Faculty Senate General Meeting Minutes 

November 2, 2022 

3:30pm-5:00pm 

Setzer Center Room 120 Neches 

 

Call to Order, Roll Call (Sign In) 

Attendance Record 

In Person: Mark Broome, Pat Heintzelman, Sharon Joffe, Cheng-Hsien Lin, J.P. Nelson, Melissa Riley, Yasuko Sato, Cengiz Sen, Sujing Wang, Tim McCoy, Kelly Weeks, Daryl Ann Borel, Gleb Tcheslavski, Lilian Felipe, Brielle Frost, Stephan Malick, Eric McCluskey 

Online: Shelly D Allen, Thomas W Harvey, Mohamad Hamza, Clayton S. Jeffryes, Cristina Rios, Alan Brincks, M Jao, JOHN GOSSAGE, Trina Nolen, Perumalreddy Chandrasekaran, XENIA FEDORCHENKO, Poornima Gunasekaran, Eunjin Kwon, JAMES W. ARMACOST, Ginger S. Gummelt, MATTHEW HOCH, Chun-Wei Yao, Beth A. Byers, Jennifer M Huff, Jennifer M. Thedford, RICARDO TOVAR-SILOS, Wen Liu, Garrick Harden, Melissa A. Riley, Raymond Doe,  

 

Approval of Minutes  

-October 5, 2022, meeting 

President Taylor’s Minute 

-Dr. Brown attended in Dr. Taylor’s stead to give the president’s minute. He gave a brief introduction of Lamar’s new CFO, Mark Robinson. Dr. Brown explained that Mr. Robinson will assume a critically significant role for the future of Lamar University as he manages LU’s fiscal resources effectively and efficiently. 

-Mark iterates that we need to measure because we can’t manage what we don’t measure. He says he’ll work with LUFS gathering information and feedback about how LU functions which will help shape guidelines. 

-Question from Kelly Weeks re: lack of transparency surrounding financial issues, specifically referencing a $25 million “rainy day fund” and questions about what happened to it. Mark responds that he would have to do some digging. He explains that reserves are necessary to quickly recover from disasters and stresses again that his priorities are measurements and transparency. The use of benchmarks and guiding principles helps guide these processes. 

-Question from Stephan Malick re: next Texas legislative calendar year and what Lamar is looking to ask from the legislature. Mark says a few things have been submitted but explains that with the funding formula, we can control resources we get by what we do (who we teach and how we teach). Stephan asks for clarification on whether the formula be affected by credit hours taken or student enrollment. Mark answers that yes, some courses are worth more than others and so resources will be directed toward healthy programs to grow them. 

-Dr. Brown invites LUFS to November 29 event in Setzer Center Ballroom: President and Provost Forum. The CFO and other departments will have tables set up as well. 10-minute rounds with each administrator are available for faculty, staff, and students to ask questions directly. If an answer cannot be given, questions will be recorded and followed up on asap. 

-Dr. Brown mentions that he would like to have a very open, public conversation about enrollment including areas of success and areas where LU has been challenged. This conversation would also include updates on where LU is with budget. 

 

Faculty Senate President’s Report 

Dr. Cheng-Hsien Lin 

- He has had meetings with Provost and Associate Provost re: Dean’s Reviews. Dr. Lin presented them with information about the process. He will meet with them again to get the process going. They have already agreed to host an event where the Deans will meet with their faculty in an open session to discuss their reviews. Scheduling for these events is in the works. 

- There are two new Dean’s reviews coming up for COE and COEHD. A committee was supposed to be formed in April. Recent transition with upper administration at LU prevented this from happening. Dr. Lin would like a committee formed within a month. Each committee will include two members who will be appointed by Dr. Lin and the Provost. Dr. Lin asks for suggestions on appointees from LUFS. 

- Dr. Lin invites Dr. Sujing Wang to talk about grievance policy. They would like to model LU’s policy after TSU’s policy. Next step would be for Faculty Issues committee to draft an updated policy for LUFS to vote on. If it passes the LUFS vote, the newly proposed policy would be presented to the Provost. Two points for discussion: 1. Who is the hearing officer? Current policy says LU President; and 2. What are the deadlines? Current policy says 10 working days but isn’t being followed. More accountability and communication are needed, and the Faculty Issues Committee’s draft will reflect that. 

- Dr. Lin has a meeting today with Dr. Taylor to talk about technology issues on campus. Dr. Lin’s concern is that some of the new technologies are not serving the needs of faculty. Examples are Blackboard Ultra and Chrome River.  

- Dr. Lin expresses concern about University Committees and Councils expired seats not being updated with new members. He explains that LU did not have an Associate Provost for a while which created some delays with those rosters being completed. The office also just hired a new assistant for that office today. Committees should start being active and planning meetings soon. 

- COB and COE have issues with workload. Dr. Lin states that Dr. Taylor and Dr. Brown are aware of those issues and are working on them. 

- Information learned at TCFS meeting: Dr. J.P. Nelson and Dr. Lin attended the meeting. Discussion about decreased enrollment in Texas universities and even more significant decreases in community colleges. Several universities' numbers were discussed. LU only saw a 1% drop and upper administration are optimistic and open to feedback and suggestions from faculty about how to increase enrollment. 

- Dr. Lin discussed internal aggregate adjustment with Dr. Taylor. Budget and Compensation committee will follow up. Re: financial/budget transparency, all that is publicly posted is information at the department level without a more specific breakdown. We would like for Dr. Taylor to agree to a more specific breakdown.  
- Dr. J.P Nelson discusses concerns brought up at the TCFS Meeting by Lamar State College representatives about sharing executive officers and personnel. These representatives also brought up issues of shared governance.  

- Dr. Lin says post tenure reviews were also discussed. Specifically, discussion about the post-tenure faculty who were laid off from UH.  
 
 
 
Faculty Senate Committee Chair Reports 

 
Academic Issues/ Dr. Melissa Riley 

- Just before our meeting, a few of us met with Provost Brown regarding a few points of clarification. Some guidance was given about creating a career ladder for the instructor cadre. 

- Regarding Dr. Hamza’s concern about developing an online Student Code of Conduct for addressing student violations, Dr. Brown indicated that conduct violations should be documented and reported to the Dean of Students. Dr. Brown will provide a flow chart showing to whom a faculty member should meet/report a violation of the Student Code of Conduct. He also suggested that we develop an Honor Code Review Form similar to the form developed and implemented by Texas State University which will be filed to create a permanent record. 

- During the Spring 2022 term, the SGA proposed a “fifteen-minute resolution” regarding the designated time allowed between classes, which passed, and which we forwarded to Dr. Nichols. Since Dr. Nichols has separated from the university, we likewise forwarded the recommendation to Dr. Brown. He indicated that he might implement this suggestion for T-TH classes but not for M-W-F classes. 

- Re: resolution that was tabled in spring, entitled “Cardinal Students Power-up Day for Finals.” Melissa motions that this resolution is taken from the table. Motion is seconded. The committee has updated their draft of the resolution after getting feedback from Dr. Brown regarding the resolution. The new resolution drafted by the committee is as follows: “Whereas the SGA requested faculty to consider no assignments, exams or projects due on the last class day of the long semester to promote student academic success, be it resolved that faculty are encouraged to have no assignments, exams, projects, etcetera. due on the last class day of the long semester.” Motion to take this from the table passes. Discussion ensues. Sujing motions to vote on the motion. Pat seconds the motion. Motion passes unanimously. 

- Dr. Matt Hoch asks questions to clarify how research students are affected by the honor code. Dr. Riley and Dr. Malick point out that the flow chart Dr. Brown will make should help determine how to handle violations. 

- Dr. Hoch asks about the graduate thesis student he alleges graduated without a thesis and whether this was brought up in the committee’s meeting with Dr. Brown. It was brought up and Dr. Brown says that people sometimes walk in the graduation ceremony and don’t receive their degree conference afterword. Dr. Hoch expresses concern about how this could happen. Discussion ensues about whether the degree was conferred. It was, and then it was revoked.  

 

Faculty Issues Committee / Dr. Sujing Wang 
- Committee met on Wednesday, October 19. Discussed grievance policy. Committee members will be sent the TSU grievance policy to review before their next meeting. Kelly suggested adopting some policies from Marshall University’s policy. This was included in subcommittee minutes which were sent out before today’s meeting. 

- Dr. Weeks asks two clarifying questions: 1. If a grievance is filed, does it have to be heard? And 2. Is the grievant allowed a copy of the findings of the grievance? Sujing will ask during the committee's next meeting with Dr. Brown. 
 
Budget and Compensation Committee / Dr. Garrick Harden for Dr. Jennifer Fowler 
- Dr. Garrick Harden gives the committee reports due to Fowler’s absence. The committee met on Wednesday, October 19. Discussed equity issues regarding seniority, country of origin, race, and gender with the goal of identifying inequalities.  

- Dr. Lin relays that a formula is being worked on to calculate inequities. Nothing has been handed down yet, but it will be a priority in the committee's next meeting with the CFO. 
 
 

Faculty Handbook Committee / Dr. Joe Nordgren for Dr. Nicki Michalski 

- Committee met on Wednesday, October 19.  

- Committee discussed whether there's an effective tracking policy process respect to our unfolding MAPPS manual, administrative processes and procedures. 

- Dr. Nordgren shared an update of the MAPP documents, and the committee will continue to discuss these at their next meeting.  

- Committee discussed workload issues. 

- Dr. Matt Hoch added the following comments via text in the chat re: the Faculty Handbook revision process, “the aim is to have two documents as an outcome. One is the Handbook of Policies, and the other is the manual of administrative policies and procedures or MAPP. Each faculty handbook policy will have an associated map document. Identification of faculty handbook policies needing MAPP documents was initiated in the summer of 2019 and by the time COVID hit in 2020andbook was in a state of revision whereby some faculty handbook policies and accompanying MAPP documents had been deemed better placed under HR or other administrative offices. At this time, there was an ad hoc committee under the University Faculty Handbook Advisory Council, chaired by Doctor Nordgren, then associate Provost of Academic Affairs. The MAPP document effort stalled during COVID and into 2021 as more focus was placed on cleaning up the faculty handbook to address outstanding policy issues, including exploring change and workload policy. Now we are returning to the MAPP documents as the Faculty Handbook version last reviewed has MAPP document gaps, preventing the posting of the Faculty Handbook as a working dynamic document. The Senate Faculty Handbook Committee met on October 19th. tor Nordgren had updated the MAPP documents that had been written, but there is uncertainty on whether all had been posted for a community review and comment period and then taken to the University Faculty Handbook Advisory Council for approval. The University Council is composed of Senate Faculty Handbook Committee members, the Senate President, and administrative representatives, including all Deans, before ending her term as President, Dr. Fowler compiled a list of MAPP documents needed and approved before the university can link them to the Faculty Handbook policies and post the current draft of the Faculty Handbook. We don't want to duplicate efforts. We also spent some time on the need to address the workload policy and a MAPP document on workload. Our next meeting is November 16th.” 

 

Research and Creative Activity Committee / Dr. John Gossage 

- Committee met October 19. Focus was on how the competition spaced will be used to evaluate the FDLs that get submitted. Discussed the method used and set next meeting.  

 

Ad Hoc Committee on HR Policy & Procedure / Dr. J.P. Nelson 

  

- Committee met on October 24.  

- Introduced new Vice Chair, Pat Heintzelman.  

-Discussed what faculty had been gathering or observing from their colleagues and their different parts of campus and what would be the concerns going forward. 

- Faculty does not know where to go with which type of concern or problem.  

- Discussed timeline to be followed.  

- Concerns about nepotism and turnover, especially in administrative roles.  

- Concerns about international hires and whether LU has things in place to support this. 

- Dr. Nelson and Dr. Gummelt met with Dr. Bert Wagner for discussion on these concerns. Dr. Wagner isn’t sure he’s been offered the position just yet but is open to meeting again if he does get offered the job.  

- Discussion ensues. 

 

Faculty Evaluation Committee / Dr. M.K. Hamza 

- The committee met and discussed F208 in general, the connection of and the relationship of promotion and tenure on the F208. 
- Members requested to see other colleges' forms so the committee can compare. 
- Two promotion and tenure guidelines for two different colleges are circulating among the committee members. 
- Climate survey form was received after the meeting and will be discussed at the next meeting. 

 

Old Business 

 

- Dr. James Slaydon re: workload issues. Dr. Lin clarifies that this issue has been brought to Provost and that it’s an issue for both COE and COB. He explains that there’s regulation concerning what workload is and that Lamar’s process of calculating workload is out of the ordinary. Even Deans and Provost don’t have a clear answer for us yet.  

- Dr. Weeks discusses Dean’s Review Committee and makes motion to vote no confidence in the 21-22 Dean reviews. “I motion the Senate demand both Deans to be evaluated again in the coming year, this time properly following the rules and allowing for maximum transparency and opportunity for all parties to be given a chance to provide input and information to the Provost ultimate decision.” 

- Discussion ensues. 

- Garrick suggests separating the votes of no confidence for each College’s Dean’s Review process into its own vote. Kelly accepts this amendment to his motion.  

- Matt opposes splitting the vote because it is a vote on process. Garrick concedes the point, and it is decided to vote on the motion in its original form. 

- Motion is voted on and passes: 20 in favor, 6 abstain, 0 opposed. 

 

New Business 

 

- Meeting in December. LUFS will poll members to find out what time works best.  

- New By-Laws proposal by Dr. Weeks.  

 

Motion to Adjourn