91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳

Faculty senate minutes

6^th floor

December 4, 2019

 

 

Attending: Arts and Sciences: Jennifer Fowler, Matt Hoch, Cynthia Pipkins, Kelli White, LeAnn Chisholm, Charles Popp, Pat Heintzelman, Jing Zhang, Sujing Wang, JP Nelson, Christopher Nelson, Cengiz Sen, Robert Vallin, Melissa Riley, Joseph Kruger, Jim Armacost, Jeremy Shelton, Cheng-Hsien Lin, Garrick Harden Education: Cindy Cummings, Donna Azodi, Eunjin Kwon, Robert Nicks, Cristina Rios, Lisa Wines, Dorothy Sisk Engineering: Berna Tokgoz, John Gossage, Ruhai Want Yueqing Li, Chun-Wei Yao Fine Arts and Communication: Awais Saleem, Ashley Dockens, Jacob Clark, Nicki Michalski, Paul Hemenway Library: Sarah Tusa, Scott Crawford Lamar State College Port Arthur: Mavis Triebel

Not Attending: Arts and Sciences: Brian Williams, Larry Osborne, Gwinyai Muzorewa, Suying Wei, Ashwini Kucknoor Business: Ashraf El-Houbi, John McCullough, Tim McCoy, Vivek Natarajan Education: Kaye Shelton, Praphul Joshi, Khal Hamza Engineering: Mien Jao Fine Arts and Communication: S Jordan Wright, Serdar Ilban, Xenia Fedorchenko, Travis Prokop, Brian LeTraunik

Call to order: 338 pm

Guest speaker: Brenda Nichols

• Proctorio: we had to go for an RFB. We paid for ProctorU for years because it is more secure, but we did it for so long that we were required to go to contract. There were also some issues with proctors being unprofessional and making unreasonable demands.
  • We went with AI because it is less intrusive.
  • We are still getting used to it. The pilot in the summer went fine, but there are some things we need to figure out for the system to run smoothly.
  • If you lock everything down, the AI will flag lots of different things. They are supposed to review the info before sending it to us, but they weren’t, so there were long recordings sent for faculty review. That is supposed to be fixed now.
  • If you are having problems, please let us know. We want to set up a session so those who have worked with it successfully can provide guidance to others.
  • SACS-COC requires us to have a student verification system in place.
  • Right now to use outside programs (eg. Case managers from publishers) you have to go out, copy it, and paste it into the Proctorio program.
• When Dr. Nichols started, CDE classes were paid at a lower rate. Now they are paid the same as AP. This was only possible by taking the different amount off the development money. So, the money was moved around, not really taken away.
• Because of state requirements and funding, we have to cut some summer classes. We must be careful about what we offer. We can’t offer everything we want.
  • Our four and six year graduation rates mean that we get ¼ the money of several of our sister schools. That is killing us. We are in the lowest tier. Our rates have improved, but we are still at the bottom funding-wise.
  • The state does not take our student population into account, so they don’t think about our students needing to work so many hours.
  • Some of this is from our own scheduling. If we put certain classes up against each other, that means students need to stretch out their programs.
  • Decisions about running summer classes are from the deans, not Dr. Nichols.
    • We need to have faculty work with chairs to set up rotations that allow students to finish on time.
    • It is a budgeting issue. We can’t just make money appear from nowhere. In the past we have borrowed against future payrolls, but we have stopped doing that. We must live within our means.
  • It is not an equal playing field for costs of running classes; science is more expensive than English, so we have to make sure that the money is where it needs to be to ensure that classes can run.
  • Our space usage is a problem. In the fall there were rooms that were only used four hours per week. The state expects them to be used 35 hours per week and docks us if they aren’t. We are changing those spaces to other things to help our balance and thus our funding.
  • The AP and CDE class merge is based in the way banner determines how much students pay. We need to condense smaller sections into one larger section because we can’t afford to have two sections at 10-15 people each. It is an ineffective use of our time and money. If we put them into a combined class directly, it is a violation of FERPA. Because we are using parent and child sections, it meets FERPA requirements because those cross listings only take place in the student information system (blackboard is not a student information system).
  • We have gotten spring classes into blackboard this week so you have 3-4 weeks to put information into it. This is an improvement.
  • The stipend charts are the same as the past two years. This information will be sent out via email so faculty can see it. You get paid as if you are teaching an overload/adjunct.
    • You get extra money for larger class size and an instructional associate if you want one. This comes when your administrative associate files the appropriate paperwork. This is, unfortunately, not something you can be paid for retroactively if the paperwork was not filed.
    • If you are using IAs, you need to do inter-rater reliability at least once per semester. There is a place for you to record this. It is required for SACS. It doesn’t have to be a huge sample, but it needs to be done. This is based on the professor, not the course. Each professor only has to do one per semester even if they have additional courses.
    • The QM process can be arduous. We are working on streamlining things and making it more user friendly.
    • We are re-designing the look of our online materials to improve our branding.
    • We are also upgrading our analytics in classes.
  • You can find Dr. Nichols in the Reaud Building. Currently she is wearing many different hats, so she is in and out a lot. The best way to contact her is through email.

Approval of the minutes: Ashley Dockens made a motion to approve the minutes of the last meeting. Jeremy Shelton seconded the motion, and the motion carried.

 

 

President’s report

• We did not meet with the administration this month due to the town hall meeting. Thank you to those who helped put it together.

Committee Reports

Academic issues:

• The committee met on November 13.
• We discussed department chairs adding courses to degree plans without faculty input. The committee is recommending that course approval forms and degree plan change forms should be updated to include the signature of the chair of the department curriculum committee.
  • This is intended to make sure that the faculty is included in the process, and the department chair cannot simply make changes on their own.
  • Not all departments have these committees, so this may be a problem.
  • Even if the department is small, faculty as a whole can vote on/approve these changes.
• There is a SACS requirement that each department has a curriculum committee.
• The next meeting will be Feb 12.

Faculty Issues:

• We did not have a quorum at our last meeting.
• We discussed what to do for the rest of the year because the lawyer is not done with the grievance policy.
• There is a concern about the DRC and students taking exams on different days than those in class. If you want us to talk to them about this, let us know. There are also concerns with students putting in the request too late for faculty to get the tests to the DRC.

Budget and Compensation:

• Garrick has met with Craig Ness. It has been challenging to get information.
  • Ness said the university lawyer told him that he doesn’t need to provide information to us because we are an advisory body. He wants us to put in freedom of information requests.
  • The archives are missing several years’ worth of budgets.
  • When asked about specifics in budgets, we were told that getting information from him would probably be different than info from other departments because of the informal process of passing money around.
  • When asked about putting up new buildings while we have under-utilized classrooms, he said “rich donors like to see their names on the sides of buildings”
  • He said LU is moving more toward becoming an online school.
• When asked about information from the SACS report, focusing on apparent discrepancy between revenue and expenditures, there were no answers forthcoming.
• The committee is not sure how to progress with their duties when they are being stonewalled.

Events:

• Although we had the Distinguished Faculty Lecture about the same time as the storm, about 300 people showed up.
• Bryan Proksch’s lecture was great.
• The medallions for previous recipients were well received.
• The committee is planning to debrief and assess how the event went and what improvements can be made in the future.
• Grayson Meeks suggested that February would be a good time to start planning the Staff Appreciation Day Luncheon, so that is the plan.

Research and Creative Activity

• The committee met twice this month.
• We received six applications for development leaves. All were deemed worthy of funding, and the list was sent forward.
• The committee will not meet in December or January.
• When we do meet, we will discuss improving competition space experience.

F2.08

• There are concerns about departments not using the right forms and processes.
• We have identified points in the handbook that need to be clarified. We are working on recommended wording which we will pass on to the handbook committee.

Handbook Committee

• We have been meeting with the university committee to help review and revise.
• We came up with our charge: "The Senate Faculty Handbook Committee serves as the liaison between the Faculty Senate and the Administration in their shared responsibility of developing and approving policies and procedures in the 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ Faculty Handbook (all drafts pending and future).  The role includes, but is not limited to, presenting recommendations to the Administration and monitoring any proposed changes by the Provost.”
• The university committee has been working since last summer.
• We have asked the members of the university committee to be members of the senate committee. We need to take leadership in uniting ourselves. This is unusual because it would mean people are serving on two committees at once. We Suggest making an exception for the rest of this year. The situation can be rectified next year.
• We have a draft of an interim handbook which was put online without approval.
  • It was removed but later put back up.
  • It is now available for review and comment.
  • It does not have a preamble that discusses how senate is involved in development of policy. Many of our sister schools have this. We need to be stronger about this and make sure that we have language that specifies we need to consent and approve.
  • The current draft is not faculty friendly.
  • We will also send out the Texas State handbook so we can see how much faculty involvement they have and aim for something similar.
  • We recommend fixing these issues now, before the draft is approved, rather than later.

Old Business

Charter and By-Laws

• It is necessary to comply with SACS-COC regulations. Our current documents do not. Therefore, we need to make some changes.
• We added three items to the charter: 9,10,11.
• There is concern about lack of faculty and faculty senate involvement in the strategic plan. Do we need to strengthen that in the charter? Is there a different way to address this?
  • We have had members who have told the committee that there needs to be concern and integration of faculty and the senate into their decisions.
  • The motion to accept the revised charter passes 24 to 0.

Investigatory Committee

• LU has sent some information, but it has been links that we already had.
• They say it will be January 18^th before they can get to our requests.
• When asked about the “hit list” its existence is denied. It is now called the “dirty thirty” so there must be 30 people on it. We are putting in a freedom of information request for it.
  • This is being run through both unions for review to avoid questions like “what is an administrator” and other delaying tactics
• LU administration has not yet responded to the AG request for details regarding why these requests cost so much.

Motion re: use of the term faculty

• Presented by the faculty issues committee last month.
• The question is asked if we want this to be a symbolic statement or an addition to the handbook.
• A motion to accept the resolution was made by Matt Hoch and seconded by Joe Kruger. The motion carried.

 

Adjournment: 5:21 pm

 

 

 

Appendix A

 

Resolution on use of “faculty”:  Throughout the 91×ÔÅÄÂÛ̳ (LU) Faculty Handbook and other publicly posted official policies, bylaws, or guidelines of all programs, committees and councils at any academic units level (i.e., department, library, college, university), the word “faculty” as defined by the LU Faculty Senate is the inclusive body of all LU employees with faculty workload responsibilities with less than 50% administrative duties within an academic unit to which the particular official policies, bylaws, or guidelines apply.  By this definition programs, departments, colleges, committees, or council must provide a mechanism to inform the “faculty” of the relevant academic unit level of all agenda or business items in their purview in a timely manner.  The LU Faculty Senate requires all faculty members, administrators of all academic unit levels, and staff to adhere to this definition of "faculty".

 

Intent of Resolution:  Inclusion of all faculty members in the process and decision making of any program, department, college, committee, or council, is the basis of shared governance, provides transparency, and facilitates dialog that can yield outcomes in the best interest of our mission and students.  When individuals perform department, college, or university level service as a representative of a faculty, they have a responsibility to be inclusive, communicative and collegial to all members of that faculty.  Not to do so becomes a source of conflict and potential damage to other faculty members and students."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B. CHARTER AND BYLAWS OF THE FACULTY SENATE

CHARTER OF THE FACULTY SENATE.

FUNCTION. The Faculty Senate shall function as the official coordinating body of faculty views relating to the academic activities of this institution and shall provide policy guidance for the administration on all matters pertaining to the welfare, conduct, and involvement of employed human resources.

The Faculty Senate shall be charged with the responsibility of providing the President and other members of the administration with a consensus of faculty thinking of the following areas of interest:

1. Academic procedures,
2. Academic standards, including admission, progress, and graduation,
3. Development leaves,
4. Faculty recruitment and employment,
5. Faculty research,
6. Faculty retirement, insurance, and fringe benefits,
7. Faculty tenure, promotion, and termination,
8. Teaching loads,
9. Oversight, review, and revision of the Faculty Handbook,
10. Fiscal affairs, and
11. Strategic Planning

Senate deliberation and action may result either from a request for policy guidance by the administration or from the request of the faculty it represents. The Senate may make recommendations to the appropriate official on any matters which it considers to be of concern to the welfare of the faculty.

PROCEDURE. The Faculty Senate shall be organized as a legislative body. It shall elect a president and other such officers as provided for in its bylaws. In its bylaws, the Senate shall establish rules to govern its general meetings, executive sessions, special hearings, and other procedural matters.

The Senate shall determine a regular meeting place, hour, and day for monthly meetings. Within a week of approval by the Faculty Senate, the minutes will be posted on a university webpage where they will be accessible to the broader Lamar community and the general public. The Senate shall meet at other times on the request of the president, the provost, the president of the Senate, or on the written request of five members of the Senate.