Faculty Senate Meeting

Minutes

University Center, Concho Room

February 7, 2001

 

 

Attendance:

 

Amster, H., Ardekani, S., Barrett, E., Bond, M.L., Cantwell, D., Clark, J., Crowder, W., del Carmen, A., Eakin, M., Elmasri, R., Hunter, S., Jones, M.E., Kellner, H. (Secretary), Kribs-Zaleta, C., Liu, H., Maizlish, S., Maxwell, P., Millican, M., Nestell, M., North, K., Nussbaum, C., Patrick, D., Porter, L., Rasheed, A., Reinhartz, D., Reinhartz, J., Rycraft, J., Schelly, Z., Shipman, B., Silva, D., Sol, T., Tsay, J., Tuckness, D., Weed, F., Wilding, T., President R. Witt, Vice President D. Dunn, Assistant Vice President M. Moore, Sharon Smith (Student Congress) and Chair T. Chrzanowski.

 

 

Call to Order:

 

Faculty Senate Chair, Thomas Chrzanowski, called the meeting to order.

 

 

Approval of Minutes:

 

The Chair announced that there were no minutes for the December meeting as there was not a quorum, indicating that there had been just a brief discussion at that meeting.  He then called for the approval of the minutes of the November 8, 2000, Faculty Senate meeting.  The minutes were approved unanimously with no discussion.

 

           

Remarks by the Faculty Senate Chair:

 

Chair Chrzanowski indicated that he did not have any remarks for the Senate at this time, turning the meeting over to President Witt.

 

 

Remarks by the President:

 

President Witt stated that he would like to make a brief comment on the Legislative Session, indicating that the session appeared to be going well for higher education.  He said there were many demands for funds but that there would be new money, more than originally forecasted, and that would bode well for our future.  The President said that there appears to be at least reasonable support for tuition increase, just coming off of a ten-year sequence of $2 per year increases, indicating that there is quite a bit of reluctance for another 8-10 commitment.  He feels that we will be more likely to see a commitment to raise tuition, possibly over two biennia, with a four-year commitment blocked in.  The UT System has asked for a $3 per semester credit hour which would also give the flexibility to increase tuition $3 an hour. 

 

The Coordinating Board has recommended a 6% increase in base formula funding, and there is considerable support for that.  President Witt feels that UTA may not get the full 6% but should get a reasonable portion of it, stating that our base period to base period growth will generate a substantial increase in funding for the University.  Because of our growth, if they don’t change current policy, he feels the University will also qualify for a growth supplement which will be valuable to us.  There is broad based and reasonably strong support for changing the current method of handling indirect cost return.  Though the University may not get to keep a full 100%, there appears to be a possibility of getting at least 75%, which would be worth a substantial amount for the University.  The President indicated that competition for tuition revenue bonds is going to be very substantial, stating that UTA is ranked in terms of our two highest proposals, Fire Safety and the Science Building.  President Witt commented that he had received some news from Kate Kettles in Austin concerning Senator Moncrief.  He said that Senator Moncrief had announced that he is introducing a bill to significantly increase the funding to schools of Nursing to enable them to grow their faculty and have an initial operating resources and achieve some fairly aggressive goals in terms of graduating more nurses.  The President stated that he would make sure that Faculty Senate members received a copy of the proposal.  He then opened the floor for questions.

 

Senator Barrett inquired as to whether or not there is an awareness in Austin that the UT System and the A&M System are losing top quality faculty?

 

President Witt answered that there is and that UT has presented as a system, as has A&M and all the other systems, a turnover in information.  He indicated that UTA has provided information in detail comparing our salary structure across the university with other leading public universities, usually the top ten most popular states.  There is a proposal out at the Comptroller’s Office that suggests that they need to adjust state employee’s salaries by a minimum of 10%.  He said that the system has talked in terms of 3% each year for faculty and staff and we would be free to supplement that with some of the growth monies referred to earlier.  At the last session, faculty were not given a raise the first year, then 3% that we had to generate ourselves the second year, but last year it was $100 a month across the board for staff the first year and nothing the second, so we had to supplement that ourselves. The President said that one of the challenges UTA is going to face is the great focus on K-12 right now; the significant shortage of computers and the need to attract and retain more teachers in the state. Teachers are resigning their teaching jobs to take jobs that pay considerably less in retail because they need to cover their families with benefits. 

 

President Witt commented briefly on the fire in Trimble Hall, indicating that if any fire was qualified as a good fire, this one would come pretty close.  There were no injuries, the damages were minimal and things were learned that the administration was unaware of.  The President indicated that he learned of eight structures of the 101 structures on campus that did not have fire alarm protection. Of the 101 structures, the eight that are not covered are the Press box at the stadium, the Thermal Energy Plant that operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, with a staff who are well trained in terms of fire safety, the Health Center, Swift Center, University Hall, Trimble Hall, Hammond Hall and the Physical Education Building.  The Health Center has regular fire drills and the number of staff relative to the number of students or staff being treated is usually as many, if not more, staff than there are clients.  Being a relatively small building and only two stories, it can be evacuated very quickly.  In respect to the other facilities, the administration has temporarily assigned guards from our police department to patrol the buildings.  They will patrol every hour that the buildings are open, Monday through Saturday.  The President indicated that there would be a switch from using the UTA police to hiring a commercial service to patrol, though this was not required by the fire marshall.  He said it will probably cost about $40,000 a month to use one of these major services, stating that this is obviously money that cannot be budgeted. He also indicated that a fire alarm system being installed is considered a renovation and that any renovations over $50,000 has to be up to ADA and TAS standards, involving among other things a system that would help the hearing impaired, with flashing lights.  In summary, the only thing the University can do is put in a fully coded system, which would cost an estimated $1 1/2 million to bring these eight structures into compliance.  That also is not in the budget.  The President stated that the University is currently talking to Austin about that.  He feels we have taken necessary steps to ensure safety, and doesn’t see any risk of another fire in the near term.

 

Questions for the President:

 

Senator Cantwell addressed the issue of health care, increases in Medicare, and concern over private companies making a profit, requesting that these companies charge more if necessary, but not deny service options.

 

President Witt commented that at the request of the Senate, at the March 14 meeting, the head of insurance for the UT System, Mr. Dan Stewart, will be here to make some comments and respond to questions.

 

Senator Cantwell addressed the issue of accountability and asked if there was a committee to work on this issue

 

President Witt stated that there is not a committee but indicated that he regularly submits to the UT System substantial amounts of information on performance indicators.  He stated that he and Vice President Dunn recently testified before the Higher Education Subcommittee of House Appropriations and that he had testified for Higher Education Subcommittee of Senate Finance.  They are focused on performance measures.  He also indicated that the UT Regents are very interested in accountability and are designing an accountability program and monitoring it very closely.  He stated that the administration is keeping the Chair of the Senate fully informed on where they are.  The Regents, at their meeting in February, will have a preliminary report on the accountability issue.  They are looking much more closely at not only the formal performance indicators, but also any indicator that reflects how effectively or efficiently UTA is using resources.

 

Senator Cantwell questioned Chair Chrzanowski as to whether or not there is a committee working on this specific issue.

 

Chair Chrzanowski responded that the problem in dealing with the assessment issue is on the other side from the regents.  It has not been defined, it has not been described adequately, and it changes on almost a monthly basis.  He stated that to form a committee to deal with this is probably premature.  The Chair indicated that the UT FAC is interfacing very closely with the Regents on this issue and are keeping our representatives informed, so we are poised to act, but at this time, there is nothing yet to act on.

 

Senator Maizlish indicated that in October, Chair Chrzanowski made a distinction between accountability, use of resources, effective use of funds, and standardization.  He then asked if the Chair felt confident that that distinction is still valid, or are the regents looking at both sides, aiming at standardization, as well as effectiveness?

 

President Witt answered that both sides are under discussion and that he remains comfortable that the distinction can be made.  He also stated that Chair Chrzanowski  may have more information.

 

Chair Chrzanowski stated that at the last meeting of the FAC, the members were introduced to Ray Rodriguez, former Provost at San Antonio, who is now interfacing with the system on development of the accountability issue.  It was noted that there was a subtle change in how accountability issues were presented to the FAC because it went from accountability at the academic level to assessment of performance.  That made a major shift in how the problem was approached because in Mr. Rodriquez’s presentation, it was goal-setting, response to goal-setting, corrective action, return to goal-setting, and very much what is done every day in our own classrooms. The Chair indicated that this was fundamentally different from what had been heard at the prior FAC meeting coming down from the regents, which was exit testing and benchmarks.  The functioning of the university as stewards of the state money  is one aspect of assessment, while the other is generating the students that need to be generated.  Is UTA graduating the right number of people, and are the faculty doing their job in the classroom.  That is the aspect that is changing more than the other. 

 

Senator Kellner stated that the Budget liaison Committee had recently met with Bill Stern, Associate Vice President for Finance and Budgets, to discuss the appropriations process and the appropriations bill – those aspects of the document that applied to UTA.  He indicated that the committee noted that the appropriations document listed the goals and numerical targets, and the line items that followed.  Senator Kellner said that they seem to be performance based criterion, and asked President Witt if he could comment.

 

President Witt indicated that Professor Kellner is referring to the legislative appropriations request materials and the budget submission that will include a series of performance indicators that precede the budget.  He stated that the Legislative Budget Board sets a target for the University that administration has relatively limited ability to influence.  A target is set, for example, for what percentage of graduating engineering students who take the professional licensure exam should pass.  He said that he and Vice President Dunn spent a considerable amount of time trying to explain to the subcommittee in the House of Appropriations why UTA’s score had declined precipitously.  In terms of the relationship between performance and budget, in the minds of representatives and the senators, if a University is not doing well on their performance measures, requests for additional resources are questioned.  In the case of the College of Engineering, the quality of UTA’s engineers has not declined considerably.  One of the departments in Engineering who obtained some bench-marking data for their own internal use, decided to mandate that every major in that department had to take the licensure exam.  But if a student is not planning to be a professional engineer, and they don’t need the exam, how seriously are they going to take it?  If a student is forced to sit for it, the scores will go down.  The President indicated that the administration is currently working with the College of Engineering about changing that requirement.

 

Senator Cantwell stated that he feels it is a lack of responsibility on the faculty’s part not to be involved in this initially, and that faculty should consider being accountable for how public monies are spent.  He also added that all persons who contribute money to schools with a public authority expect something in return, something to show for what they have contributed. 

 

Chair Chrzanowski commented that they are doing what they can right now. 

 

Senator Cantwell stated that in a recent meeting with the Dean of Science concerning areas of major, in spite of good salaries, a survey showed that most high-school scholars were interested in law or medicine, or Liberal Arts for their college education. There are fewer teachers available to instruct math and science. Senator Cantwell feels advisors should be honest about what a student is majoring in and what they could expect out of an area of discipline we have on.   He also voiced voiced concern over the parking on the east side of the Business Building where Arlington Hall residents who find that lot more convenient are parking.  This is taking parking spaces away from those who do not have access to the Arlington Hall parking lot.  Chair Chrzanowski indicated that this is an issue that needs to be brought up with the parking committee.  President Witt commented that he would make sure this information is conveyed and would recommend spot checks be made of the parking lots.

 

 

Committee Reports:

 

Chair Chrzanowski announced that there would be reports from several committees, indicating that the Council of Faculty Senates will meet next week.   Senator Porter verified this and indicated that it would February 23 and 24, therefore, there was no report from this committee at this time, but Senator Porter invited anyone who had questions or concerns to address to the Council of  Faculty Senates to please bring those to her.

 

Chair Chrzanowski indicated that the Equity Committee has not been charged.

 

Chair Chrzanowski stated that he had asked Steve Maizlish to organize the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee and to begin to research the forming of a white paper document on academic freedom, a position statement that could be used should it become necessary.  Some of this was discussed when the Senate met in December with the reasoning having to do with accountability.  The Chair feels, as Senator Cantwell had mentioned, that there was a need to be poised to act.  He indicated that with accountability issues, there would be a discussion of where academic freedom starts to get impinged upon by accountability. The Chair indicated that, to his knowledge, there are no clear-cut definitions of academic freedom in the Handbook of Operating Procedures, the Senate by-laws, or in the Regents’ Rules.   Senator Maizlish indicated that he had contacted the relevant organizations to get statements to look at and stated that the committee would be meeting soon.

 

Chair Chrzanowski stated that if anyone had concerns on this issue or did not understand how he was trying to position the faculty in light of the accountability issue, to contact him, Senator Maizlish or Senator Kellner.   Senator Maizlish indicated that he and the committee would be happy to receive any kind of input.

 

Chair Chrzanowski reminded the Senate that all committee members are posted on the web.

 

Chair Chrzanowski stated that the Operating Procedures committee had been charged with determining the order of succession for the executive branch of this committee and looking at the by-laws to make necessary changes.  He invited Senator Silva to make his report.

 

Senator Silva, chair of the Operations and Procedures Committee, presented the Senate with a proposed set of revisions to the Senate By-laws regarding the issue of Officer Elections and the Chain of Succession.  Included with the text of the proposed changes was a diagram outlining the current system of overlapping chairs and vice-chairs.  Senator Silva provided a brief summary of the proposed changes and then invited the Senators to review the document prior to the next meeting.  Chair Chrzanowski reminded the Senate that the issue needs to be brought to the floor at the next meeting, at which time a vote will be taken.  Questions about the proposed changes can be addressed to Senator Silva at david@uta.edu.

 

Chair Chrzanowski reminded everyone that all Senator’s e-mail addresses and phone numbers are posted on the website.  He then indicated that the Research and Development Committee has not been charged.  The Chair stated that he had asked Senator Kellner to organize the Budget Liaison Committee and begin to establish a formal line of communications with the Finance and Budgets.

 

Senator Kellner announced again the meeting with Bill Stern, the Associate Vice President for Finances and Budgets.  Senator Kellner indicated that part of the problem has been that the Budget Liaison Committee starts up from scratch every year, like so many committees here, with a group of people who don’t have the kind of background in budgetary questions that are useful without a group of questions – a tradition of inquiry, forms of meeting people to talk to, that needs to be done.  Part of the goal was to build up a group of people, some of whom could carry over to next year and into the future, who have been educated and schooled in the basics of budget, both from the Austin side and from the appropriations side, and from the spending side here.  Mr. Stern has graciously agreed to meet with the committee and to teach them on a number of matters, and answer questions.  Future meetings will have to do with UTA budget proper, and then finally a meeting of the committee which will deal with issues that a budget liaison committee should be discussing on an on-going, year by year basis.  It is the goal of the committee to achieve some sort of continuity.

 

Chair Chrzanowski stated that the Academic Liaison Committee has not been charged, the Student Service Liaison has not been charged, and the Ethics Committee has not been charged.  The Special Projects Committee was charged with the preparing of the timetables for tenure and promotion and post-tenure review.  They also deal with Professor Emeritus nominations. 

 

Senator Barrett, chair of the Special Projects Committee commented that they have not met since their last report because they were waiting to hear from Michael Moore about whether or not the post-tenure review could be changed.  She indicated that the committee was also waiting to meet until Professor Emeritus applications were in so that we could have one meeting.  The applications for Full Professor Emeritus are due March 1, and Senator Barrett stated that she had only received them from one department.

 

 

Old Business:

 

Chair Chrzanowski stated that with a quorum, proceedings could begin for election of the vice chair, and chair-elect, to replace Chair Chrzanowski. Since he moved up, someone must be sitting to replace him for the one-year position.  He turned the elections over to Dr. Rycraft.

 

Senator Rycraft announced that on recommendation of the nomination committee, there are three nominees for this position, Harriet Amster, Hans Kellner and Dennis Reinhartz.  She indicated that there was also a place for a write-in candidate if someone were to nominate someone from the floor. 

 

Senator Porter asked about the one-year position, verifying that this vice chair or chair-elect will not move into the chair’s position and that they will only fulfill this slot for one year.  Chair Chrzanowski and Senator Rycraft affirmed that this was correct, indicating that this chair would be filled until September, 2002.

 

Senator Shipman asked if a new secretary would be elected should Senator Kellner receive the vote.  Chair Chrzanowski answered that Senator Rycraft was prepared with nominations to elect a new secretary if necessary. 

 

Chair Chrzanowski announced that Dennis Reinhartz was elected.

 

Chair Chrzanowski gave a report from the Periodic Review of Academic Administrators Committee.  He reminded the Senate about the representatives who were elected to sit on the review committee for Dan Williams and George Wright, indicating that the committee still needed to work out the elections for the faculty members at large.  The Chair commented that Michael Moore has been working with James Chen to develop our electronic voting system.  Within the next week or so, they should have that system up and running.  He indicated that they would like to run two voting sessions.  The first voting session would be for the nomination process, the second one would then only list those people nominated, and everyone can vote.  The Chair realizes that there is some urgency in getting this done, and indicated that all faculty should be receiving a memo from him explaining what is happening.  The process should be on-line soon after that.  One round will be a nomination round, they will tally the votes, and the second round will be the election round. It will probably be the way the University operates in the future for many committee assignments. 

 

Senator Reinhartz commented that it should be stressed that the first two administrators are only the beginning of the process.  There will be an on-going wave of these reviews every year, so it is important to get the process in place.

 

Chair Chrzanowski stated that the question will be raised about anonymity.   He indicated that when someone logs on to the system, the log on system will simply confirm that the faculty member is eligible to vote.  That information gets dumped promptly as it accesses you into a voting file, and the systems are kept completely separate.  There will be no way by which, when you hit the “send” button, your vote will link back to who you were.  It is simply a gateway that lets you in.

 

 

New Business:

 

Chair Chrzanowski indicated that Senator Amster wanted to report some information on a salary equity study that was done in 1998 and 1999.

 

Senator Amster handed out a report, an executive summary by Dr. Pam Haws, Institutional Research and Planning. The report that Dr. Haws presented was a follow-up report for the requests that was started by the Status of Women Committee two years ago.  Dr. Haws did a very competent statistical analysis in which she used data that were available to her.  The committee, however, had been trying to get measures of productivity which would be objective and independent of departmental ratings.  Dr. Haws used the ratings that were given by the chair of each department.  She used the three ratings that were available and basically added them together for her measure of productivity. One question that was posed by the Status of Women Committee was whether minorities and women are (a) given a higher teaching load than others and (b) whether there is an inverse relationship between teaching load and salary.  The report itself finds no reliable evidence of salary inequity for women or minorities as groups.  However, there were three individuals identified by the model as having salaries significantly lower than predicted by the model.   These were reviewed by the administration and it was determined that these cases had been treated fairly.  Senator Amster proposed that,  as a group, they may want to determine the facts on which this report is based and perhaps follow up reports for the previous year, in order to get the means, that is, the average salaries for each of the groups, and the standard deviation of the salaries. Senator Amster would also like to form a committee to look into the issues that are raised by the salary equity report in order to expand the information available in that regard.

 

Senator Crowder asked Senator Amster if this actual raw data is available.  Senator Amster answered that it must be available and if they asked for it, they could probably get it. Senator Crowder then asked why this was only done for one year.  Senator Amster said that all she knew was that when she was a member of the Status of Women Committee, they requested data and they got some, but could not get all the data that they wanted, thus hindering their pursuit of data analysis.  Senator Crowder asked if Senator Amster had collected the data, to which she answered that it came from Austin.

 

Chair Chrzanowski invited Vice President Dana Dunn to comment, if she can, on this issue. 

 

Vice President Dunn stated that this study was undertaken at the request of the System.  They mandate that every three years, a salary equity study be done on campuses.  UTA was actually one year behind schedule because of the difficulty involved in compiling the necessary data.  Many of the measures, such as ethnicity and gender, are rather straightforward and are available on our campus.  Productivity is, of course, the difficult measure.  The matter was referred to the Status of Women and Minorities Committee for discussion about defining productivity.  The committee reviewed the literature and came up with a recommendation that involved a very detailed productivity measure independent of the committee that would be established to count the publications, evaluate quality of publications of each faculty member and so forth.  The committee judged that it would not be possible within the timeframe mandated by System for reporting back to them.  Instead, the committee proposed a compromise measure which was independent in the sense that it was not an existing evaluation of faculty, but a new evaluation called for by chairs.  At that point in time, accumulative productivity was rated across three areas, and that is the productivity measure that was generated for the purpose of this study.  These data are available.  Dr. Dunn feels sure that this data can be provided in electronic form for anyone who wants to re-evaluate them and rerun the statistics.  Institutional Research and Planning was given an assignment and the problem was defined for them.  They were not at liberty to define the problem.

 

Senator Crowder asked about annual reviews of faculty, stating that his chair uses the 10-point scale.  He asked Vice President Dunn if this was common practice to which she answered that it is not.  Dr. Dunn stated that the literature in this area suggests that you want an independent rating as opposed to an existing one.

 

Senator Amster indicated that in order to avoid using chair’s ratings and to get an independent and objective rating, the tried to find measures that were independent of those that decide salary increases.  Vice President Dunn  stated that they were given a System deadline to meet.  If the committee had come forward with precise recommendations about who would do these evaluations and how they would be done, taking into consideration the different standards and criteria for scholarships across disciplines, those would have been reviewed.  Dr. Dunn said it will be a very complex undertaking to do that sort of study.  Senator Amster suggested that Beth Anne Shelton come and describe what the committee did with the request.  Senator Crowder asked if there would be a way to get institutional support for an ad-hoc committee, to do release time for the particular faculty that are involved in the very detailed analysis of the productivity measures. 

 

President Witt stated that the administration would be willing to give that consideration.  He indicated that faculty groups have wrestled with this for years.  A discipline that was essentially a book discipline, would raise questions about the weight given to journal articles, while another discipline that frowns upon co-authored articles would raise another set of questions. The President feels that the amount of release time that would need to be devoted to this would be very substantial if it became reality.  He said he would hope that there is some solution between what was done and what Senator Amster is asking for.

 

Vice President Dunn stressed that every System component is charged with this task. The administration has consulted with other institutions, wanting to follow the best practices.   This is a worthy area of research which has been generated largely by faculty on university campuses who, in their own research agendas, have chosen to incorporate these kinds of studies.  These studies are publicly available.  She also stated that UTA has Faculty Development Leave competitions and Research Enhancement Program proposals for funding research, avenues that are available for anyone who might want to pursue such a study. 

 

Senator Shipman asked about faculty evaluations and how they are handled in various departments and colleges.  She voiced concern over the validity of someone outside a faculty member’s department conducting an informed opinion about one’s work.

 

Senator Millican asked if teaching load and responsibilities go by rank, as far as total, and was told that it is rank by rank.

 

Senator Porter indicated that what Senator Amster’s summary points out is that rank by rank, in each case, minority salary residuals were higher, which doesn’t seem to be correct. She feels this is something that needs to be examined. She stated that the Status for Women Committee, in talking about the teaching load situation, an example was given of the department teaching load of the faculty. This report indicated that women faculty were teaching the introduction courses which had several hundred students in them, whereas the male faculty with equal rank were teaching the upper division classes with 20–30 students, so when talking about productivity, one also has to take into consideration the size of the class and the actual teaching responsibilities.  It is not just a matter of number of courses they are teaching, but the nature of the courses.  There are some problems that can be uncovered in doing this kind of analysis, which should be addressed. 

 

President Witt suggested doing a sample project, selecting a department and having a group of individuals go into this kind of depth while asking the question, “Does the process seem to yield valid results?” If the feeling was that the process was flawed, then it could be addressed in a more wholesale way without going department by department.

 

Chair Chrzanowski recommend to Senator Amster that this issue be placed on the agenda for the Presidential Advisory Council for discussion.  He asked if Senator Amster and the Senate were agreeable to that suggestion.  All were in agreement.

 

Senator Rasheed commented that no department has ever agreed upon what would be an appropriate measure of productivity, as each one would argue that their’s is the most productive.  He suggested that a simpler approach be taken to identify whether this is a serious problem or not.

 

Senator del Carmen stated that he had just published a study on the academic productivity of African-Americans in the field of Criminology.  In that study, he found that there are so many variables that one needs to ensure, such as mentorship.  Some minority scholars in Criminology find jobs in teaching institutions, rather than research institutions, and their areas of specialty seem to be in minority related issues.  Some even choose not to publish rather than teach.  Senator del Carmen suggested that this issue is very complex, and he feels that it is beyond the scope of the Senate and beyond the scope of any committee that would be formed to investigate several departments.

 

Chair Chrzanowski thanked the Senators for this very informative discussion, indicating the issue would be taken to the Presidential Advisory Committee.

 

Under New Business, the second item was that Dan Stewart, Director of Employee Group Insurance for the System is scheduled to meet with the Senate at the March 14 meeting. The Chair feels that this issue will become general knowledge, therefore, a larger venue might be necessary.   These meetings are open to the faculty at-large and there might be faculty attending to hear what Mr. Stewart has to say.  If the venue is changed, the Senate members will be notified.

 

President Witt suggested that  Senators who have specific questions that they want to be certain are addressed should submit a list of questions to the President’s Office.  They will see that the questions get to System.  The President commented that anything that can be done to put Mr. Stewart in a position to check into things before he arrives would be helpful.

 

Chair Chrzanowski asked that the Senators remind their faculty that this will be a Senate meeting and not an open discussion for Mr. Stewart.  Only Senators will be entitled to speak without recognition by the Chair, and he stated that he will not be recognizing anybody except Senators.  Discussions with Mr. Stewart will be limited so that everyone has an opportunity to voice their concerns or ask questions.

 

The third item under New Business is concerning the use of Social Security numbers for identification purposes.  There has been quite a bit of concern from faculty members who are worried about social security numbers and privacy.  This issue was discussed at the Presidential Advisory Committee.  It was decided to try to poll the other universities within the System at the next UT faculty meeting to find out how they’re dealing with the issue of social security numbers.  Chair Chrzanowski indicated that he and Senator Kellner would inquire about how social security numbers are used, if there are alternatives to social security numbers, and then they would report back to the Faculty Senate on that issue.

 

There were two additional items given to the Chair after the agenda was printed, one being the Faculty Development Leave Committee.  There is a need to establish four senators to serve on that committee.  This will need to be a committee that has some rotation and some history; for example, some fraction of those members will stay for a two-year term while some fraction will be there for a one-year term.  It has not been determined how that rotation is going to occur, but as of this year, some type of rotation will be established.  This committee will be made up of people who want to serve rather than be appointed.  He asked that all ranks be represented on this because he feels it is important that Assistant Professors know the criteria by which they are being judged, as well as our Full Professors. 

 

Those volunteering for this committee:  Drs. Sol, Crowder, Porter, Millican, and Jones as alternate.

 

Lastly, Chair Chrzanowski asked Assistant Vice President Moore if he had a report for the Senate on the salary survey.  Dr. Moore indicated that he would have it to the President by the first of next week.  They have the data but indicated that they were a little slow getting their reports back from the reporting organizations.  He did report that, essentially, the administration was comparing UTA salaries to four different groups.  They are studying state universities and comparing UTA’s research salaries to other universities.  He also said that they have polled the Deans to get a list of what they consider to be peers or units from peer institutions.

 

Announcements:

 

Senator Cantwell – discussed student enrollment, new dormitory, parking, fee increases.

 

Adjournment:

 

Faculty Senate meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.