Category: Minutes
Hits: 94
Faculty Senate
Held on: February 6, 2008, 3:00 pm
Held at: 8th Floor John Gray Library
Faculty
February
Call
to
Senate
Meeting
6,
2008
Order:
3:02
pm
Attending: Arts and Sciences: Kenneth Dorris, Mike Matthis, Steven Zani, Mary Kelley, Kyehong Kang,
MaryE Wilkinson, Sheila Smith, Rose Harding, Jeremy Shelton, Ray Robertson, Emma Hawkins, Terri
Davis, Nancy Blume, Don Owen, Randall Terry, George Irwin, Kenneth Rivers Business: Alicen Flosi,
Soumava Bandyopadhyay, Jai Youn Choi, George Kenyon, Celia Varick Education and Human
Development: Elvis Arterbury, Fara Goulas, Kim Wallet-Chalambaga, Lula Henry, Barbara Hernandez
Engineering: John Gossage, Malur Srinivasan Fine Arts and Communication: Kurt Gilman, Ann Matlock,
Nicki Michalski, Sumalai Maroonroge Library: Sarah Tusa Developmental Studies: Umporn Tosirisuk Lamar
State
College
Port
Arthur:
Mavis
Triebel
Not Attending: Arts and Sciences: David Castle, Dianna Rivers, Hikyoo Koh, Chris Bridges, Chung-Lhih Li
Education and Human Development: Joel Barton, Jane Irons Engineering: Selahattin Sayil, Brian Craig,
Che-Jen “Jerry” Lin, Paul Corder, Mien Jao Fine Arts and Communication: Zanthia Smith, Monica Harn,
Randall
Wheatley,
Kurt
Dyrhaug
Library:
Jon
Tritsch
Approval of the minutes. Motion to accept minutes was made by John Gossage, seconded by Sarah Tusa
Presentation by Dr. Michael Dobe, Associate Vice President of Information Technology Services
o Introductory comments were made about where he served before Lamar. He has been here for about 6
months.
o He has renamed the organization to better focus on the idea that his department is about providing service
to
faculty,
staff
and
the
university.
o When he first got here, he sat down and reviewed the staff available. There is a wide variety of people in
the
department,
and
a
realignment
of
people
to
positions
was
necessary.
o One of the early problems was a silo mentality in IT. This is common but counterproductive and expensive.
So,
o
the
realignment has
There
is
been
one
designed to
person
create
in
more of
charge
a
team
of
atmosphere.
servers.
o
There
is
a
team
in
charge
of
service.
o There is still a problem in academic support. Lamar is the worst for academic support that he has
encountered.
o The real issue is in instructional technology. We have had programmers in charge of academic support,
and
programmers
do
not
know
much
about
instructional
technology.
o When he first got here, WebCT crashed. We have moved it offsite to a location owned and operated by
Blackboard,
which
runs
the
program.
o The academic computing committee is talking about needing a head for academic support.
 We need somebody who can find the best technology for the job, not necessarily the “coolest”
technology.
 The President has endorsed the hiring of a person who will focus on the needs of faculty.
 It will take time to find this person. The position is not funded yet, but it is the most important position
being
created
in
IT
at
Lamar.


Feel
free
to
call,
set up
Question
a
time
to
sit
down
and
and
discuss
our
needs.
Answer
• Is there anyway we can have one email? This is important. There are several problems. IT did it to
themselves. There was a fork in the road where they could have decided to have one email but chose not to.
It is painful to back out of. It is because of the way in which students are processed into the university. There
are ways to make it better until it can be untangled. We are looking at a variety of options: making exchange
the default, using gmail, etc. We need to select one option that is a good email system. Our decision making
around the portal is a long series of bad decisions and it is disintegrating.
• The students don’t like my.lamar, so they won’t use it. The situation is worse than that. We need to fix the
banner system. Ten years ago we chose batch processing systems that do not meet our needs. It is not
completely
integrated
with
Banner.
• Is it possible to get out of all of this stuff? Yes. It is. One of the first problems is that we did not purchase
redundancy. So, if a piece of equipment goes down, there is not a back-up. This is only one problem. It
takes
time
to
undo
these
issues.
o We have replaced almost all of the Sunguard people with whom we work.
o It was amazing how poorly they were treating us, but communication has now improved dramatically.
Hopefully,
that
President’s
•
TFDN
meeting
•
TCFS:
Panel
Report:
Dec.
at
in
Topics
for
Discussion:
the
Texas
Tech.
Conference
Facilitating
in
will
help.
Kurt
(see
Gilman
Business”)
under
Austin,
Effective
“Old
February
15-16
Communication
Between a Faculty Governance Body and its Administration; Issues and Trends in Higher Education;
Accountability;
Texas
Higher
Education
Coordinating Board Update, Susan Brown, Assistant Commissioner, Planning & Accountability Division,
THECB
• Admissions consolidations: Under grad, etc., except international, will move to Brooks/Shivers
• Faculty Mentor Program: being studied in ACD, several models in existence: FAC-chair of search
committee
that
hires;
BUS-all
probationary,
2
phases;
EDU-1
yr
as
assigned
• Distributed Education (HEH): 200 school districts; partnered with Ed. Leadership, $5000. ea., 10 per district
minimum
•
BOR
•
meets
State
on
mileage
Lamar
Campus
Feb.
21-22
increased
to
50.5
per
Committee
Reports:
Academic
Issues:
Terri
Davis
o We are still working on the surveys about online evaluations. We should have a report soon.
Faculty
o
o
Issues:
We are still
We
are
o
Budget
working
looking
Spring
on
at
elections
and
Lula
Henry
which committees department chairs can serve on.
nominations
for
university
professor
awards.
are
Compensation:
coming
up
Ann
soon.
Matlock
o The budget and compensation committee of the Faculty Senate studied the distribution of merit raises for
faculty for Fall 2007. All of the committee members examined in detail the merit raises in the colleges, and
we
wish
to
report
the
following
findings:
o It was the consensus of the committee that a merit raise of 3% was in effect in the colleges and
departments. That is, each college seems to have received 3% in merit funds and that most departments
also received 3%. There is no evidence that any dean withdrew funds from the pool to be awarded outside
of
the
merit
process.
o
The
following
listing
contains
some
of
our
more
specific
findings:
 In the College of Arts and Sciences, six departments gave raises that did not exceed merit monies
allocated, based on 3% of base salaries. These departments are: Biology, History, Psychology, English and
Foreign Languages, Political Science, and Physics. Chemistry as a whole was underpaid in the merit
allocation
by
$1,199.
 Five departments in the College of Arts and Sciences exceeded the merit pool allocation by relatively
small amounts, ranging from $57 to $1,530. These departments are Sociology: Social Work and Criminal
Justice, $983; Mathematics, $1,346; Nursing, $588; Earth and Space Sciences, $1,530; Computer Science,
$57.
 In the College of Arts and Sciences, the Associate Deans received and average raise slightly higher than
3%. Four of the eight chairs received a merit raise over 3%, (3.1-3.3). Four of the chairs received less, (2.l22.9).
Overall,
the
chairs
received
3%
of
base.
 In the College of Business, the merit raise distribution was as follows: 8 faculty received 3.7%, 18 received
2.85%, and 3 received 2%. In the department of Systems and Analysis, all faculty and the chair received
2.85% merit raises. In this case, the department did not receive a 3% share of base salaries for merit raises.
In Economics and Finance, all faculty received 2.85%, except for the chair, who got 3.7%
 In the College of Fine Arts and Communication, the chairs received an average of 3% in merit raises,
ranging from 2.73% to 3.3% of base. Each department received its 3% share of base salaries. Merit raises
varied as follows: Communication-2.34%--3.83%; Deaf Studies and Deaf Education-2.85%-3.2%; Music,
Theater and Dance-2.4% to 5.8%; Speech and Hearing Sciences-2.49% to 3.24%; Art-2% to 3.37%.
 In the College of Engineering, each department received 3% of the base salaries as a merit pool. The
range of merit raises by department is as follows: Chemical Engineering – 2.05%-3.55% (mean 2.98%), Civil
Engineering, 2.06% - 3.76% (mean = 3.17%). Electrical Engineering – 2.13% - 4.02% (mean =3.11%),
Industrial Engineering – 2% - 3.68% (mean = 3.05%); Mechanical Engineering – 2.52% - 3.81% (mean =
3.07%).
The
chairs
all
received
a
3%
raise.
 The Library received a merit pool of 3.14% overall. Merit raises ranged from 2.513% to 5.158%.
 Departments in the College of Education appear to have received a merit pool of 2.93%. There was some
variation between departments in the percentage of the pool received. The following amounts distributed:
Family and Consumer Science – 3.15% (range = 3.38% - 5.03%), Health and Kinesiology – 3.43% (range =
2.74% - 4.43%); Professional Pedagogy – 3% (range = 1.96% - 4.07%) and Educational Leadership –
2.14%. Merit raises for chairs ranged from 2.29% to 2.92%, with an overall percentage of 2.66%.
o In the College of Education and the College of Business, merit raises are allocated by the Deans, based
upon the evaluation of the chairs. In all other colleges, merit raises are allocated by the chairs directly, with
later
approval
of
the
Deans.
o The Budget and Compensation Committee has begun work on two other areas of research. We will be
sending an email to all departmental representatives to the Faculty Senate, requesting a copy of their
departmental raise letter, with all personal information removed. We will analyze these letters to see if
faculty are receiving all of the information they should. If you are a faculty representative, and have not yet
sent in a copy of your departmental letter, please do so as soon as possible.
o We have also requested a copy of the changes in all staff and faculty salaries since the budget was
published and have received them to begin our study. We are also requesting copies of changes in
Administrative, Director, and Dean salaries made since the budget was published. We will make a report of
our
analysis
of
these
changes
to
the
faculty
senate.
o The Budget and Compensation Committee will meet as usual, next Wednesday at 3:00, in Room 204 of
the
Social
and
Behavioral
Sciences
Building.
Development
and
Research:
John
Gossage
o We will be spending time focusing on faculty development since we did research in the fall.
o We will meet next week and discuss what topics we want to investigate for spring.
o Drs. Doblin and Simmons came up with the money to fund all 9 approved proposals from the fall semester.
This
is
very
heartening,
especially
since
only
3
were
approved
the
year
before.
Distinguished
Faculty
Lecture:
Steve
Zani
o You should have received via my.lamar a call for nominations for next year’s lecture.
o
o
You
will
get
a
Please
hard
copy
in
spread
your
box
in
the
a
few
Old
o
o
o
o
days.
word.
Business:
Faculty
development
Many
of
None
of
Technology
centers
them
them
are
are
is
alive
are
and
run
included
well
run
by
in
by
vice
in
the
state.
faculty.
presidents.
many.
o A faculty development center is on the horizon. It has been mentioned to the president of the Faculty
Senate that this is part of the capital campaign, but no further information has been forthcoming.
New
Business:
o Faculty syllabi must be online. It must be accessible to all students, not just those in your classes.
o Next time we will caucus into colleges to elect representatives to run the Senate elections. You will then
meet after the senate meeting to elect a chair of the committee. This is necessary before nominations can
be
accepted.
o If you have not filled out the survey from Jan Ray, please fill out one on the way out of the meeting. It is
important
to
have
an
accurate
list.
o If you are not getting your emails and are using outlook, if you get too many emails from the same person,
the system will mark it as junk mail. You have to identify them as a safe sender. It will eventually reevaluate,
so
you
may
have
to
do
this
again
in
the
future.
Open
Discussion:
o When colleagues have applied for promotion and tenure, and then get a one-line letter saying “you have
not been approved” about promotion, it is cruel and scares people about the future of tenure.
o A rumor is circulating that the committee is only looking at number of publications, not service or teaching,
so
faculty
are
deciding
to
not
participate.
o There is a rumor circulating that all applicants were ranked because of limited funds in the promotion pool
and
only
a
certain
number
will
be
promoted
even
if
all
are
qualified.
o We need to be courteous to one another about these letters. We might want to have only one letter so
people
are
not
frightened.
o We need to make sure that the procedures are being followed. All three areas are supposed to be
evaluated,
not
just
a
counting
of
publications.
o It will be turned over to the Faculty Issues committee and has been presented at this meeting so that a
resolution
can
be
presented
at
the
next
meeting
if
necessary.
 The committee will look into all three levels (departmental, college, and university) and develop questions
for
investigating
this
issue.
 The charges to these committees are laid out clearly. The basic expectations vary depending on
discipline. The College of Business has a document they give incoming faculty.
o Several faculty have expressed concern about the incident when a gun was seen on campus.
o The administration told the executive committee that the original system of notification did not work and
new
o There
is
plans
also going
to
are
be more
The meeting was adjourned at 4.30.
being
security at
the
put
Setzer
Center
into
during
peak
motion.
hours.