The University of Texas at Brownsville/Texas Southmost College
Academic Senate Minutes
March 10, 2006
I.
Call to Order
President, David Pearson, called the March 10, 2006 meeting of the Academic Senate to order
at 1:05 p.m. at the SET-B Third Floor Conference Room.
Senate Members in Attendance: Cantu Ethel (*), Dameron Charles, Davis Bill (s), Ferrier
Doug, Fossen Linda, Fuhro Victor, Fuss-Sommer Karen (*), Gallegos Therese (s), Hockaday
Mabel (s), Hollier Gerald (s), Jones Irma (*), Lacher Joe (s), Lackey Charles, Larson Julie (s),
Macari Emir, Maldonado Maxwell Virginia (s), Martin Jose, Morgan Bobbette (s), Nelson Eldon,
Pearson David (*), Peltz Gerson (s), Phelps Cheryl (s), Phillips Jay, Rajasuriar Mahandran (s),
Stockton Carl, Sullivan James (s), Sullivan Mary, Sullivan Thelma (s), Sutterby John (s),
Zieschange Paul Hermann (s).
Senate Members Absent: Celaya Pat (*), Collinsworth Carol (s), Corbeil Rene (s), Heise
Elizabeth (s), Holt Jim, Martinez, Rosemary, Otero Rafael, Pena Eli, Ragland Ruth Ann,
Ronnau John, Silva Hilda, Zavaleta Anthony.
Guests in Attendance: Olga Garcia, Staff Senate
II.
Review and Approval of the Minutes
Dr. Pearson called for review and approval of the minutes from the February 10, 2005 Academic
Senate meeting. There were no corrections to these minutes. Dr. Gerald Hollier moved the
minutes be approved as distributed. Dr. Mabel Hockaday seconded the motion. Motion carried.
III.
Presentations/Discussion: Commencement—Dr. Charles Lackey
Dean Lackey was a member of the Graduation Ceremony Review committee. Marilyn Woods
chairs this committee but was not able to be here to make the presentation. Drs Pearson and
Nelson, as well as Olga Garcia are all members of this committee. The committee has been
studying the process of commencement with the intent of recommending improvements to the
process. The mission of commencement is to collectively honor the graduating class; provide
symbolic recognition of the graduate’s membership in a community of scholars; honor each
graduate for his or her individual accomplishments; and allow for family and friends to share in
the ceremony.
The recommendation is for commencement to be in two parts: one general session that only
the graduates attend and one session within the schools and colleges where family may attend.
The general ceremony would begin at 9:00 a.m. and ends at 9:45 a.m. Students receive
diploma covers and will receive the diploma at the second ceremony. The processional will
include faculty and students. The next change in the process is that Deans will immediately go
with their graduating students to their own second session. All speakers will be timed to ensure
efficiency.
Families will not be at the first session, only students. Families would be in the individual
ceremony areas but can see the first ceremony via televised facilities. Mr. Fuhro suggests
having the students at the individual school or college ceremony area and allow the president’s
ceremony to be viewed by web cast.
1
The committee looked at models from other universities to review. Many of the big schools
measure everything precisely and keep people to the time allowed. These areas will allow for
family members to have restrooms facilities and perhaps have refreshments. Mr. Fuhro pointed
out that it would be difficult and time consuming to try to move the students to the second
location and place them in the appropriate order to ensure they would receive the correct
diploma. It takes a long time currently to place them in correct order, with this proposal, it would
have to be done twice. Dean Stockton asks why couldn’t the main ceremony be outside and
when over, the largest college or school would stay in the first area so that at least those
parents could attend the first ceremony. Some schools have hooding ceremonies for students
where the dean hoods students before the main ceremony and the students walk already
hooded. Ms. Fossen indicated that many schools do not give students the diploma but mail it.
The committee had a lot of discussion about that issue. They felt that in order to get students to
the ceremony, they needed to get the diploma after they were at the ceremony. Ms. FussSommer indicated that if students didn’t have a carrot, they might not show up to the ceremony.
However, if you have to offer a carrot to get students to show up, then the value of the
ceremony is limited at best. If we were to videotape the first ceremony, then this tape could be
viewed by every at the school or college ceremonies. The entire committee will look for
feedback.
Dr. Dameron regrets there is no reception for the students. He is still concerned about the
length of the ceremonies. There should be an opportunity for students and their families to
speak with their faculty. This would be a wonderful thing if it could work. Ms. Olga Garcia says
that the group is concerned with having a reception for the students and making different
traditions for each school. Speaker’s time will be cut from 20 min to less. The committee is
presenting to several different groups for feedback. Therese Gallegos says she doesn’t think
family members would care about a reception but if they are given a camera and an opportunity
to take a picture with the faculty afterwards, might be a better idea. Dr. Pearson says maybe
the reception could be for the families during the first ceremony. Jay Phillips says the logistics
and putting the students back in correct order would be difficult. Maybe we should have faculty
only at the school or college ceremony. Linda Fossen comments that using technology to
broadcast the first ceremony and locate the graduates at the school or college area might
eliminate some of the logistical problems. The university can provide the web cast anywhere on
campus and has the resources to purchase the equipment necessary. Julie Larson indicates
we should begin looking at precision and timing this semester and begin getting things moved
around. We don’t need to have as many speakers as we currently do and have the students
hooded before the ceremony. Dr. Stockton says that board members enjoy the graduation, so
each board member could be at one of the school or college ceremonies. Rodney Sullivan
says a good test would be to apply the time requirement this spring and for brevity, they should
call one name and then the next before that person is all the way across the stage. We should
have the students hooded already. Jay Phillips says he likes the idea of a smaller, more
intimate ceremony. Why have the large one? Do away with it and have one administrator and
one board member and dean at the intimate one. Cheryl Phelps comments that all awards for
students should be reserved for another time. This ceremony should be exclusively student
centered.
IV.
Senate President’s Report
TSC Board Meeting
The regular meeting of the Texas Southmost College Board of Trustees took place on
Thursday, February 13, 2006, in the Gorgas Board Room. A number of items were mentioned
and discussed:
2
The Board received a briefing from President Juliet Garcia concerning her membership on the
Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society. Dr. Garcia gave a brief history of the
Audubon Society, which as nineteen chapters in Texas, including the 527-acre Sabal Palms
Sanctuary. She discussed the Society’s Migratory Bird Project, and the focus on restoration of
contaminated sites for habitat, land and water conservation, and global warming.
The Student Affairs Partnership Committee reported to the Board that UTB/TSC will in the fall of
2006 become a member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics. Men’s teams
that will compete in the NAIA include baseball and golf. Women’s teams include volleyball and
golf. According to Athletic Director Daniel Huntley, we have budgeted and received approval for
men’s and women’s soccer teams to be fielded in the fall of 2007. Other initiatives include the
hiring of a full-time coach for the golf teams, of an athletic trainer who will work in conjunction
with Student Health Services, and of a sports information director.
There was also an update on the Bond Projects. For two of the projects, new classroom
buildings and the library projects, architects were not selected and the projects will be readvertised. Selection of architects for several other projects has taken place:
 Biomedical Research and Outreach Center: Kell Muñoz
 Center for Early Childhood Studies: Wells Janousek
 Music Education Building: Studio Red Architects
Faculty Advisory Council Meeting
The FAC was provided with a statement of the UT System Strategic Planning Charge and
Framework that resulted from a Regents/Presidents Retreat this past January. The overall goal
is to establish a bold new strategic vision and plan for UT System, stating concisely its strategic
direction over the next ten years, including specific benchmarks.
The key term here is “alignment.” Specifically, the intent is to figure out UT System’s strategic
role and establish a long range vision for the system. The idea is to avoid a top-down process,
avoiding micromanagement of individual institutions. For instance, each President is charged
with making annual updates to the Campus Compact, and for establishing strategic planning on
a five-year cycle (dovetailing with the ten-year SACS cycle. Implementation of System goals is
the responsibility of each individual President.
The most critical issue considered was improving graduation rates. By April 15, each campus
must set goals for meeting or exceeding the national average for graduation rates. The FAC
was addressed by Regent Colleen McHugh, who underscored the importance of graduation
rates and exceeding the national average. This resulted in considerable discussion with the
representatives of those campuses with lower admissions requirements, as well as from the
representatives of the health components, who argued that the nature of their students had
clear implications for graduation rates, and that a single one-size-fits-all standard was both
unrealistic and undesirable. It was apparent from the discussion, however, that Regent McHugh
strongly endorsed the single “above the national average” graduation rate standard for all UT
System component institutions.
An action issue was for the representatives of every component to determine the status of the
written policy on their campuses requiring faculty representation on search committees for
upper administrators. By way of background, in the October FAC meeting we passed the
following resolution: “Search Policy. Every institution shall have in their Handbook of Operating
Procedures a policy for filling upper-level administrative positions. This policy must be
developed by the faculty governance body and the administration. The search policy should
describe the size, composition, and process by which members are nominated and appointed to
such committees.” All FAC members have been tasked to implement this policy.
3
The FAC received a briefing from Brian J. Haley, a law student at UT-Austin and the first
Student Regent to the UT Board of Regents. The Student Regent sits in on all Regent meetings,
including Executive Sessions, but is non-voting. The term for the Student Regent is one year,
and the position will generally be held by a graduate student. Every other year the position will
be filled by a student from UT-Austin, and during the other years the position will rotate among
the other System components.
A final item was a status report on a so-called “Dating Service” by Ed Baldwin, Senior Research
and Policy Analyst for UT System. What this involves is a database, accessible through the UT
System website, where faculty and students can enter descriptions of their research or research
interests This would allow them and others to search the database for similar research. Other
possible uses include a resource for undergraduates considering graduate school, and for
faculty for recruiting students. The project is currently in the works, and additional information
will be forthcoming shortly.
V.
Committee Reports
Texas Council of Faculty Senates: Irma Jones, Senate Secretary
There was a report about the Texas A & M Kingsville situation. The week of this meeting, the
faculty at Texas A & M Kingsville was voting on the new constitution for their Faculty Senate.
Before the end of the meeting, it was reported that the new constitution was approved by 58%.
We also heard from the UT-Austin faculty senate that they are working on student evaluation of
instruction forms. They are revising the form so that students are aware that faculty may be
able to identify a student by their writing. Also, standardization of how and where faculty may
access their evaluation forms. Dr. Parsoneault with the Coordinating Board is putting together a
state committee that will evaluate the status of undergraduate education. Each university will
have two representatives, a faculty member and an administrator. We also heard from the
President of the Faculty Senate at University of Arizona on faculty governance. Arizona has
legislation that recognizes shared governance. There is one faculty member on the Board of
Regents for their institution.
VI.
Old Business
Exceptional Merit: David Pearson, Senate President
This is a continuation of the report from the committee who made recommendations on
exceptional merit. All departments should establish criteria for exemplary performance.
Faculty applying for exceptional merit should submit a written statement identifying those areas
in which they were exemplary. 1. A separate chairs merit process should be established.
Chairs have input into merit process, with a limited number of positions, if they also vote, they
could cut down competition. 2. Faculty who are themselves applying for exceptional merit
should not participate in the evaluation of exceptional merit applications.
Discussion began over these items. The first item to be discussed was a separate chair
process. It makes sense to have a separate process because the mix of responsibilities are
different from teaching faculty. Chairs are in the mid-management range and teaching is limited
for them. John Sutterby moves that faculty who apply for exceptional merit themselves should
not participate in the evaluation of merit applications. Jay Phillips indicates that if the chair goes
up for exceptional merit then the dean won’t have recommendations for any of the faculty in that
department that are going up for exceptional merit. It limits the amount of information the Dean
receives on faculty. Motion dies for lack of a second. Bill Davis moves that we vote on the two
committee recommendations together. It seems like both recommendations have some
support: the first recommendation is to have a separate chairs merit process and the second
recommendation is for faculty who are themselves applying for exceptional merit should not
4
participate in the evaluation of merit applications . It was moved and seconded to adopt both
recommendations together. Karen Fuss-Sommer seconded the motion. Therese calls for the
question which means it calls to end discussion the discussion. The motion carries.
The next two recommendations from committee that will be discussed are:
Exceptional merit may be received no more than once in any three year period.
Exceptional merit may not be received during the three years following successful
application for tenure and/or promotion.
Bill Davis is uncomfortable with the idea that base merit should be replaceable. Faculty should
not give that up. The senate needs to stand more forthrightly to have base merit be what it is
supposed to be; to ensure that base merit keeps up with inflation.
Recommendation:
Tenure-track faculty may not receive exceptional merit more than once
prior to applying for tenure.
Dr. Stockton indicates that exceptional merit is above base merit. If someone is doing
exceptional work, they should be able to compete at any time they wish. If you say a faculty
member may receive it only one time then you are discriminating against junior faculty. Dr.
Lackey says we can’t determine who is exceptional so we go to this type of system to sort out
who is exceptional. What we need to do is figure out how to determine who is exceptional. Dr.
Pearson says that departments must have some kind of criteria. Ethel Cantu mentions she is
opposed to time limits applied to exceptional merit because it is detrimental to creative process.
People should be able to apply for exceptional merit when they want. Rodney Sullivan says that
if the university doesn’t go to some type of system, we are just patching something that is
broken. We need something more than a patch. We need university-wide criteria or something
that says that a faculty member must have new material for evaluation when they go up for
exceptional merit not just the same old material each year. If a faculty member is doing pure
research, it will be real hard to have new material each year.
Exceptional merit goes back to the time of the last personnel action. That isn’t necessarily true.
Karen Fuss-Sommer says that one item that is a problem is that we have gotten away from
making sure that faculty that are exceptional be rewarded and identified. There has to be
someone willing to look at that and then maybe it would be better instead of faculty doing the
same portfolio each year. Rodney Sullivan says we are losing sight of exceptional teaching.
We are recognizing something other than exceptional teaching. Gerson Peltz says exceptional
merit isn’t a tool to get more money. We shouldn’t use it to fix salaries. We might need
guidelines for evaluating portfolios. HOOP says you may be recognized for any of the three
things, then the department can’t say they don’t value one of the three things. Some
departments have a 3 year only policy and others do not. Therese Gallegos indicates that if
people received exceptional merit and if was added to their base pay, then they might not need
it each year. Therese was informed that exceptional merit monies are added to your base pay
permanently.
Bill Davis indicated that we have some recommendations from a committee that worked on
exceptional merit. We have talked about two of these recommendations: 1. that department
criteria should be established for the exceptional merit process and that all faculty should submit
a written one-page summary of describing whether they are applying on teaching, service or
research. We have discussed separating out the chairs as well as faculty that are going up for
exceptional merit from being on the personnel committees making exceptional merit decisions.
Bill continues to say that he doesn’t think the senate should take up anything else until the
senate takes a stronger stand about base merit. Senate needs to quit ignoring the reason why
5
the process hasn’t’ worked here. Nationally, faculty raises at other institutions have kept up with
cost of living. Here at UTB, they haven’t.
The senate tabled these issues and will take them up at a future meeting because they are
serious issues.
Karen Fuss-Sommer followed-up on the discussion with a resolution to administration to make
campus smoke free. There are several campuses in Texas that are smoke free. The policy
from UT Medical Branch Galveston is the one we would like to model ours after. UT-MB is an
entirely smoke free campus including the parking lots. Who would be the party responsible for
monitoring the policy on campus. No other academic institutions have an entirely smoke free
campus except the health schools. Since there is precedents for this, Karen would like to
recommend we do the same. She sent the policy to staff senate so they could begin
discussions about it. Cheryl Phelps says that the present policy indicates that the signage only
indicates that this is a smoke free facility (building), so the current signage is totally inadequate.
Balconies are becoming smoking dens. Our current policy just says smoking will not be
permitted in any facility at the university. The policy from the HOOP is not the latest policy that
was passed. Senate minutes show we had amended that policy previously. The questions was
asked: How do we move this policy forward? The Faculty Senate must make a strong
resolution stating what we want. At the moment, the issues we have are about the rules and
procedures for smoking and the designation of the space specifically for smoking. The current
policy is more of a problem than a solution at the moment. Campus police say that it is difficult
to enforce. If the faculty senate makes a strong enough statement, the administration will take it
forward but be aware of what you want.
Karen Fuss-Sommer will work with Cheryl Phelps to draft a resolution for the next meeting. We
also need to put up new signage between Cardenas North and South. The policy/signs now
read: 20 feet from any doorway.
VII.
New Business
Forecast: Eli Pena will be coming and talking to us about a faculty handbook for SACS.
The Industrial Technology Department has a concern that at ITEC they are having problems
with their garbage pickup. When is regular garbage pickup on campus? The answer is
everyday. Apparently housekeeping is not emptying waste baskets for faculty everyday. This
may be indicative of lack of priority from main campus to off-campus sites. Dr. Stockton
comments that someone needs to pick up a telephone and report it to Housekeeping. Rodney
Sullivan clarifies that sometimes UTB has a specified contract indicating when and how often
garbage will be picked up in offices. Once the university went to outside contractors, everything
must be specified. This question needs to be redirected to the management at ITEC. Dr.
Martin indicates that ITEC has a contract for housekeeping and it is true that they looked closely
at the rate of trash pickup, with less pickup in administrative offices vs. more trash pickup in
public places. At ITEC, there is a weight considering the number of people to square footage.
Dr. Martin will follow up on this situation.
The next senate meeting is scheduled for April 7. Dr. Martin has a conflict as he has been
invited to be a guest speaker on that date. We can change the meeting to a different date, or
have the meeting without the provost but he has never been absent at any senate meeting
during his tenure, or cancel the April meeting. Joe Lacher moves that the meeting for April be
cancelled. Rodney Sullivan seconds the motion. Motion carried. There will be no meeting of
the Faculty Senate in April. The next meeting will be May 5.
Karen Fuss-Sommer reminded everyone that elections will take place in April for those senators
whose terms expire. Jay Phillips reminded everyone that we now have a new college with
6
faculty that are entitled to be represented at the Senate. Karen will add this college to the
election process.
Therese Gallegos asks for the Welfare Committee to please stay after the meeting.
VIII.
Provost’s Report
A portable building donated to UTB/TSC by Episcopal Day School and Ocean Trust Foundation
was dedicated last Thursday at the Bahia Grande. It is located on property owned by the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service. It will be used by our scientists for research and storage. It also will be
a gathering place for students planting Mangroves at the Bahia.
We want to thank our faculty, staff and community members who served as judges or in other
roles during the Rio Grande Valley Science Fair held on our campus last Saturday for the fifth
consecutive year. Coordinating the event was Dean Jay Phillips, Ruth Hunter, Griselda
Mendoza, and BISD’s Mike Baldwin. We had more than 360 projects entered. The fair has
grown so much, it may have to be held at Jacob Brown Auditorium next year.
Faculty members are in the process of accepting nominations and submitting portfolios for the
President’s Outstanding Teaching Award, which was formerly known as the Chancellor’s
Council Outstanding Teaching Award. A seven-member committee of past recipients has been
appointed to make a recommendation for the 2006 recipient. An ad will appear in the March 20
Collegian seeking nominations for our institution’s nomination for CASE Professor of the Year
Award.
Congratulations to Dr. Carl Stockton and faculty in the School of Education. Students from
UTB/TSC have won a prestigious NASA competition for future science teachers, defeating 60
other competitors from throughout the nation.
The Academic Excellence Awards Ceremony recognizing outstanding students will be March
22, 2006 at p.m. in the SETB Lecture Hall. Guest speaker will be Mr. Ben Reyna, former
Director of the U.S. Marshals Service and now a special assistant in Academic Affairs for
federal relations and our public policy program. Come and support our excellent students.
Bond Project progress report: Selection process for architects is almost finished.
A couple of weeks ago, we had a distinguished visitor, Yale University Professor Emeritus, Dr.
Howard Person, who made three presentations during his visit. One as part of the Border
Health Seminar series on the Role of Iron Deficiency on Learning and Behavior; one to the premed students, and one to a small group of university and community members on a camp for
children with terminal/serious diseases. This is not a university initiative but an initiative
supported by members of the university community.
I have appointed a task force in support of Regents Resolution on Graduation Rates to try to
track students in a way that allows us to align our policies to improve graduation rates.
I have also appointed the search committee for the VPAA. It has faculty members from each
school and college.
Time and effort reporting is a big issue that requires investment. There are implications for
research and for resource allocations.
7
IX.
Adjournment
Karen Fuss-Sommer moved the meeting be adjourned. Dr. Therese Gallegos seconded the
motion. Motion passed and the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by
Irma S. Jones, Senate Secretary
Note: Welfare Committee meets immediately prior to the meeting
8