ذكذكتسئµ

Committee Minutes

March 4, 2020

Date/Time
Wednesday, 03/04/2020
Location
Mary and John Gray Library
Submitted By:
Nicki Michalski

Faculty Senate Minutes

March 4, 2020

8th floor Mary and John Gray Library

Attending: Arts and Sciences: Brian Williams, Jennifer Fowler Kelli White, LeAnn Chisholm, Pat Heintzelman, Sujing Wang, Matt Hoch, JP Nelson, Christopher Martin, Cengiz Sen, Melissa Riley, Joseph Kruger, Jim Armacost, Cheng-Hsien Lin Business: Tim McCoy, Vivek Natarajan Education: Cindy Cummings, Kaye Shelton, Donna Azodi, Eunjin Kwon, Robert Nicks, Dorothy Sisk Engineering: Berna Tokgoz, Ruhai Wang, Chun-Wei Yao, John Gossage Fine Arts and Communication: Nicki Michalski, Paul Hemenway, Brian LeTraunik, Xenia Fedorchenko  Library: Sarah Tusa, Scott Crawford

Not Attending: Arts and Sciences: , Larry Osborne, Cynthia Pipkins, Charles Popp, Jing Zhang, Gwinyai Muzorewa, Suying Wei, Robert Vallin, Ashwini Kucknoor, Jeremy Shelton, Garrick Harden Business: Ashraf El-Houbi, John McCullough,  Education: Lisa Wines, Khal Hamza, Cristina Rios, Praphul Joshi Engineering: Yueqing Li, Mien Jao Fine Arts and Communication: Awais Saleem, S Jordan Wright, Ashley Dockens, Serdar Ilban,  Jacob Clark, Travis Prokop  ذكذكتسئµ State College Port Arthur: Mavis Triebel 

Call to Order: 3:35

 

Guest Speaker Alicen Flossi, LU Green Squad

  • The first topic was the LU recycling project:
    • Waste management closed their plant in the middle of our contract year.
    • We are going to hire a person to work on the grounds, sort it, bale it and drive it to Houston. We will accept paper, cardboard, cans, 1&2 plastics.
    • There is a private business in town that recycles for a fee. They are overwhelmed right now because Waste Management closed.
    • We were diverting about 12 % with our recycling plan before it shut down.
    • We also recycle ink and printer cartridges. Take those to the post office.
    • There are e-waste boxes on campus for ear buds, wires, keyboards, mouses, etc.
  • If you have an idea for Earth Day projects, email Alicen. We are going to do the same thing as last year with the tent, give-aways, and such. We want to do an art contest and a runway contest where the students use recycled materials.
  • We have a green day at the basketball game coming up. They will do trivia and give-aways.
  • We are trying to work toward a plastic-free campus. This involves getting rid of water bottles, etc.
  • We are trying to go paperless. This will require working with faculty to find different ways of doing tests.
  • You can, until recycling begins again, put paper into the Shred-it bins. They will recycle it. If it is not confidential you can just put it in a box next to the Shred-it box.
  • We are working with staff council to try to get a department-based program going. Departments will be rewarded for things like using recycled paper, getting rid of water bottles, having plants (1 for every 2 people).
  • We are looking into a bike share program. We are assessing if students are willing to pay for the service.

Approval of Minutes: A motion was made by Paul Hemenway to accept the minutes of the last meeting. It was seconded by Vivek Natarajan and carried.

President’s Report:

  • The office of inclusion and global diversity is looking for people to participate in courageous and constructive discussions about diversity issues; they will also need faculty to serve as mentors.
  • Joe Nordgren is setting up a calendar committee. Nicki Michalski will represent the senate on it.
  • Jennifer Fowler, Cheng-Hsien Lin and Nicki Michalski are working with Dean Terrabone on the committee revision process. It is meeting every two weeks. Once we have a draft of the new structure, we will share it with the senate.
  • Brenda Nichols has the new lunch with the provost program. The first one was last week. The goal is to open lines of communication between administration and faculty.
  • Provost Nichols wants to make a director policy committee to help figure out who are directors of programs, how they fit into things. If you want to serve on the committee, let Jennifer know.
  • Cheng-Hsien Lin and Vivek Natarajan attended the TCFS meeting in Austin. Common themes from the TCFS meeting were:
    • Career paths for non-tenure track faculty
    • Administration over-reach and growth
    • Improving student success
    • Despite recent events, we are actually a bit better off (regarding administration) than some of our colleagues at other schools.
    • We discussed the issue of oversight and what administration is required to accept from us; we can’t approve policies, but we can advise and consent.
    • There are several schools in the system that are conducting campus climate surveys. Hopefully, we can do one next fall.
    • There are some schools that are in the process of changing administration because of problems on campus.
    • Ombudsmen are becoming more common and we should continue working for that. Schools that have ombudsmen have fewer faculty grievances.

Committee Reports

  • Academic issues:
    • We discovered there has been some shady reporting of workloads.
      • There is a new form, at least in A&S, to report release time requests. It lacks transparency, though.
    • We will be looking into this issue.
  • Faculty issues: no report
  • Budget and Compensation: no report
  • Events:
    • TOTAL has decided to no longer fund the distinguished faculty lecture. A new sponsor needs to be found. In the meantime, there have been some alternatives discussed:
      • It has been suggested to pay the recipient the stipend and get rid of the dinner. This would significantly decrease the cost.
      • One idea was to have senate pay for it.
      • Another idea is to have the President pay for it. This would give him a permanent link with the faculty and be a great PR opportunity.
      • If you have any ideas, email them to Dorothy Sisk.
    • Staff appreciation day is coming up.
      • Staff council is planning some fun activities.
      • They are working on options that won’t require us to hand out tickets.
      • There is talk of doing a ذكذكتسئµ trivia game and if the table wins, everyone at the table gets a prize. This will spread the prizes around.
      • We aren’t going to ask for donations this year.
      • We don’t have the menu set up yet.
      • We aren’t sure if we will need volunteers because staff is working on a method of identification that would eliminate the need for tickets.
    • Research and Creative Activity:
      • We met twice this month.
      • We discussed the competition space issues.
      • It would be nice to have the reports from completed leaves posted on the competition space. This would also help us in determining how people have used their leaves in the past.
      • We met with Jerry Lin. He talked about things his office is doing to try to increase faculty research. They are also looking for ways to return the indirect costs of applications to the faculty member. They are very willing to answer questions and provide assistance. Getting together with them sooner is better than waiting until the last minute.
    • F2.08:
      • Section 44 of the handbook deals with the evaluation process. The primary issue we have seen this year is how often the policies are violated and some departments even create and use new forms without approval or input from the faculty. To deal with this, we are proposing the following motion to be voted on in our April meeting:

Moved, that the Faculty Senate, being made aware of inconsistencies between how the annual performance evaluation process is described in section 44 of the Faculty Handbook, and how it is conducted in different academic units, strongly encourages all university administrators, including chairs and deans

  • To follow the annual performance evaluation process as described in the Faculty Handbook
  • To use the F2.08 form as the main document for the purposes of annual evaluation
  • To clearly communication faculty-approved performance expectations to faculty prior to evaluation
  • To provide adequate and transparent feedback explaining the rationale for all decisions regarding performance
  • To provide a clear, appropriate, faculty-approved evaluation process for non-tenure track faculty with performance expectations different from those for tenure-track and tenured faculty

Furthermore, the Faculty Senate reminds all university administrators that any changes to the annual performance evaluation process must derive from a faculty-led process, and have the consent of the faculty, as stated in the Faculty Handbook.

Discussion:

  • Can you include that instructors should be evaluated using different criterion? A friendly amendment is accepted that indicates the non-tenure track faculty should have different criteria.
  • We need to include that criteria are developed by the faculty.
  • We should address the issue that the president has stated yes, chairs and deans need to follow the rules.
  • Some faculty members have been told there is no requirement for the member to be told why they received specific scores.
  • Many departments don’t have the meetings that are required by the process to discuss the evaluations and plans for next year.
  • It is mentioned that the by-laws do not require us to wait a month to vote. We can vote on this now.
  • Pat Heintzelman made a motion to send the motion, as amended (amendments are noted in the above motion with boldface print), to the chairs now. Cindy Cummings seconded the motion, and it carried.
  • Student Success:
    • We will be sending forth a list of recommendations of how faculty can be involved in the increase of student retention.
  • Faculty Handbook:
    • Cover page language: Dr. Nichols was contacted about the rejection of our proposed statement and deferred us to the TSUS lawyers Mr. Gomez and Mr. Bartlett.
    • “The suggested language has three problems: the words “approval,” “approving,” and “monitoring.” Those three words, as used in the proposed change, suggest that the Faculty Senate has final authority over certain policy-making processes on campus. The Senate does not have that authority; it is delegated entirely to the President. As I’m sure you know, authority on Component campuses is granted by the Texas State University System (TSUS) Regents and the parameters of that grant are explained in the TSUS Rules and Regulations (“System Rules”). The System Rules do not grant any policy-making authority to Component faculty.”
    • The objectionable language was a naïve choice of words from non-legal scholars, not at all intended to communicate Senate authority above the President nor TSUS. In fact, Dr Nichols has used the word “approve” in the context of the Faculty Senate voting to endorse or consent to minor edits in the Jan 2019 draft Faculty Handbook and had initially and informally agreed to the proposed cover page language.
    • Activity of UFHC: We met on February 27 and continued the work of reviewing what is policy versus procedures in the pending faculty handbook for the “next generation faculty handbook” where policy and procedures will be clearly separated. Dr Nichols has also decided to have two subcommittees, one to present draft policies and procedures to the Senate as they become available and another to begin the processes of writing procedures as policies are approved.
    • Pending language: The FSHC is still considering preferred language to be amended to the Jan 2019 Handbook that addresses four points.
      • State the faculty composition of the UFHAC to include the LU Faculty Senate, FHC members.
      • State the role of the LU Faculty Senate, Faculty Handbook Committee, in reviewing and making recommendations on policies and procedures.
      • A reasonable process and timeline for the notification and review of changes.
      • To allow the Faculty Senate to include a statement of endorsement, or not, of po
    • A motion was made by Matt Hoch to accept the pending language for the handbook cover page. It was seconded by Donna Azodi and passed with two abstentions and one no.

Old Business:

  • Re: Senate Bylaws
    • Tabled until next month because Garrick Harden (who wrote the revision) is absent.
  • Investigation
    • Due to Pat Heintzelman’s filing of a complaint that LU was overcharging to fulfill the FOIA requests, over $800 has been returned to the senate.
    • We still are missing many of the documents requested.

 

New Business:

  • We need volunteers for the critical and courageous conversations.
  • We need volunteers for the nominations committee.
    • JP Nelson has volunteered to work on the nominations committee.
  • Once the committee on committees has trimmed things, we will need input regarding charges for the various committees.
  • Cheng-Hsien Lin has volunteered to serve on the program director committee.

 

Adjournment: Vivek Natarajan made a motion to adjourn. Paul Hemenway seconded the motion, and it carried. The meeting adjourned 4:35 pm.