The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College

Academic Senate Minutes

October 22, 2004

I. Call to Order

Ms. Cantú called the October 22, 2004 meeting of the Academic Senate to order at 1:11 p.m. in SETB 3^rd Floor Conference Room.

Members of the Senate in attendance included: Dr. Edward Hymson (*), Mr. Steve Benton (s), Dr. Betsy Boze, Mr. Tom Welther (*), Mr. Roberto Cortina (s), Dr. Charles Lackey, Mr. Doug Ferrier, Dr. Carl Stockton, Dr. Charles Dameron, Mr. Joe Lacher (s), Ms. Cheryl Phelps (s), Ms. Mabel Hockaday (s), Dr Rafael Otero (s), Dr. Gerald Hollier (s), Dr. Renee Rubin (s), Mahandran Rajasuriar (s), Mr. T. Jay Phillips, Dr. William C. Davis (s), Dr. Therese Gallegos (s), Mr. Victor Fuhro, Dr. Ruth Ann Ragland, Dr Eldon Nelson, Dr. Gerson Peltz (s) and Dr.Paul-Hermann Zieschang(s)

Visitors included: Dr. Rey Ramírez

II. Review and Approval of the Minutes from the September 24, 2004 Academic

Senate Meeting

Ms. Cantú called for review of the minutes from the September 24, 2004 Academic Senate meeting. Mr. Fuhro pointed out three corrections: (1) on page 2, paragraph one, the minutes read, “He also looks at department by subject, if the department is below 90%, then he figures out how much it would take to bring the department up to 90% and that money is given to the department to be equally divided.” The clause “that money should be given to the department to be equally divided” should be corrected to “that money is divided between tenured and tenure-track faculty in the department.”; (2) on page 2, paragraph two, Mr. Fuhro asked that the clause “He said that technical rank was underpaid, so…,” be removed; (3) on page 2, paragraph 3, the minutes read, “Mr. Fuhro said that the problems occur with the comparison in technical rank because many community colleges use the salary scale created by the Texas Community College Teachers Association (TCCTA). This scale used degrees and years of experience but does not recognize years above the highest degree.” These sentences should read: “Mr. Fuhro said that the problem occurs because the method of collecting data has changed and [the method now used] doesn’t account for hours above the Master’s, as it had in the past. This scale used degrees and years of experience but does not recognize hours above the Master’s.” Dr. José Martin asked for one addition: on page 11, item four of the Provost’s Report, the last sentence, that reads, “Dr. Martin thanked Dr. Javier Martinez for his work…” should read, “Dr. Martin thanked Dr. Javier Martinez and Dr. Mari Fuentes-Martin for their work…”. Ms. Cantú asked for further corrections. Hearing none, the minutes were approved as corrected.

III. Presentation & Discussion: Election of Department Chair

Ms. Cantú invited Dr. Rafael Otero to address the Senate on how and how often department chairs should be elected. Dr. Otero offered three possible changes to HOOP 7.5.1, section B.2 for the Senate’s consideration and discussion: (1) in the first sentence that the term “fixed” be changed to “three-year term”; (2) that at end of the three year term, the Dean shall initiate the process to elect the next department chair; (3) that it be possible for chairs to be elected to consecutive terms and that there be no limit on the number of terms that the chair might serve. He also posed the question, “What would happen in the case of chairs who have served more that three years already?” Dr. Otero asked that Dr. Ed. Hymson inform the Senate on his proposed formula to address the issue. Dr. Hymson proposed the following:

If only one chair has served for more than three years, that chair would

stand for election the next year. If two have served for more than three

years, selected by lot, the first would stand for election the next year,

the second, the year after, and if a number divisible by three have served

more than three years, one third would stand for election in each of the

next three years. If the number, when divided by three, produces a

remainder of one-third, that person stands for election in the first year.

If it produces a remainder of two-thirds, one person would stand for

election in the first year and the second person in the second year.

Again, who stands for election first would be chosen by lot.

Further inquiry by Dr. Hymson led to the finding that such s situation does not exist to the point that it would be a problem for any School or College.

Dr. Rubin asked if the HOOP contained how long one may serve as an interim chair without an election. It was stated that the HOOP does not address that issue.

Dr. Stockton proposed that, perhaps, in lieu of having to elect the chair every three years, that every three years the dean and the department faculty conduct an evaluation of the chairperson, and, if found satisfactory, no election need be held. This to avoid a too frequent turnover, which could be problematic from the standpoint of the dean. If the results of the evaluation revealed a difference of opinion between the dean and the faculty, there would, however, be a problem.

Dr. Davis stated that, perhaps, we need to ask ourselves if we want an election after three years or an in-between step in the form of a better evaluation instrument that would address whether or not there is a lack of confidence in the chairperson. The current instrument does not address this.

Dr. Dameron stated that, when the policy was first constructed, there was talk of a three-year appointment and a process whereby an election could happen at a later time. “System” did not like the idea of an “appointee”, but the chair is hired to serve at the pleasure of the administration.

Mr. Phillips advocated for better wording, citing that “appointed for three years” is problematic. He felt it would be better to say that the chair would be “reaffirmed by a vote of the faculty every three years”. Dr. Rubin agreed that the department could elect to reaffirm or not, and, if not, then a search could be conducted. This would, in her estimation also, cause a lot less turmoil.

Senate president Cantú clarified that the idea of term limits on chairs was raised as an issue at the August, 2004 initial faculty meeting, the feeling being that the election procedure would give other people in the department a chance to serve as chair without the faculty having to mount a revolt against the sitting chair.

Dr. Gallegos stated that she believes that holding an automatic election is positive and painless.

The Senate President asked Dr. Gallegos and Dr. Rubin to join Dr. Otero and Mr. Molina on the committee to work out appropriate language for a HOOP revision to recommend to the Senate with regard to term limits for chairs and interim chairs. They both accepted.

Ms. Cantu offered, as a point of clarification, that the revision recommendation would come from the committee to the Senate and from there would be sent to the Administration as a HOOP revision initiated by the Senate.

IV. Senate President’s Report

The Senate President had five items in her report.

• Ms. Cantu sought first to clarify an issue that came up at the Parking Committee meeting regarding the parking at the Business and Education complex, and wished to clarify the will of the Senate: Is it our will that the parking set-aside be for faculty only or for faculty and staff together? After discussion, Dr. Ed Hymson moved that parking in the lot serving the Business and Education complex have a minimum of fifty (50) spaces available for exclusive use for faculty and staff parking. Dr. Bill Davis seconded the motion. The motion carried.

After the motion was passed, Dr Rubin asked if there were an automatic way to set up set-asides for parking for future buildings. Dr. Martin informed that the plans for future buildings do not specify who will park in new lots, only where the parking will be located. The question of who would be considered at the time.

• TSC Board Meeting, October 14, 2004. The Board recognized Rotary International Ambassadorial Scholarship recipient Corrina Noriega, a former UTB/TSC student, who just completed a Master’s degree in International Relations from Bond University in Queensland, Australia. The Board then heard a briefing from the Deans about the critical needs of the colleges and schools. This presentation centered on the bond proposal and how its elements would allow the colleges and schools to meet future educational needs. The next meeting of the Board of Trustees is November 11.

• Partnership Advisory Committee Meeting, October 18, 2004. UT Regents Estrada, Caven, and Rollin, TSC Trustees Gonzalez, Breedlove and Cardenas, UT Chancellor Yudof, and UTB/TSC President Garcia met to review the partnership. President Garcia presented background information on land acquisition, enrollment growth and program growth, and outlined areas of concern that need Regents’ support to remedy. Her first concern was that faculty growth was not keeping up with program growth and enrollment growth. She expects this problem to compound, as UTB/TSC anticipates continued student enrollment growth. Another area of concern is that, despite increases in program growth, UTB/TSC is still far behind its peers. President Garcia then gave overviews of the work of the Futures Commission and the TSC Bond Election. Questions from Chancellor Yudof focused on plans for faculty hiring, both full-time and part-time, and the costs involved. Some discussion centered on the nature of our student body, which is still largely attending part-time. Chancellor Yudof commented that we need to do better on graduation rates. Discussion then turned to the legislative agenda. Trustee Cardenas stated, “We feel we are being penalized for being efficient.” Chancellor Yudof replied that “We all are” and explained that he has described the lack of legislative funding for higher education as a “train wreck.” President Garcia presented a list of proposed legislative items, but was not hopeful that they would be funded. Chancellor Yudof was complimentary of how we “hold it all together” and said that we should feel good because we are “doing an amazing job with inadequate resources.” Trustee Chairman Gonzalez recognized that the faculty is underpaid and Trustee Breedlove praised the faculty for its hard work. Regent Estrada expressed support for the partnership and praised UTB/TSC for its accomplishments.

• Faculty Meeting with UT Chancellor Yudof, October 18, 2004. The Academic Senate invited faculty to meet with UT System Chancellor Yudof on Monday, October 18, 2004 from 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. in the Gorgas Board Room. As Chancellor Yudof was on campus for the Partnership Advisory Committee meeting, it is his custom to meet with faculty to address topics of interest and to answer questions. About 30 faculty attended this meeting. The Chancellor first addressed the questions that the Academic Senate Executive Committee had submitted:

(1) UTB and UTPA are the only UT System institutions that do not have access to the PUF funds. What is the UT System position on this issue and what efforts will the UT System make to include UTB and UTPA in PUF?

Yudof explained that the UT System dies not provide funds to the campus. Money goes directly to the campus from formula funding, tuition, indirect costs, development funds, etc. The UT System provides services such as health benefits, general counsel, public relations, advice on facilities and construction, etc. PUF funds are not available to UTB and UTPA by virtue of the Texas Constitution. Yudof does not support a constitutional amendment to include UTB and UTPA in PUF because it would allow other institutions besides UT System to also be included and that would dilute the availability of funds. UTB and UTPA do participate in HEAF, which is also specified in the Texas Constitution. Yudof admitted that he didn’t know much about HEAF funding until doing the research to answer this question. He pledged to work to fully fund HEAF and to make changes in HEAF so that money would be available under HEAF for such things as start-up packages for new faculty, as is available through PUF.

(2) Given that the faculty workload at UTB is higher, both in number of courses taugh, and number of students taught than at other UT System

institutions, what efforts will the UT System make to enable UTB to hire

additional faculty?

(3) What support will the UT System offer to enable UTB to accomplish the tasks set forth in the Campus Compact?

Chancellor Yudof addressed both of these questions by stating that the most effective strategy would be to push the legislature to fully fund the formulas for higher education at a level that accounts for enrollment growth and inflation. For UTB//TSC that would be an increase of 12%. Yudof acknowledged that his will be difficult t sell, given the funding problems for public education, which is about 50% of the state budget, and the legislature’s request for budget submissions that are 5% less than last year’s .

Questions from the faculty centered on the difficulties of getting approval for advanced degrees and perceptions of UTB/TSC and its faculty. Yudof expressed support for the expansion of programs, acknowledged the high workload faculty have at UTB/TSC, and praised the faculty for “doing an amazing job with inadequate resources.”

· Social Committee and Chair. Committee members and a chair are still sought to plan social events, including the Holiday Social. The Holiday Social is planned jointly with the Staff Senate. This year’s event will be held near the end of the fall semester at the Gran Salon of the Student Union.

· Admissions Appeal Committee. Senate President Cantú stated that at the November 19, 2004 meeting of the Academic Senate the body would recommend four faculty members to serve on this committee. This is a university-wide committee of faculty, staff, and administration members that is charged with hearing students’ reasons for not meeting minimum scholastic standards and determining whether students may enroll and under which circumstances or conditions. Those desiring to serve were asked to contact Ethel Cantú.

V. Faculty Advisory Council Report. Senate Vice-President Tom Welther

reported on the proceedings of the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC), which

took place on October 7 and 8, 2004.

· Regent James Barnhill feels strongly about adequate salaries for faculty. His view is seen as very timely because the FAC has asked the Regents to look into salary compression. However, Barnhill also mentioned that the state reports that funds are scarce, and so money for adequate salaries would be difficult to come by. Nevertheless, in the 2005 session, 9 billion dollars will be requested from the legislature to help with the growing needs of faculty and increased enrollment.

· UT-Austin published a report on the Commission of 125, a group that has been meeting regularly to draw up a plan for making UT-Austin an elite institution. Two of their suggestions were that (1) UT-Austin graduates receive their general education exclusively at UT-Austin and (2) chairs of departments should be internationally known scholars who will serve in their capacity as chairs for many years. Their recommendations run counter to the Chancellor’s vision for UT-Austin.

· According to James Bartlett, Chair of the FAC, Ashley Smith, who represents the UT System at the legislative level, is pushing hard for adequate formula funding. In addition, he is striving to receive extra money to close the “GAP”.

· In addition, Smith is striving to obtain extra money to close the “GAP”, the label that describes the educational gap between the national and the Texas average. Raymond Paredes, who heads the Coordinating Board, also spoke at length at the FAC meeting about closing the GAP. To approximate the national graduation rate, Texas needs to enroll 500,000 students by 2015. 200,000 are expected due to normal growth. An additional 300,000 are needed to bring the state to the national average. The money to do so is not there, so the state is hoping that the community colleges will be able to carry a large part of that assignment since the universities are already bursting at the seams. Paredes mentioned that the antagonism between two and four-year institutions needs to cease, as it impedes the collaboration necessary to close the GAP.

· Terry Sullivan has been charged with studying class size. She will be examining the occurrence of undergraduate classes with fewer that 10 students and graduate classes with fewer than 5 students, as such classes trigger reduced funding.

· FAC also passed several resolutions, among them (1) the request that UT components waive non-state fees and tuition for spouses and children of UT System professors. This resolution aims at making UT components more competitive in attracting and retaining quality faculty, and (2) that the same privilege be granted to faculty members who, due to certification or other requirements, need to take additional courses.

VI. Academic Standards and Records Committee Report

This committee has not yet met.

VII. Partnership Committee Reports

a. Business Affairs

Two items were reported: (1) the roofs of North and South buildings and the 8-year-old roof of SETB are leaking. The roofs are to be fixed, but in future UTB/TSC would have safeguards stipulated contractually that would hold construction companies liable for structural failures that are the result of faulty construction. (2) $129,000 savings dollars are being added to the amount already allocated to construct a training center for machinists at ITEC.

b. Institutional Effectiveness.

No report.

VIII. Academic Senate Committee Reports: Progress Reports from New

Committees

a. Memorial Fund, chaired by Steve Benton, Senator, College of Science, Math, and Technology. No report was given by the committee.

b. Guidance for Personnel Committees, chaired by David Pearson, Professor, Behavioral Sciences, College of Liberal Arts. Steve Benton made the report on behalf of Dr. Pearson. The membership of the committee is the following: Steve Benton (Mathematics), Suzanne Hardebeck (Business Administration), John McCabe (Allied Health), Sylvia Peña (Education), Olivia Rivas (Education), Rodney Sullivan (Biological Sciences), Terry Tomlin (Fine Arts). The initial meeting was held on October 21, 2004. The committee will meet bi-weekly. It was decided that the committee would consider first those issues and procedures relevant to departmental personnel committees: competitive merit, evaluation of probationary faculty, tenure, promotion, and post-tenure review. When all issues at the departmental level have been discussed, the committee will turn its attention to personnel issues at the college/school level.

b. Faculty Rank, Title, and Standards, chaired by Therese Gallegos, Senator, College of Liberal Arts. Dr. Gallegos stated that the work of the committee would be to look at the advantages and disadvantages of technical rank to help departments decide if they would like to make greater use of this option. Dr. Gallegos’ written report contained the following points based on an interview with Jay Phillips, Dean of General Studies and Developmental Education:

· that all policies for departments to start converting instructor lines to or creating new lines for technical rank are already in place (see HOOP 7.3.5), technical rank being an option for those faculty whose teaching load consists primarily, but not necessarily exclusively, of lower-division courses

· It is a rank recognized by Regents’ Rules

· The Provost will support requests for converting lines or creating new lines for technical rank.

· SACS requires that faculty members have a master’s degree plus 18 graduate credits in their field, something that we would need to require of our technical rank faculty. In addition, a certain percentage of the faculty (approximately 25%, Dean Phillips believes) needs to have terminal degrees, a requirement that we far exceed.

· Technical rank faculty are tenure rank; they need to be evaluated each year for teaching, service, and professional development. They teach a 5-course load and are not expected to do research or publish.

· The technical ranks parallel the standard ranks: Technical Instructor, Assistant Master Technical Instructor, Associate Master Technical Instructor, and Master Technical Instructor.

· Technical rank positions need to be advertised nationally, not just on the UTB website.

.

Comments on the report came from the Dean of Health Sciences, Eldon Nelson, who expressed hope that his School has representation on this committee. Dr. Bill Davis added that the model used for technical rank was based on the clinical people in Health Sciences. Senate President Cantú said that the committee’s charge is more than just seeing if policies are in place for the technical rank. There is more work to be done. The Provost commented that structure is needed in every endeavor. Promotion and tenure are no exception. Regarding technical ranks, their approval is key to serving populations others cannot serve. In the past there has been a stigma attached to such ranks and remuneration distinctions. Great efforts have been made to dissipate these distinctions. With that said, the Provost wants us to consider the issue of rules of internal etiquette for relating to each other, suggesting that, for internal purposes only, we address each other as Professor, without distinction of professorial rank. Students would do so as well. Comments on the Provosts suggestion came from Dr. Hymson, who stated that “Professor” would be better than an overblown distinction. Dr. Gallegos said that “Professor” is sufficient to show the students that this is not high school. Dr. Boze suggested changing the title of “Instructor” for those of technical rank to “Teaching Professor”. The Provost replied that the suggestion refers to the official title for the rank and the Provost is loath to go to the Coordinating Board to change it. Dr. Boze said that there is a national trend toward this type of title and our efforts could, perhaps, get others on board. Returning to Dr. Martin’s original suggestion, Mr. Cortina stated that at Ivy League institutions, students were corrected to use “Professor”, not “Doctor”.

A motion was put forth by Dr. Hymson that it is the sense of the Senate that faculty should only be referred to as “Professor” or Mr. or Mrs., with a friendly amendment that they be only addressed as “Professor”. The motion was seconded by Mr. Welther. The motion carried. It was later stipulated that the motion refers only to faculty, and only if the faculty member is not a medical doctor, in which case his/her title should be “Doctor.”

c. Non-traditional Workload, co-chaired by Renee Rubin and John

Sutterby, Senators, School of Education. No report was given by

this committee.

IX. HOOP Policies

HOOP Section 7.5.4 Procedure for the Selection of Academic Deans (2^nd reading)

Dr. Martin, reiterated that the first two changes to the procedure are not substantive, whereas the third – that the VPAA may appoint up to two additional members to serve on the Dean’s Search Committee - is substantive, and was added to ensure diversity.

Steve Benton expressed the concern that the committee could potentially become too large, and thereby become inefficient and unwieldy. Dr. Martin stated that if, in the future, such a committee were too large, the situation could be remedied. A clarification of procedure B – 6 was asked for: Does the VPAA review all applications or only those of applicants submitted to him by the Search Committee? Dr. Martin said that it was open to interpretation. Dr. Boze stated that the VPAA should have the option to see all applications. Dr. Martin added that, when presented with a final group of applicants by the Search Committee, he might question why only a certain type of candidate was being considered.

Dr. Hymson moved to approve the changes. Dr. Gallegos seconded the motion. The

motion carried.

HOOP Section 5.1.8 Purpose and Responsibilities/Provost (2^nd reading)

Dr. Hymson asked that the Senate amend the wording of the section, removing will

in favor of shall for consistency. Further, Dr. Davis proposed that the Senate

support amending Part A – Purpose to read, The following describes generally the

purpose and responsibilities of the office of Provost, with the VPAA serving as

Provost.

Commenting as Provost, Dr. Martin stated that, while he appreciated the intent of Dr. Davis’ recommendation, changes have to be approved at all levels, including UT System. Regents Rules, however, say that faculty may have input in certain areas, but should not make requirements that might not have a chance of success at higher levels. Associating the VPAA with the office of Provost in the manner recommended for this document may be better offered as a recommendation instead of a change of HOOP.

Dr. Davis stated that we should stand and say what we think, even if ignored now or in the future. Dr. Martin replied that, if Regents Rules say that the faculty doesn’t have purview, they [the administration] want to know what the will of the Senate is anyway. Dean Phillips stated that he does not feel we have ever been ignored.

Further discussion ensued with Dr. Martin stating that he does not want the

wording to limit the flexibility of the institution to act. Dr. Hymson, asserting

that this is an administrative structure that doesn’t affect us one way or the other,

asked the Provost if he had a preference. Dr. Martin replied affirmatively,

stating again that he wants to retain the current language of flexibility. Dr. Hymson

asked for clarification of why, then, do we want the two [Provost and VPAA] tied

together. Mr Welther and Dr. Gallegos both stated that they feel most comfortable

with the VPAA as Provost because the focus of the institution is teaching, making

the VPAA the most appropriate for the post. Mr. Benton agreed, saying that a

person from academia understands academia best. Mr. Welther added that, as long

as the two offices rest with one person, he prefers that the person be an academician.

Dr. Hymson moved that HOOP 5.1.8 be approved as amended on this, the 2^nd

reading. Dr. Gallegos seconded. The motion carried.

HOOP Section 7.3.7 The University of Texas at Brownsville Academic Senate

Constitution, Article VII, Section 1B. Graduate Committee Membership (2^nd

reading)

Dr. Lackey stated that the amendment recommended is to ensure that the

Constitution is consistent with the HOOP. Dr. Hymson moved to accept the

amendment of Section 1B on this, the 2^nd reading. Dr. Peltz seconded.

The motion carried.

HOOP Section 5.2.11 Graduate Committees (1^st reading)

Dr. Lackey presenting, reminded the body that this item was distributed at

the last Senate meeting for information and discussion only. As a result,

Sections E and F reflect severe deletions.

Mr. Benton suggested that the words “Confirmation” and “Rejection” at the top

of page 2 be changed to lower case. With that, Dr. Hymson moved that we

accept the 1^st reading. Mr. Welther seconded. The motion carried.

HOOP Seciton 5.2.12 Biological, Chemical and Radiation Safety

Committee (1^st reading)

Dr. Eldon Nelson presented the 1^st reading of this initial proposal for HOOP

policy. Dr. Hymson moved to approve the proposed policy as a 1^st reading.

Dr. Gallegos seconded. The motion carried.

X. New Business

There was no new business.

XI. Provost/VPAA’s Report

The Provost’s report consisted of the following seven items:

· The visit to the Coordinating Board Committee on Wednesday, October 20, 2004 made a difference that would affect our institution for years to come. The CB staff issued a report earlier in the month that would have essentially precluded institutions such as ours from ever receiving authority to offer a doctoral degree. After testimony from UTB/TSC, the CB Committee stipulated that the report be rewritten to include greater flexibility and that an advisory board be appointed to participate in this process. Afterward, the new commissioner for Higher Education, Raymund Paredes, said he would like to see UTB/TSC go forward with a proposal for a doctorate in Education. Thanks were extended to our deans for their work in writing a detailed response to the CB. Thanks were also extended to Dr Stockton, Dr. Macari, and Dr. Lackey for going to Austin with Dr. Ragland and the Provost to verbally present our case.

· Congratulations were given to Dr. Eldon Nelson, Prof. Marty Flores, and Dr. Ariel Villanueva and the Sonography faculty on a successful visit by the accrediting body for the Sonography program. Today’s exit report was quite positive, and the institution looks forward to receiving a final report this spring.

· On Thursday, Nov. 21, 2004 a reception was held to honor the new UT-Pan Am president, Dr. Blandina Cardenas. Dr. Garcia and Dr. Cardenas pledged to work collaboratively to make the southern Valley

voice even stronger for higher education. The Provost encouraged us all to look for ways in which we can collaborate with UT-Pan Am to strengthen opportunities for our students, our institutions, and our region.

· The Steinway Series Concert featuring a Van Cliburn Gold Medalist winner, Alexander Shtarkman, would be on Saturday, Nov. 23, at 8:00 p.m. in the SETB Lecture Hall. This would be an event to help pay for the Steinway piano we purchased last year. Our music students and faculty are giving the new piano a heavy workout. The Provost expressed our appreciation for their excellent work.

· Early voting being underway, and the Provost thanked all who were working to provide bond information to students, faculty, staff, and to friends and neighbors. Prof. Ethel Cantú was heading the Faculty Bond Information effort. Profs. Cheryl Phelps and Anne Rentfro were assisting on the Neighborhood Walk Committees. As of October 22, 2004, more than 1,400 people had voted at the early voting site at North Hall. For the weekend of October 23 and 24, the Campus Information Committee organized an information campaign and was to encourage early voting at the 77 Flea Market on the Expressway from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday. A mobile early voting site would be open at the Flea Market from 9:30 a.m. t 2:00 p.m. Dr. Zelma Mata organized this effort.

· It was announced that bond materials and “I Voted” buttons would be on the tables outside the Senate chamber. We were invited to take these materials to give to friends and neighbors this weekend. “Scorpions Vote” T-shirts were also being sold by the Student Government Association and would be available for purchase at $8 for small-large, $9 for 2XL, and $10 for 3XL. There were also bracelets available for those who had voted or who planned to vote. Thanks were also extended to those who had participated in the Bond Information Forums on campus and in the community. Academic Senate President Ethel Cantú and Staff Senate President Emma Miller were lauded for having done an excellent job in organizing the Campus Forums.

· We have received a preview from the CB staff evaluator of our MS in Mathematics proposal, and we expect to receive a positive staff recommendation for the proposal. We still have not received an official letter, but all indications are positive. The Provost thanked the members of the Math Department faculty for their efforts in preparing this proposal.

· We have received encouraging reports that our ENLACE grant for outreach in Math and Science is going to be renewed for about two years, with an emphasis on working with the students from Porter, the magnet school for technology, and its feeder schools. Dr. Emir Macari, at the time of this report, was in Austin where he was serving as host for the national meeting of SACNAS, the National Association for Hispanic and Native American Scientists and Engineers.

XII. Announcements

The Senate President had four announcements:

· Campus Forums to provide information and answer questions about the bond proposal will be held in the Gorgas Board Room on the following dates: Tues. Oct. 26, 5:30-6:30 and Thurs. Oct. 28, 5:30-6:30.

· Early voting for both the general election and the TSC bond election is available at North Hall from October 18-29.

· The position of chair of the Senate Social Committee is still vacant; President Cantú encouraged anyone interested in filling the post to come forward.

· The next Academic Senate meeting is at 1 p.m. on November 19 in SETB 2548.

XIII. Adjournment

The meeting stood adjourned at 4:05 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by

Cheryl L. Phelps (substituting for Julie Larson)