ÃÛÌÒÊÓƵ University Faculty Senate Meeting
Wednesday, April 06, 2021, 3:30PM
CICE rms. 113 A&B
President Taylor’s Minute
Provost Search has a committee working with a search firm, President staying out of the initial process, invite 4 to
campus, committee can veto 1, but President will choose between final three
Taylor’s hopes: communicative, someone who brings ideas to the table, open-minded, keep parameters in mind
(finances, options, etc.), good listener, problem-solver, doctorate, full professor, etc. – like someone with skillsets in enrollment growth and student success initiatives, want a provost who leads the academics and not have to have president involvement other than input and teamwork
Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) – Plan at LU is Mathematics for 5 years – this initiative started in Austin Peay and was very successful (cohort model and pathways) – initially only 15% with math deficiencies completed a college credit math course, with this model, it changed to 70%. New meeting for QEP this Friday.
Any questions:
J. Slaydon – Are we going to hear a direction for the university (e.g., online, R1, etc.)?
Response from Taylor: Do the things you’re really good at and get better at it (always move forward), but first meet the needs of Southeast Texas region. Select targets to improve at LU and work hard to make known for that. First generation students and putting into the workforce is the strength of LU. We need to be doing research and target some areas to become nationally known for it. Have to understand the trade-offs if we push for a target area of improvement (e.g., heavy research may affect teaching, etc.).
Comment from V. Natarajan – Seen need for skilled workforce that we can provide.
Taylor: If we can become known in Texas as increasing the workforce and doing research relevant to the state of
Texas, it’s a good idea. If you have feedback, I’d appreciate it.
Comment from floor:John McCollough - Would be great for the college of engineering
Taylor: Computer Science is doing a lot of this.
Comment from floor: Sujing Wang - Yes, most of our masters student go into the workforce and maybe 2 of 100
apply for PhDs
Approval of Minutes – March 2022 JP Nelson Motioned; Vince Nix Seconded – Approved.
Guest Speakers – Jerry Linn, Associate Provost of Research and Sponsored Programs
Guest, Dr. Jerry Lin (see teams chat and email for handouts):
Concerns shared with him re: policy of institutional based salaries (federal guidelines), graduate student scholarships and in-state status, and student hires. Federal guidelines (see handout) for any investigator who will be taking resources to perform research from grants – time and contribution must be kept to 1.0 FTE per calendar year
Scholarships/In-state – see handout – policy shared. Working to keep students near in-state as much as possible while keeping quality and standards in place.
Students – working to make standards – lots of issues with multiple hires, etc. – meeting will be held to set up standards, policies, and procedures with multiple offices and persons soon
Faculty Senate Committee Chair Reports
Academic Issues Committee – Melissa Riley – addressed the time between classes and have written a resolution shared with Jennifer and then shared with everyone – “Faculty Senate Resolution Academics Committee Restoring
Transition Time Between Classes Whereas the class time was expanded five minutes after Hurricane Laura and
transition time between classes was reduced by five minutes. This schedule does not permit students, faculty, or
staff to travel in between courses in a reasonable time limit or for courses to begin on scheduled start times.
Whereas the academic achievement of the campus community is undermined by the extended class time and
the condensed transition time; and Be it resolved that a 15-minute transition time be restored for all class
schedules. Melissa Riley, Chairperson”
Motion to adopt resolution – Melissa Riley – Stephan Malick seconded – passed by unanimous consent
Faculty Issues Committee – Sujing Wang – Our committee met virtually on Teams on Wed. 30, 2022. We are waiting for the feedback about the current draft of the grievance policy form Provost and President.
Budget and Compensation Committee – Garrick Harden
Equity discussions for 2003-2009 still under negotiations
K. Weeks – did some research into IPEDS study and we are listed as doctoral not masters per Weeks – will
share info with Garrick and Ashley so she can share with all FS – “they need to use doctoral level or use admin to
faculty ratio for masters – not pick and choose”
Faculty Evaluation – Millicent Musyoka – met online – finished the evaluation of a campus climate faculty survey to
send to senate for approval – identified a chair to work with the committee to give perspective of F2.08 (Stefan Andrei)
Student Success – Yasuko Sato – met last Wednesday – discussed recruitment and retention
Faculty Handbook – Matt Hoch - has met and working on document for review; MAPPs being worked on again;
recommended a shared governance friendly preamble
Separate issue – Dean review for College of Business – analyzed (see handouts in Teams chat or via email), neutral
option heavily skews the data and low response rates – K. Weeks: we need time to explore – CH Lin: please send
questions to Matt as you think of questions
JP Nelson (faculty handbook) be careful with living document use – in a legal or constitutional document, living
document means the text remains same but meaning evolves overtime (McCollough agrees) – Dynamic document may be better option.
Faculty Senate President’s Report
Poonam Kumar and Kaye Shelton were added to the Provost Search Committee. Both specialize in Digital Learning.
Pool 1 candidates (7) were presented Friday – 6 video interviews begin next week.
Discussion on our bylaws, re, term limits. Clarify that Faculty Senate is not governed by the rules for generic Committees and Councils. Vince Nix suggests “two-terms, and a required sit-out term but then okay to come back.
Old Business
Resolution from Dr. Garrick Harden re: tenure/academic freedom
- Garrick Harden – resolution: “Be it resolved: The Faculty Senate of ÃÛÌÒÊÓƵ University stands with our colleagues
across the state of Texas in support of tenure and its crucial role in ensuring academic freedom. The American
Association of University Professors (AAUP) cites the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and
Tenure, “institutions of higher education are conducted for the common good and not to further the interest of
either the individual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for
truth and its free exposition.” Academic freedom also protects faculty from censorship based on continually
changing political interests, rhetoric, and ideologies. Attacks by politicians on tenure and academic freedom, if
successful, will result in the undermining of the ability of colleges and universities in affected areas to offer
quality education. ÃÛÌÒÊÓƵ University, as an institution of higher learning, has, as part of its core values, the
freedom of speech for all university employees, contractors, students, and visitors enshrined in the First
Amendment of the US Constitution. Recent threats against tenure and academic freedom made by many state
and national-level politicians across the US, if carried out, will result, according to the AAUP, in faculty fearful of
losing gainful employment for teaching targeted subjects and the cessation of free academic inquiry.
Authoritarian attempts to censor scholarship, historically speaking, do not end well whether we are looking at
authoritarianism at either extreme of the political spectrum coming from fascistic leaders or communistic
leaders. As political interests, rhetoric, and ideologies are subject to change over time, undermining tenure and
academic freedom will result in faculty having to teach only material that passes the ideological “litmus test” of
whatever the dominant political party happens to declare is “politically correct” regardless of what scientific,
other empirical methodologies, or academic analyses conclude. The Faculty Senate of ÃÛÌÒÊÓƵ University supports
tenure and academic freedom independent of political interference.”
J. Slaydon motion to adopt – S. Malick seconded – motion carries by unanimous consent
By-laws, Dr. Kelly Weeks
- Motion we change senators to more than 25% and/or any supervisory or evaluator authority over faculty (if you
are conflicted as faculty to sit on senate you shouldn't't't’t be on senate)
- Motion – K. Weeks; Second – J. McCollough – motion carries by unanimous consent
Dean’s reviews
- A faculty senate task force will be formed to look into issues with the Administrative Review Committees – 3
colleges are due next year – J. Slaydon: Recommend all Deans be reviewed again next year (5) – asking Slaydon
and Hoch to serve and then one person from each college – low response rate is partly due to Qualtrics. Slaydon
– Dean reviews scores did not match comments, comments were much more negative – response rate was not
even across faculty types – some faculty said the email went to clutter, M Hoch – changes recommended by
faculty have been “blown off” – if FS members were brought on board in a timely manner, they could contribute
to development of a survey instrument (this may could be addressed in the handbook) – there shouldn't't't’t be a
“one size fits all” dean survey – some seem to think the purpose of FS is to just make sure the processes are
handled appropriately but not to give direct input, ensure data isn’t misinterpreted.
New Business
Vote of no confidence, Brenda Nichols (K. Weeks, J. Slaydon – seconds) – should be considered even if she is leaving because we should care about how things are being carried out and send a message to the new Provost.
Floor open for discussion:
- Garrick Harden – am wondering if we shouldn't't't’t be more focused on getting a provost in who will use shared
governance rather than moving forward with a vote.
- K Weeks – are the two mutually exclusive? Needs to be called out.
- Stephan Malick – amendment to the motion recommended that rules are adhered to with points of examples
entered into Senate record – seems K Weeks intention is that we show that rules are important and that when
people break the rules that it isn’t forgotten about – addressing the position.
- K Weeks - people should be held accountable
- G Harden – I hear what’s being said, but perhaps it should be a motion to the Provost office needing to be
addressed.
- K Weeks – message needs to be sent to new provost.
- Motion carries 12 (5 online, 7 in person) in favor, 10 (8 online, 2 in person) against – J. Fowler to share with
president and provost
Elections – J.P. Nelson - When do nominations happen? Officer positions – nomination period starts April 24 and ends that week – occurs via email
- Sujing Wang – A&S need to ensure that they check their emails – nominations about to close.
Adjourn
Motion to adjourn James Slaydon, S. Malick seconded, ended at 5:43 PM