problem has been that the
chair is in competition with the faculty and the chairs have not recused themselves from the process. The
chairs should be evaluated during the annual review and be taken out of the personnel action path. Dr.
Carl Stockton says that when those portfolios come to him, he looks at them independently and then goes
back and looks at the recommendation. The dean is the one that enforces the 10% rule. Dr. Stockton
mentions that he has turned down department chairs as well as faculty members independent of the
recommendations. If you didn’t have the chairs recommendation, it wouldn’t have a problem but it helps
to have the recommendations. Rodney Sullivan says the main problem is the personnel calendar and
looking at it to see what it says. The calendar has to be changed so that it corresponds to what is
currently done and then the intent to what is proposed. The calendar procedures indicate that chairs
evaluate faculty at a certain time. The second item is that faculty including chairs should be added to the
calendar. Domingo Molina spoke to his chair and he supports the change to be considered as being
faculty. We should honor the chairs recommendation. Dr. Davis likes the idea of including chairs where it
says faculty in the policy. The Personnel Calendar has to change to reflect current items. The chairs
must make recommendations on the portfolio for exceptional merit. Add a statement to the personnel
calendar to change it. Chairs, if allowed, are permitted under Subsection C.
Dr. Arney will send the new policy changes to Dr. Jones to include in the minutes. Domingo Molina asks
her to send it to everyone electronically so that they can have their faculty look at it. Can we bring it up
again in January? We have run through this policy multiple times but this is first reading of the policy.
Pat Celaya clarified that the Senate pulled the chairs out of the process because there was room for bias;
but also, faculty felt that by going up against a chair, then chairs already had an advantage over the
faculty member. Since the Senate passed the first policy in two readings, and because it has been
changed substantially, this new policy has to go through first reading again before it goes back to Deans
and Chairs. In 2A, if someone is concerned about how a chair is evaluated, a chair and faculty still must
indicate how or in what area exemplary performance was achieved. One thing that was added by the
Deans and Chairs was that because Sections D and E were important additions, these sections should
be added to HOOP Policy 7.3.5. Karen Fuss-Sommer moves that we table this discussion until the next
meeting since HOOP Policy 7.3.5 was not on the agenda. Motion passed. Rodney Sullivan moves that
for HOOP 7.3.4 that we accept this policy with the addition of the word “normally.” Elizabeth Heise
seconds the motion. Rodney Sullivan, in conference with the Bill the Elder says that “normally” may not
be a good word to use. If you add including chairs in Section C it takes care of Section B.
Insert “will normally be in competition with other faculty” as the modification in Section 2B. Rodney
amends the motion. The motion was not clear if it passed or not so a vote by show of hands indicated that
6
12 senators were for the policy and two were against. The motion passes. This policy will go back to the
VPAA office and will come back for a second reading.
Cheryl Phelps asks where the non-smoking resolution is in the process. No one seemed to know where
the policy was in the process so administrator will do a follow up to find out where it is. The Staff Senate
has the non-smoking policy on their agenda. The Student Senate was supposed to be surveyed, but it
was stopped because students were told that the decision had already been made so they didn’t need to
conduct the survey. The VPAA will find out where this is for the next meeting.
VI.
Old Business
Alternate Drop-off Locations for Student Evaluations; Mrinal Mudgh, Director, Institutional
Research and Planning
Dr. Therese Gallegos reviewed what had transpired at several of the last Senate meetings on this topic.
The Senate would like to see multiple places on campus to drop off the student evaluations. Dr. Mudgh is
proposing that secure boxes outside Dean’s offices and outside library be put in for student evaluations.
That will help with the problem. Another suggestion someone made was that faculty be given a seal to
place on the envelope to insure no one alters the evaluations. Dr. Bill Davis asks if there a need for a
secure box for anything else on campus? Dr. Mudgh says they would set them out and pick them up at
the end of the semester. They could also place a drop box at ITEC and one at the Library. The would
design a small secure box and place it outside each deans office about 2 weeks before final exams and
pick them up at the end of the semester. Dr. Mudgh’s office would take full responsibility. Cheryl Phelps
indicated that since we are concerned about the night classes, something needs to be done about the
buildings being secured and locked at 10 o’clock making getting into the building or hall where the Dean’s
office is located a problem for night students. How about placing a box in the courtyard? Dr. Mudgh
indicated he would like to have the box inside buildings. The Life and Health Science building does not
have inside hallways so that idea doesn’t work for that building. The idea is to have a drop box inside
each building. Therese Gallegos asks how hard it would be to make the boxes tamper proof. Domingo
Molina suggests that every faculty member escort the designated student volunteer to the drop box.
Someone suggested that the Senate turn this concern over to Dr. Mudgh to implement. Dr. Mudgh would
like to know more about escorting students to the drop box. Dr. Davis indicated that he thinks we should
keep doing the evaluations the way we always have except with the drop boxes. If we have extra boxes
in the different buildings, that should solve the problem. Therese Gallegos will work with Dr. Mudgh to
have a proposal for the next Senate meeting in January.
Classroom Maintenance; Douglas Ferrier, Dean, Instructional Support
Some concern was expressed by faculty about the whiteboards in the classroom. Doug Ferrier asked
Emma Miller give us a report on this. She indicated that the white boards are cleaned by maintenance
every night. If they are not being cleaned, faculty needs to let her office know so that her office can
instruct the cleaning crew to do their jobs. For markers, erasers and chalk just let her office know what
you need and they will send them to you. The maintenance crew is supposed to put them out but it isn’t
being done. Maybe her office could just supply each department with these whiteboard supplies.
Someone indicated that sometimes it is impossible to erase the whiteboard. This may be due to the
types of markers that are being used. Some of the boards are bad because they may not be getting
cleaned on a daily basis. Dr. Davis gives a bit of his wisdom by saying that if someone marks with a nonerase marker on the whiteboard, if you use a dry-erase marker over it, it will erase the first mark. The
best teaching hint Dr. Davis has ever shared. Classroom maintenance-in the Tandy classrooms, the
arms break off the chairs and they never get fixed. If classes are full and if there is a missing desktop,
then you can’t use that seat. Later in the semester, when there are people dropping the class, then you
have alternative choices of chairs for students but not at the beginning. Physical Plant should be
repairing the broken desktops but they don’t always get around to fixing them. Abraham at Physical Plant
needs to get it done and if it becomes a safety issue that would make fixing the desktops a priority. Who
replaces the desktops? Emma Miller indicates that her office doesn’t have the budget to get
replacements. She reports the broken desktops to Physical Plant but can’t purchase anything. Someone
indicated that there should be some accountability for getting these things done and have some kind of
reporting back to whoever put in the complaint in the first place. Someone indicated that in the Life and
Health Science building someone complained that the desk writing surface was too little and students
couldn’t even put more than a book on it. Emma Miller indicated that her office has no budget to replace
desks. Someone asks, “Do we not have an equipment replacement program?” Elizabeth Heise indicates
7
that in SETB 2.548, the monitor at the teachers’ desk does not light up. Dr. Shane suggests that each
department report anything they need fixed and work through their chair and dean. Elizabeth Heise says
they report it but it doesn’t get fixed. The deans need to solve the problem. Domingo Molina indicated
that Media Services would be in charge of technology. The same statement is given, “No one has the
budget.” David Pearson suggests that the Senate contact the VP for Partnership Affairs and grill them
about getting these things done. Dr. Martin expressed deepest sympathy to Emma Miller for the death of
her husband. Family support is needed for all of us to do our jobs. Ms. Miller came back to work the next
day after her husband’s funeral. He wanted to thank her for being here and asked her to accept our
deepest sympathy for her loss. There was a moment of silence.
VII.
New Business
The Welfare Committee discussed Optional Retirement Plans. When faculty come on board, they can
participate in TRS or ORP. The TRS is a defined benefit plan; No matter what the employee contributes,
they will get a certain benefit no matter what the contributions are. The ORP is a defined contribution
plan. Depending on how much money is put in will be how much money is available to take out. Anyone
hired before 1995, 8.5% is being put into their ORP. If you were hired after 1995, you are getting a 6.0%
contribution. We have 153 employees that are getting 8.5, 157 employees are getting 6.0%. If we want
everyone who is enrolled in ORP to get the same amount, then it will cost the University $213,000.
These figures were provided by Christina Logan in Human Resources. Tony Alexander at CB told Pat
Celaya that eight of 15 UTB campuses have already increased the contribution. The Welfare Committee
is charged with issues of parity and this is one of those issues. The Welfare Committee has a
recommendation to present it to Academic Senate and hopes that the Senate will endorse the
recommendation to increase the ORP contribution for those at 6% to 8.5%. Karen Fuss Sommer moves
that the Senate endorse the increase to 8.5% to those participants in ORP. Bobbette Morgan seconds
the motion. Motion passes.
Domingo Molina asked if the Welfare Committee considered that TRS has a rule of 90 instead of 80
because that will also affect new employees. He would like the Welfare Committee to take a look at that
issue as well.
Karen Fuss Sommer is concerned with not having a current telephone directory. She would like the
Senate to encourage the delivery of a new directory soon. The directory that is online has a lot of errors
on it. The new CIO is in charge of new directories and maybe the Senate should invite Dr. Chen at ext.
7900, to come to the next meeting to talk to us about it. There should be a print and online directory. Dr.
Martin indicated that there is a group working with the directory; different offices are working on a
template so we don’t have to reinvent the directory each time we need to change it. The delay has to do
with pictures. Our current directory has pictures of most of us in it. The issue is that there was concern
that people didn’t want to have their pictures in the directory online. Rodney Sullivan says there are
faculty in his department that prefer not to have their pictures online. The concern relates to women not
wanting their pictures out online. Once we have control of the webpage, the faculty member could ask to
have the picture deleted. Handing out a directory at convocation would be nice.
VIII.
Provost’s Report
I want to express my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Emma Miller in her time of mourning. Many people here
work very hard and their families support often goals unrecognized. When one of us loses a beloved one,
the whole community mourns.
Dean Jay Phillips is not doing well. When he was feeling better, there were some of us who tried to
convince him to go elsewhere for treatment. Jay said that it wasn’t fair to others to go elsewhere for
medical care and that everyone should be treated the same. If everyone chose to leave the Valley, we
would never have good health care in the Valley. He wants to be like everyone else. If everyone did the
same thing about their college education and everyone left the Valley, we would never have a great
university. He said, “I want the University to be the best and I want the health care to also be the best
and I am willing to pay the price.” He may indeed pay the price. I ask that we do what we can to help his
sacrifice not be in vain.
Two days ago, at its annual meeting, SACS gave approval for UTB/TSC to offer doctoral programs, which
means we can go forward in seeking the doctoral degree in Curriculum and Instruction. In April, the
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board will send a team of external experts to conduct a site visit to
8
review our request, and if that review is positive, we anticipate receiving Coordinating Board approval in
July, which will allow us to begin offering courses in August. Congratulations are in order for Dean Carl
Stockton, Dean Charles Lackey, Professor Bobbette Morgan, and Dr. Eli Pena and a number of faculty
and staff in Academic Affairs, as well as the fine support staff in Business Affairs who ensured that the
required external financial audit of our institution was completed by the required deadline.
The CB has recently approved three nonsubstantive change proposals that we submitted this fall. First,
in the School of Business, the Accounting Department and the Business Administration Departments
have been combined into an expanded Business Administration Department. Also, the name of the
Business Technology Department has changed to become the Applied Business Technology
Department. Third, the Kinesiology Department is now called the Health and Human Performance
Department.
Dr. Steve Chen, our Chief Information Officer, has received approval of his plan to combine the
information technology activities in Business Affairs, Academic Affairs and Student Affairs into an
Administrative Unit called Information Technology Services. ITS will provide IT support for the entire
campus. This restructuring should lead to greater efficiencies in delivering IT services.
The political focus on graduation rates is being strengthened and may well result in financial impact to
institutions such as ours. The rhetoric is not based on consistent resource utilization, effectiveness or
social justice, but the focus and the possible financial implications for us are inescapable. Every initiation
we take is aimed at improving graduation and retention rates.
The Foundation Board reviewed the reports from the State Employee Contribution Campaign. There are
implications for the children of our employees with the creation of a Development Foundation Board that
administers scholarship funds. As many of us are aware, other institutions as well as private institutions
give free tuition and waiver of tuition to the children of their employees. We do not have such a thing
because we have no funding. We do not even have enough funding to support our employee tuition
reimbursement program. However, we will find legal ways to fund scholarship mechanism for employees
and faculty. The plan currently in place for all employees is biased toward staff instead of faculty. Our
children do not get a tuition break. So this is the first conscious effort to try put in place a fund dedicated
specifically to support scholarship to children of all employees. First the contribution to this scholarship
program will be modest but it will eventually make a difference. The plan is beginning with $10,000 of
contributions for those scholarships.
IX.
Announcements
There is bad news and good news. The bad news is that the Senate will have to make a decision about
how to deal with the issue of succession for the president. Although it is for the president to report, but
not premature, to let you know that it has been recommended and the Regents have approved the
appointment of Dr. Pearson to be Vice President for Administration and Partnership Affairs. So the
Senate has to decide how to proceed with succession of the presidency
The last item of business is complicated. The constitution Article 3 Section 4 deals with the issue of filling
vacancies. The Vice President of the Academic Senate presides over the Senate in the absence of the
president. We are going to be having Senate elections in April for all the officers. There is no question of
holding elections. So, we then have to have an election in January to fill the office of President and then
again in April to fill all the offices. It was brought to our attention that there is a precedent when Jay
Phillips was offered a deanship during his tenure as president. The two options are: 1) We can proceed
and have an election for just the remainder of the president’s term or 2) We can rely on precedent and
have Karen Fuss Sommer, the VP, serve until April. So the question becomes, should the Senate
proceed according to the constitution or should the Senate perhaps, make a motion that we rely on
precedent in this instance because we very close to the expiration of the presidents term of office.
Domingo Molina suggests that Karen Fuss Sommer has shorter meetings. She would serve till August
which is the unexpired term of the president and still have elections in April for all offices for the 20072009 terms. Karen, as VP, would have to conduct the election. The constitution says there needs to be
an election to fill an unexpired term. If the Senate runs the election in April, then the president would hold
office for the rest of the unexpired term and the next two years. The constitution does not specify how
soon after the resignation of the President the election should be held. Irma Jones made a
recommendation that the Senate hold an election for the unexpired term of the President in April
coinciding with the election of officers for the two years term. The person elected in April would then
9
serve the unexpired term. Bill Davis seconds the motion. David Pearson asks what if Karen decides she
only wants to be President for the unexpired portion. The answer was that the election would be held for
the two years plus the unexpired term of the president. Motion passed.
The Senate meetings for spring and summer 2007 are: January 19; February 16; March 23; April 27; and
June 8.
X.
Adjourn
President Pearson adjourned his last meeting of the Senate at 4:18 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Irma S. Jones
Note: Welfare Committee meets immediately prior to the Senate meeting.
10