The University of Texas of the Permian Basin

Faculty Senate

Faculty Senate 12-13

Faculty Senators, 2012-2013  Front (Left to Right): Kyle Beran, Kay Ketzenberger, Jessica Garret-Staib, Gae Kovalick, Jeannine Hurst, Wilma Dya, Janet Carter.  Back (Left to Right): Derek Catsam, Chad Vanderford, Cory Alexander, Lois Hale, Doug Hale, Todd Richardson.

The UTPB Faculty Senate represents the faculty of the College of Arts & Science, The School of Business and The School of Education. The UTPB Faculty Senate Governing Body is comprised of the President, the Vice President , Senators and Six Subcommittees. The six subcommittees are: The General Education Oversight Committee, The Curriculum Committee, The Faculty Affairs Committee, The Academic Affairs Committee, The Budget & Governance Committee, and the Student Affairs Committee. Items and Issues brought forth to the senate are referred by the Senate President to the appropriate subcommittee for review and recommendations to be voted upon by the Senate Members. 

Current Chairs of the subcommittees are:

Senate Minutes:

Pending Issues:

  1. March 30, 2011

    • University Directory Resolution

      “Faculty Senate moves for the creation of an on-line, printer-friendly, PDF of the university directory. The format should include both an alphabetical listing and a listing by department. The directory should cover both faculty and staff.”

       

      On August 16, 2011, Dr. Watts indicated that he would evaluate the request in terms of time and cost considerations.

    • Book Order Resolution

      “Faculty Senate moves that tenured professors do not need to get their book orders approved by their department chairs.”

      On August 16, 2011, Dr. Watts referred the resolution to Dr. Fannin for comment.

    • Writing Center Resolution

      “Faculty no longer have to go to the writing center for the approval of material to be posted on campus.”

      On August 16, 2011, Dr. Watts referred the resolution to Dr. Lara for comment.

  2. March 2, 2011

    • Administrator Evaluations Resolution
      The Faculty Senate approved the following language for section 5.211 of the Handbook of Operating Procedures: 2

      “These evaluation forms will be distributed by the Chair of Faculty Affairs Committee. Said Chair will distribute forms via e-mail during the spring semester prior to spring break. The Faculty Affairs Committee will ensure the compilation of the data from said forms. They will send the compiled data to the administrator evaluated, the administrator’s supervisor, and the university president.”

      On August 16, 2011, Dr. Watts indicated that he will refer the matter to the HOP committee for consideration.

  3. February 16, 2011

    • HOP Committee Resolution

      “WHEREAS the H.O.P. committee has become significant in the review and implementation of new university policy where it concerns faculty,

      “WHEREAS the current voting H.O.P. committee members include seven administrators or faculty members with administrative appointments, one student, and one faculty member,

      “WHEREAS healthy faculty input contributes to the overall effectiveness of new university policy initiatives,

      “BE IT RESOLVED that faculty should receive more adequate representation on the H. O. P. committee. The Faculty Senate recommend that, in addition to the Faculty Senate President, five tenured faculty members join the committee. The Faculty Senate president shall choose three; the Faculty Assembly shall choose the other two.”

      On August 16, 2011, Dr. Watts indicated that the HOP committee will be adjusted to more proportionately reflect faculty composition of the university community as a whole. Detalis forthcoming.

  4. May 2010

    • Motion Regarding Course Enrollment Overrides:

       

      The Senate, on May 5, 2010, unanimously approved the following motion: “No extra student shall be added to a closed course without the permission of the faculty member teaching the course, including part-time faculty and adjuncts.”

       

      Dr. Watts has referred the motion to Dr. Fannin for discussion with deans’ advice as to how to inform faculty and seek input prior to action being taken. He notes there should be a discussion about class sizes in departments, schools and campus-wide with a focus on best pedagogical practices within practical limits, such as funding and regulation. On January 7, 2011, Senate President requested an update on the status of this motion from the President.

    • Motion Regarding Dual Credit Classes:

       

      The Senate passed the following motion with two Senators abstaining: “The U.T.P.B. Faculty Senate moves that the university begin charging for dual enrollment at least 50% of the normal in-state amount per student credit hour, regardless of the format of the course. They further move that any dual-credit student who subsequently enrolls full-time as a freshman at the university receive up to twice the amount that they paid to the university as scholarship aid.”

       

      Dr. Watts notes that, with the entrance of UTPB into the Texas Virtual School Network, the spirit of this motion should be met in time. UTPB must maintain a competitive position.

    • Motion Regarding Minimum Course Enrollment Proposal

       

      The Provost recently submitted a proposal that would increase minimum course enrollments from their current status of ten students in undergraduate courses and five students in graduate courses to new minimum enrollments of twelve students in undergraduate courses and seven students in graduate courses.

       

      The Faculty Senate vote to reject this proposal. They believe that it conflicts with the current standards put in place by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. This proposed standard, if put in place, would shut down many classes. It would have a negative effect on the graduation rates of several majors. It might also force departments to ignore course prerequisites in an effort to increase enrollment in certain essential courses. Furthermore, the Senate fears that this proposal lends itself to an arbitrary standard of enforcement.”

       

      “Recognizing the current political pressures regarding so-called ‘low producing programs,’ the Senate realizes that some measures of this sort may be necessary. They note, however, that such proposals should only be made if they include evidence that they will benefit the students, the faculty, the discipline, and the university as a whole.”

       

      Dr. Watts has asked Dr. Fannin to review inclusion of the goals of 12 undergraduate and 7 graduate in the red, yellow green reports. These numbers are aspirational not definitive.

    • Motion Regarding Faculty Training for Student Clubs

       

      “Whereas all compliance training is currently on-line, the Faculty Senate resolves that student club training be moved to an on-line format, with all guidelines to remain on-line for reference. Faculty Senate further moves that faculty sponsors should only have to participate in training once during their tenure as sponsor.”

       

      In August of 2010, Dr. Watts has referred the motion to Dr. Lara for comment and possible action. On January 7, 2011, Senate President requested an update on the status of this motion from the President.

  5. February 2010

    • Frequency of Administrator Evaluations

      At the February 17, 2010 meeting of the Faculty Senate, the following motion was passed regarding the frequency of faculty evaluations for administrators:

      The Senate moves “to change faculty evaluations of chairs, deans, and provost to spring semester of the second year of each term.” (That is, faculty will evaluate administrators every two years, beginning with the end of the second year of administrators’ term in office. As it stands, faculty evaluate administrators only every three years.) Two Senators opposed it; one abstained. The rationale is that faculty feedback is an invaluable indicator of an administrator’s effectiveness, and faculty should therefore have the opportunity for formal evaluation of administrators every two years.
      On November 15, 2010, Dr. Watts asked the deans and provost for comment. On January 7, 2011, Senate President requested an update on the status of this motion from the President.

  6. January 2007

    • Online course evaluations

      Dr. Fannin has approved transfer of course evaluations to an online medium, academic affairs committee currently developing a working plan. Concerns have been raised that low percentages of students respond to online course evaluations, a matter of concern especially for the tenure and promotion committee, which needs accurate data to assess junior faculty for tenure and promotion.

  7. March 2006

    • Child Care Center

      There will be a child care center in the new student center. Faculty likely will not be able to make use of the facility because the student center was built with student funds. If student use is low after two years in operation, faculty then may be allowed to make use of the facility, according to Dr. Watts on October 26, 2009. The development office is still trying to raise funds for a free-standing child care center which faculty may use.

  8. October 2004

    • Faculty development leave

      Administration has approved; faculty awaits implementation. Senate President emailed Dr. Fannin on December 8, 2009 for a status report.

    •  Faculty work load

      Senate requested that this load be changed to 3/3. Administration plans to keep it at 4/4.

 

Links of importance: