The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College

The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College
Academic Senate Minutes
March 11, 2005
I.
Call to Order
Ms. Cantu called the March 11, 2005 meeting of the Academic Senate to order at 1:10 p.m. in
SETB 3rd Floor Conference Room.
Members of the Senate in attendance included: Mr. Bill Harris (ex-officio), Mr. Tom Welther
(*), Dr. Charles Dameron, Ms. Cheryl Phelps (s), Ms. Carol Collinsworth (s), Dr. Eldon Nelson,
Dr. Paul-Hermann Zieschang (s), Dr. Renee Rubin (s), Mr. Domingo Molina, Dr. Ruth Ann
Ragland, Dr. Jose Martin, Ms. Ethel Cantu (*), Dr. Therese Gallegos (s), Mr. Joe Lacher (s), Dr.
John Ronnau, Mr. Victor Fuhro, Ms. Thelma Sullivan (s), Dr. John Sutterby (s), Dr. Emir
Macari, Ms. Mabel Hockaday (s), Mr. Mahandran Rajasuriar (s), Ms. Mary Sullivan, Dr.
William C. Davis (s), and Dr. Rafael Otero.
Visitors included: Mr. Pat Wade.
II.
Review and Approval of Minutes
Ms. Cantu reported that the minutes from the February 11, 2005 Academic Senate meeting were
not available for approval at this meeting. They will be available for approval at the April 8,
2005 meeting.
III.
Presentation/Discussion: Student Evaluations
Dr. Bill Adams addressed the Senate regarding the revised instructor classroom evaluation
forms. He pointed out that the question #3 from the old form was dropped. It had been
proven that the question” The Instructor seems genuinely concerned with my progress in this
course” is clearly stacked against the larger classes were an Instructor does not get to know
students as well as they might in a smaller class. It was also brought up that the harder the
course, the lower the score for question #3. The statistics showed that 31% of the large
classes were taught by tenure track faculty, 47% of the large classes were taught by faculty
with a terminal appointment and only 22% of large classes were taught by tenured faculty.
Large classes were those of 50 students or more. The most vulnerable faculty were those
teaching the largest classes and they were generally the untenured faculty. It was finally
suggested that anyone who felt strongly about the question might want to include as an added
question. Also, the warning to students that any comments added by the students will be
seen by the Instructor was dropped as it does not leave room for the comments and the third
major change is that strongly agree would be represented by a #6 and strongly disagree
would be #0. The last standard question would allow the student to assign the Instructor a
grade. The faculty would still have the option of adding their own questions. The new forms
would be available by summer. After a lengthy discussion John Sutterby moved to accept
the new evaluation instrument. It was seconded by Bill Davis. The motion to accept the new
form passed. John Ronnau asked if students had any input on the new evaluation instrument.
It was pointed out that students had never been involved with Faculty evaluation forms. He
asked that the new instrument be taken to the Student Government for review.
IV.
Senate President’s Report
Ms. Cantu had two items in her report.
V.

TSC Board Meeting February 17, 2005- The Board first passed a resolution in memory
of Tony Carnesi, former member of the TSC Board of Trustees. The Board then heard a
briefing by Consul Juan Carlos Foncerrada Berumen about the Mexican Consulate Office
recently completed at ITECC. The Board passed a resolution requesting the creation and
submission of a bill to authorize the funding and construction of a wellness, recreation
and fitness center. This bill will be presented by Senator Eddie Lucio and must be
affirmed by the Texas legislature before construction can begin. First Southwest Co.
reported that the rating agencies gave rates of A+ and AA on the construction bonds,
citing strong and committed management team, strong economic growth, strong financial
stability, and growing student enrollment as reasons for the high ratings. The bond
interest rate of 4.14% is a historically low interest rate and will allow TSC to pay $2
million less in interest over the next 20 years than originally projected. The TSC Board
adopted the faster track bond projects timeline, voting to construct all eight projects
simultaneously over the next four years. The Board also voted to authorize the issuance
of the bonds, which must now be approved by the Texas Attorney General’s office.
Passage of the timeline and bond issuance was met with vigorous applause and
enthusiasm. The next meeting of the Board will be Tuesday, March 22.

Faculty Advisory Council Meeting March 3-4, 2005-The FAC heard reports from
Teresa Sullivan, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, about formula
funding, and campus compacts; from Barry Burgdorf, Vice Chancellor and General
Counsel about legal issues; from FAC Chair James Bartlett on FAC presentations to the
Board of Regents; from Ashley Smith, Vice Chancellor for Governmental Relations &
Policy on recent legislative developments; and from Neal Armstrong, Vice Provost for
Faculty Affairs, UT Austin, on new procedures for SACS review. I have posted
Armstrong’s PowerPoint presentation on the Academic Senate website under Reports.
The reports from the campuses included information on faculty mentoring programs and
policies for the hiring of upper level administrators.
Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) Report
There were ten items in the Faculty Advisory Council Report.
 FAC Chair James Bartlet FAC Chair James Bartlett
Presentations by FAC members to the Board of Regents were well accepted. Therese Verklan
presented on the nursing shortage, which is compounded by funding following enrollment and
funding formulas that don’t support research; Robert Nelson presented on building a database to
match students and faculty with similar research interests; James Bartlett presented on plan for
start-up funds for grants that had high scores but were not funded.
Chancellor Yudof replied to these resolutions passed by FAC at the last meeting:
Resolution re: support for mediation in disputes on campuses. Yes
Resolution re: establishing an ombudsman. Yes President can appoint, T. Sullivan would
have to approve.
Resolution re: all faculty of the Telecampus must go through the same faculty
requirements as on -campus faculty if college credit is being offered. Yes
Resolution re: tuition breaks. Will have to study costs. Remission of designated tuition is
not likely due to the expense.
Resolution re: filtering software. Supports filtering. Electronic media standards task
force developed guidelines for each campus. Campuses are free to add additional measures.
 Teresa Sullivan, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Terms for Regents Rowling, Estrada, and Hunt will end this year. The governor may extend their
terms or appoint new regents. Academic campus issues include 1) increase quality of
undergraduate experience and raise four year graduation rate; 2) use auxiliary enterprise money
to integrate living and learning by placing classrooms and faculty offices in student housing (ex:
Casey Hall at UT Arlington); 3) grow your own graduate students as graduate school enrollment
is decreasing; 4) move from campus compact (2 yr) to strategic plan (long term) with campuswide involvement and dovetail with SACS criteria. What to be concerned about in this
legislative session: 1) the teaching supplement for lower division courses taught by tenure track
or tenured faculty is under attack; 2) the textbook bill would require that everyone use the same
textbook for every core course across the state for 3 years; 3) a proposal to include textbooks in
the tax free holiday week, which is early August and creates problems about when we decide
what we will be teaching; 4) the ten percent rule is very volatile, it varies from allowing it to
apply to system, to abolishing it, to setting caps, to cutting it back to 5%, etc. ; 5) a bill to go
back to the old matrix for formula funding which is better for nursing, engineering, and arts.
 Barry Burgdorf, Vice Chancellor and General Counsel
New general counsel wants to establish open communication via website and e-distribution of
information about legal issues. He invites faculty to be “eyes and ears” and report issues and
problems to him.
His goals are to: 1) communicate regularly with everyone in the system, develop a quarterly
newsletter of relevant information; 2) practice preventive law by attacking problems before they
arise, be proactive not task based; 3) foster a mind set of creativity; and 4) further the mission
of each institution.

Susan Brown, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board
The THECB has moved to a more functional organization vs. the previous sector based
organization. Community colleges, undergraduate universities, and health schools are now under
one area. There will not be as much up front review when an institution wants to start a new
program. THECB was given an accountability directive from the Governors office in Dec. 2004.
The Board worked with presidents and chancellors to develop an annual accountability system.
Plans are to add a value-added measure, but how that will be measured has not been determined.
THECB hopes to be doing more policy and white papers based on statewide data they already
have (student data, building information, class size data and faculty. Plans are to allow faculty
access to the data to do research within FERPA guidelines.
 Ashley Smith, Vice Chancellor for Governmental Relations & Policy on Legislation
Reported these recent legislative developments and priorities for legislation: 1) restored principal
and interest on tuition revenue bonds after identifying that the legislature neglected to provide for
interest payments; 2) work to restore the 5% for non-formula funding (special items); 3) seek
funding for enrollment growth, will need 24 million for the health institutions and 5.6 million for
the academic institutions to be able to address enrollment growth; 4) create 300 more
residencies for graduate medical education, can be a strategic way of addressing part of the
Medicaid issue. Medicaid, which is 32% of the whole budget, is increasing by 12%/year and
will soon be 50% of the state budget.
 Neal Armstrong, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, UT Austin on SACS
UT Austin is preparing for a SACS review in 2008 and offers these suggestions on new
procedures for SACS review: 1) Quality Enhancement Plan – what the institution intends to do
regarding a particular area of interest. SACS will expect a report at the end of 5 years. SACS is
interested in the institution doing something to enhance it. The topic should be chosen in
discussions across campus. A&M has chosen assessment and UTEP has chosen research along
the border. 2) Campuses may want to consider completing a pre-audit to determine if there is
anything that may need a year or more to be addressed. 3) Institutional effectiveness: outcomes
based assessment. What activities or evidence do you have to show that students and faculty are
learning/doing what they need to be able to do. Document changes that need to be made, then
evaluate if the change was effective. Need to have evidence that changes implemented have led
to improvement. 4) Educational programs outcomes: Faculty should be involved in establishing
learning outcomes and evaluation. 5) Educational undergraduate programs: identify college
level competencies within general education core. 6) Faculty: must be able to show
documentation that faculty have the qualifications and credentials applicable to the field in which
they are teaching. His PowerPoint presentation is posted on the Academic Senate website under
Reports.
 Campus Reports Highlights
Institutions reported on mentoring programs for junior faculty and policies for the selection of
upper-level administrators. Most institutions do not have a mentoring program. A few have
volunteer programs with various levels of support: UT Austin, UT Arlington, & UT Dallas.
None of the institutions have policies for the selection of upper-level administrators. Other items
of interest: UT Dallas has model policy for criminal background checks on new faculty; UT
Tyler has model campus compact; UT San Antonio has space and staff for Faculty Senate;
UTMB Galveston has new faculty club.
 FAC Committee Reports
Academic Affairs heard an update from Pedro Reyes of UT System on CLAS (Collegiate
Learning Assessment System), developed by the Rand Corp, which measures critical thinking
and writing. This exam was taken by a sample of freshman at each UT system institution in the
fall and will be taken by a sample of seniors in the spring. The intent is to develop a value-added
measure. Three institutions did not have enough freshmen take the test: UT Austin, UT
Brownsville, & UT Tyler. Other committee reports offered resolutions, addressed in the next
section.
 FAC Resolutions
All resolutions were approved unanimously.
Send letter to Dr. Paredes regarding the report on graduate education across the state by the
THECB with approval and signature from all FAC members.
Sections in UT System institutions Handbooks of Operating Procedures (HOPs) that pertain to
topics in which Regents’ rules provide that the faculty shall have a major role in the governance
of their respective institutions, must be approved by the faculty governing body of that institution
before being implemented.
The FAC recommends that each campus have a written search policy for filling academic or
health related, upper-level, administrative positions (e.g. department heads, directors, deans,
provosts, VPAA). This policy should be developed jointly by the faculty governance body and
the administration, and be approved by the campus faculty governance body. This document
should identify those administrative positions on the campus that are governed by this search
policy, define what constitutes an “open” search to fill the position, specify the size and
composition of each committee, specify how search committee members are nominated and
appointed, and provide a set of General Procedures for committee operation. Irrespective of the
size of each committee, it is recommended that all academic or health related administrative
position search committees have a majority of members who are non-administrative faculty.
 To do list for the June 2005 meeting:
Regarding Course and Instructor evaluations:
1. With regards to the information obtained from the evaluations, what is considered private
information and what is considered public information?
2. Is any of the information from the evaluations posted on the web or published in some
other format? If so, what information?
3. How is the information used at each institution? For example, does it factor into merit
raises and promotions? If so, to what extent?
4. Where is the information housed after it is collected?
5. In evaluations of the faculty, is the information from the written comments used
differently from the information from the quantitative survey? If so, how is the
information weighted in either direction?
6. When are the evaluations administered during the semester?
7. Are there any alternatives to the university mandated evaluations? If so, what do they
look like and how are they used?
Faculty Quality committee requests: each campus bring policies on Sick Pool Leave (i.e., the
sharing of sick leave hours with individuals who are undergoing catastrophic illnesses). The
Committee is particularly interested in how the information regarding Sick Pool Leave is
disseminated to the faculty and staff at large.
What is your family leave policy and how is it funded (if funded)?
What is the policy at campuses to support faculty on informal inquiries from state licensure
boards?
What percentage of salary from research dollars is being required at your campus?
Under the SACS review, Neil Armstrong from U.T. Austin explained the quality enhancement
program that must be in place for the five years review for SACS accreditation. Our self study
will be in the fall of 2007.
From the Academic Affairs committee on which Ethel serves they had as a to-do list for the next
meeting:
1. Evaluation of instruction
2. Information on sick leave policy
3. State licensing boards
4. Research
Chip Dameron said that the new SACS requirements are more concerned with student
outcomes, a different requirement that before.
VI.
Academic Affairs Partnership Committee Reports
Academic Affairs Partnership Committee- ACADEMIC AFFAIRS REPORT of meeting
on Feb 24, 2005:
1. New degree offered in fall 2004 Associate of Arts in Teaching, it is being offered for
teacher’s aids and will transfer to a BA and teaching certificate. Electives are clearly
defined for all fields except business. Graduates are expected to earn between $15,000 to
$20,000.
2. Mario Diaz had organized a 3 ½ day conference in collaboration with World Year of
Physics. There will be a pool of speakers available in the area of Physics during this
conference. .
3. The Physics Circus is an outreach program from the Physics Department to the various
Brownsville schools.
4. There was enrollment update, enrollment is p 9% and if closing the gaps works in this
region as it does in the rest of the state, we should be in step with the rest of the state in
20 years. Currently, partnering with TSTC is a way to help us get there.
VII.
Academic Senate Committee Reports
A. Budget Formation Committee- BUDGET FORMATION COMMITTEE
March 2, 2005
South Hall 117
9:30 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.
ATTENDANCE: Prof. Carol Collinsworth, Prof. Nick Vallado, Prof. John McCabe
Opening Meeting: 9:30 a.m.
OLD BUSINESS:
Carol Collinsworth briefed attendees regarding their last meeting. The issues discussed were the
following:
1. Is there workload equity across campus? Are some faculty required to teach 15 hours
and others 6 hours? Should there be more uniformity? Do we want uniformity?
2. Is there release time equity and overload equity within departments , schools, and
across campus?
3. How are program directors compensated? The amount that is currently being paid
$800 has not been changed since the days of TSC. The only incentive to be a program director is
the release time involved if detailed reports are due for the program. This includes program
coordinators.
Committee recommends program directors/coordinators get release time equally across campus
and that the pay be increase to the amount designated as overload pay or more. Overload pay
needs to be increased in order to attract more part-time faculty or to encourage current faculty to
teach a heavier course load.
4. How are both pay and release time figured for the department chairs? In the early days
it was a given that all chairs were to be given 6 hours per semester release time. This rule has
since changed, therefore, the committee recommends department chairs be given a minimum of
six-hour release time. Chair pay should be adjusted periodically to keep up with other faculty
pay rates. Chair pay if ignored becomes a disincentive for taking the chair job. Currently, some
faculty that teach summers can make more money in one session than the chair makes by being
here two and teaching only one course.
5. How can faculty participate in the budget formation? How can they be involved in the
budgeting process? Getting faculty interested in the budget would require budgets to
have more money to spend on travel, equipment, etc. in order for faculty to show an interest in
where the money is spent.
6. Are faculty informed as to how much money is available in the departmental budget
and
how this is spent? There is usually just enough or not quite enough to make it through
the school year to buy essentials.
Committee decided the faculty should be involved in this process how to get them involved is
still a question.
The committee recommends these items be addressed before putting together a budget.
NEW BUSINESS:
Prof. Collinsworth asked committee members as to what other items should be addressed.
Committee recommends they consider summer school pay and how it’s figured. Consideration
on the differences between first summer session and second summer session pay should also be
reviewed. It would be easier to fill vacancy in the summer II if pay were equal for all summer
school classes taught. Another alternative would be for faculty to be allowed to teach two of the
three semesters with a full load being taught each of two semesters. The proposal would state
that the faculty have a choice of teaching the spring semester and summer sessions towards their
full pay. Prof. Vallado explained this proposition was brought up years before and
administration tabled the issue stating it would not work with our current payroll procedures.
The School of Educations would be most affected by this policy.
Travel allocation and maintenance & operation budget should also be reviewed.
OTHER BUSINESS:
The new teaching positions were discussed. It would be interesting for the Vice President to
address the Senate to explain how new faculty are allocated to the different departments. Prof.
Vallado also suggests Prof. Collinsworth bring the faculty sick leave procedures to the attention
of the senate. Sick leave is to be charged by half or whole days when the faculty member misses
due to illness or other acceptable reason for absence. Some individuals can actually be charged
12 hours sick leave for being out one day. Is the policy applied equally across campus and what
happens to sick leave when a person retires? Is it possible to use it the last year before
retirement?
The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 A.M.
B. Environmental Responsibility Committee Report- Mr. Wade reported that the committee
was formed by Academic Senate President Ethel Cantu during Fall 03. It reported to the
Academic Senate December 03 on its work and findings. A resolution was then adopted by the
Senate per recommendations of the report. In May 04 a report was presented to the TSC Board
by the committee on its findings. At that time, Ms. Breedlove, TSC Board member, asked that
the Administration & Partnership Committee meet with committee members to ascertain
recommendations.
Three meetings have taken place with faculty, administration, and staff. These conversations
have given the faculty on the committee an opportunity to have an impact and hopefully
influence the outcomes of things like Resaca habitat destruction, preservation and restoration.
There has been no real conversation in the other ER areas of recycling and energy conservation.
At this point in time, it is the understanding of committee members participating in these
meetings that the following will occur:
 The administration seems committed to preserving as much natural habitat as possible
around the Resaca De Las Palmas while continuing to plan and build our campus.


The College Park grant plan is to provide for environmentally friendly access to Resaca
de Las Palmas frontage in front of and adjacent to the new Education / Business Complex
while enhancing Ft. Brown Resaca frontage. The College Park will be designed to try to
have as little impact on the naturalness of these areas as possible.
Participating committee members will have input on updating the Master Plan Palette
(Landscape Master Plan, Appendix A, pp. 44-45.
1. The updated palette will remove most non-native species except in the areas
where such plants are used for demonstration purposes only.
2. Invasive non-native species, such as Brazilian Pepper and non-native Ruella, and
others when identified, will be totally avoided.
3. More native species that are conducive to minimal maintenance will be added to
the palette.
The committee has also been informed of 2 interesting facts:
 The Resaca boundary on the North side of Resaca De Las Palmas, which is the area
adjacent to the LHS and Student Center and across from the new Ed/Bus Complex,
extends up to 60 feet into the existing campus area. This property is under the jurisdiction
of IBWC and will be maintained and hopefully expanded as a natural area.
 The low area in between Elizabeth and the “land bridge” across Resaca De Las Palmas is
a designated wetland and will remain a natural area.
The committee submitted a report of suggested changes to the Campus Master Plan Palette to
include more native plants and to delete plants not suitable. That report is in the Appendix to
these minutes.
VIII.
HOOP Policy 7.5.1- “Selection of Department Chairs and Academic Program
Directors
There was a discussion as to the required 2/3 quorum for a vote. Various items discussed was
the number of faculty eligible for a quorum, the length of time available for nominations and
then to vote. It was pointed out by Domingo Molina that faculty can be absent from campus for
a week at a time or if during breaks from school even longer. Finally it was the consensus that a
week should be changed to 10 working days and that elections not be held when faculty were
away from campus. If no chair was elected, the Dean would have the option of appointing an
interim chair for no more than a stated period of time until an election could be held. The second
reading of HOOP 7.5.1 was passed with the change from one week to ten working days for the
election.
IX.
New Business
There was one item of “New Business”.

John Sutterby and Renee Rubin are representatives from the School of Education.
Both of their terms are on the same two year rotation. They asked if one of the terms
could be cut to a one year term and the other stay on a two year term so that there was
continuity on the Senate for the School of Education.
X.
Provost’s Report
There were ten items in Dr. Martin’s report.

John Ronnau is forming a task force to address transportation needs on campus. It is
a fact that there will never be enough parking where it is needed at any given time.
Therefore, the task force will look into pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic, the possible
use of a shuttle from different parking areas and how traffic will flow on campus.
It was announced that due to the new bond package, parking will be increased
by 1200 spaces. The new pedestrian bridge connecting the School of
Business and Education building with the main campus will be strong enough
to support a golf cart. There is the possibility of construction a bridge from
the Village to the main campus. One question raised was that of hampering
any return of the sailing classes if the bridge was built. It would be built in
such a way as to allow sailing to be reinstated. It was also reported that three
more lots had been purchased on Jackson Street for more parking spaces to be
built.

Julie Larson’s absence was explained by the Provost. She was attending a conference
in Denver along with Linda Fossen and Hilda Silva to gather information that will
help us write our Title V grant next year.

We are now in the process of completing a cooperative Title V grant proposal with
TSTC. The grant will focus on the BAT and BAAS degrees to encourage both
traditional and non traditional students who complete technical degrees to continue
with a four year degree.

The day of our Senate meeting there was a Texas Senate Subcommittee on Emerging
Technologies and Economic Development on Campus. Senator Eddie Lucio and the
Chair of the committee Senator Corona presided over the hearing. Testimony on our
important role for a future biomedical industry in South Texas was presented by Dr.
Emir Macar, Dean of the College of Science, Math, Technology and Dean Jim Holt
of Workforce and Continuing Education.

Dr. Garcia is working hard for us in Austin (thank goodness) and many on campus
are helping compile information for her and Dr. Tony Zavaleta. If someone should
call you to request information please comply and this information may make a huge
difference in our funding for the next biennium.

Dr. Garcia also attended a meeting with the UT Regents on Tuition and Fees. Both
will be raised for the fall of 2005. There will be a $5.00 increase in designated
tuition, a $20.00 student health fee and a $2.00 International Student fee. There will
be a flat fee of $2000 for anyone taking 15 credit hours or more. Hopefully, this will
encourage students to take a heavier load. We are still the lowest cost in the UT
system, only UTPA is lower in that their tuition is capped at 14 hours, but their other
fees are higher.
The new fees will be used to hire 14 new faculty and for a new work study
program as money from the federal government has been frozen for a few
years. Work study positions will increase by 70-100 students. Program is
contingent on increased student success for graduation. The idea behind this is
that if students are employed on campus for 16 to 18 hours per week they can
take more classes and graduate sooner. The program will start in Sept. and
departments may request the positions at that time.

The Provost further reported that all nominees for the Border Doc loan repayment
program have been conditionally approved by the Coordinating Board. They will
receive $5,000 toward their educational loans if they complete their contracts this
academic year.

There was a Science Fair on campus and all those involved as judges, etc. their help
was greatly appreciated. There were approximately 350 projects brought in by our
local school children.

There is currently three searches going, one for the Dean of Liberal Arts, one for the
Vice President of Institutional Advancement/Institutional Effectiveness and for the
Dean of the School of Business.

Construction was on a turbo charged construction schedule. Security lighting and
emergency phones will be major purchases. Magnetic Cards will be available for the
new School of Business and Education. There will be security cameras in the new
parking areas.

New faculties are assigned to dept. and schools by growth in those respective areas.
This year assignments were done by critical need for departments.
Strategic needs of the institution will also be considered. A new way to
explore allocation may depend on new programs being supported for up to 4
years and then being on their own. If programs are successful the university
would make a commitment to fund it in the future. Currently enrollment of
less than 10 students per class is scrutinized. Some classes that fall under this
scrutiny are the ESL classes where only those students seeking academic
credit are counted. Those taking it for non credit are assigned to external
affairs. If these courses are taken for academic credit they do not count
toward the max of 27 hours available for remedial students.
XI.
Announcements
There were three announcements.
XI.

Ms. Thelma Sullivan announced that the University was trying to hire an Immigration
attorney to help faculty and staff get proper immigration papers.

Ms. Cantu announced that the deadline for voting for Academic Senate executive officers
and senators is April 1, 2005. Direct any questions about the election process to Tom
Welther, who is conducting the election.

Ms. Cantu also announced that the next Academic Senate meeting is at 1 pm on April 8,
2005 in SETB 3rd Floor Conference Room.
Adjournment
The meeting stood adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
APPENDIX
Suggested Changes to the Campus MP Palette
Submitted by JP Wade, Chair- Environmental Responsibility Committee / Academic Senate
2/25/05
Large Trees:
Live Oak
N-D; heavy shading will only allow low light understory
Bur Oak
N-D
Cedar Elm
N-D; great tree; nesting material for Altimara Oriole
Montezuma Bald Cypress
N-E; should be planted as close to resacas as possible
Texas Pecan
N-D; great food source for Red-crowned Parrots and Gree
Parakeets
(Carya illinoinensis)
Texas Persimmon
N-D; great looking tree when mature
Coma del Sur
N-E; should be used for fragrance only; heavily thorned
Rio Grande Ash
N-E; great shade tree; llok at trees by Morgue
(Los Fresnos)
Weeping Fig
DELETE
Jacaranda
N-E; very thorny but very showy in bloom
Royal Poinciana
Non-native; use only for demo purpose of flowers
ADD:
Sugar Hackberry (Celtis laevigata)
N-E 50’; fast grower; low water; 30 yrs; wildlife;
shade
Huisache (Acacia smallii)
N-D 25’; low-mod water; 30-50 yrs; fragrant
yellow blooms; thorns
Anaqua (Ebretia anacua)
N-E 40’; slow grower; low water; 50+ yrs;
white flowers; fruit for
wildlife
Honey Mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa)
N-D 25’; med grower; low-mod water; 50+
yrs; light shade
Southern Magnolia (Magnolia gradiflora) Non-E for demo only
Tepequaje (LEucaena pulverulenta) N-D; 40’; fast grower; moderate water; 30-50 yrs;
wildlife; light
shade
Black Willow (Salix nigra)
N-E; 60’; fast grower; high water, near resacas best;
30-50 yrs
Texas Ebony (Pithecellobium ebano)
N-E; 40’; slow grower; 50+ yrs; white
flowers; thorns
Retama (Parkinsonia aculeate)
N-D 25’; fast grower; 30 year life span; low
– mod water; thorns;
yellow flowers
Palo Verde (Cercidium macrum)
Ash (Los Fresnos) Ash (Los Fresnos) N-E;
10’; yellow flowers; food
source
Small Trees
Mexican Olive
N-E; showy but trashy; keep away from walkways,etc.
Mexican Cesalpinia Non-N; demo only
Texas Mountain Laurel
N-E; fragranceUse Bottlebrush only for demo (red flower)
Sabal Palm (Sabal texana) N-E; 50’; slow grower; low water; 50+ yrs; cold tolerant
Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Non-E; 60’; slow grower; low water; 50+
yrs; freeze damage
Large Palms
Texas Sabal (Sabal texana)
N; slow grower; next to Resaca; needs water
California Fan Palm (Washingtonia filifera) Delete from list
Mexican Fan Palm (Washingtonia robusta) Non-n; good nesting site for
parrots/parakeets
All other palms:
Delete from pallete, or use for demo purpose
only
Small Palms
All small palms are for demonstration only
Shrubs
Dwarf Oleanders
Standard Oleander
Dwarf Yaupon Holly
Dwarf Pittosporum
Sage Cenizo
Bougainvillea
Bird of Paradise
Yucca varieties
Hibiscus varieties
Lantana varieties
horrida, L.
Shrimp plant
Rose varieties
Hamellia
Duranta
Ixora varieties
Gardenia varieties
Blue daze
African Iris
Plumgabo
Liriope varieties
Firecracker Bush
hummingbirds
Barbados Cherry
food
Natal Plum
Fountain Grass var.
Coral Honeysuckle
Indian Hawthorne
Ginger Varieties
Dwarf Poinciana
Dracena var. (Thai)
Croton var.
DELETE
DELETE
Non-native; use Desert Yaupon-N (Shafferia cuneifolia)
Demo only
Native; blooms after rainfall; showy blooms; 6’
Demo only; thorns; showy foliage; no foodsource
Demo only
Use native (Yucca treculeana)
Demo only for non-N; native hibiscus/rose mallow;
(Hibiscus martianus)
Use Natives (Lantana achyranthifolia, L. camara, L.
macropoda, L. microcephala, L. scrota); butterflies; hybrids
typically produce no foodsource, only color
Native (Beloperone guttata) butterflies, hummingbirds
Demo only
Non-native; showy red blooms; hummingbirds
Non-native; profuse grower; butterflies & insects
DELETE
Demo only; fragrance
DELETE
DELETE
Native not recommended; skin irritation; non-native Demo only
???????
Non-N, but great border shrub; showy red flowers;
Use N only; 3-6’; E; produces pink flowers and red fruit;
Red Banana/var.
DELETE, or demo only
DELETE, or demo only
??????? vine
Non-N; demo only; great border, but slow grower; part shade
Non-N; demo only; shade to part shade
Non-N; demo only
Non-N; demo only
Most non-N; demo only; N: Cr. Humilis- host for Tropical
Leafwing
Non-N; demo only; good food source
ADD:
Chile Piquin
Spiny hackberry
Yellow Sophora
N; (Capsicum annuum); 3-5’; food source for birds
N; (Celtis pallida) thorny; good food source
N; (Sophora tomentosa) 4-6’; yellow flowers
Mountain Torchwood N; (Amyris madrensis) 4-6’; fragrance; small white flowers
Resin Bush
N; Golden Eye; showy yellow flower; 3’
Wild Petunia
N; (Petunia parviflora); 1-3’; showy purple flower; don’t use
non-N, too invasive
Wild Tobacco
N; 2-3’; white flower
Blue Mistflower
N- SPI species; 2-4’ bush; butterflies
Fiddlewood
N; 3-6’; red fruit
Lotebush
N; (Zisiphus obtusifolia); thorns, but full green shrub
Ground Cover
Ruellia var.
Asian Jasmine
Asparagus Fern
Wedelia
drought resistant
Confederate Jasmine
Dwarf Bougainvillea
Pothoys Aureus
over time
Rhoeo
Day Lilies
Salvia
Vinca var.
Verbena
var.
Beaked Vervain- Ver.
Use N only; others are too invasive; see Shrub listing
DELETE; non-N; demo only
Non-N; demo only
Use N (Wedelia hispida); 3’; flowers yellow/orange;
Non-N; demo only
DELETE
DELETE; Invasive vine; needs lots of water; destroys brick
DELETE
Demo only; great color; many varieties
Use N only (Salvia ballotaeflora- Blue sage; Salvia coccinea- Red)
DELETE; non-N
Use N var. only (Dakota Vervain- Verbena bipinnatifida,
Quadrangulata, Hillside Vervain- Ver. Neomexicana, Rio Grande
Vervain- Ver. Runyonii)
ADD:
Parralena
Pink Mint
Scarlet Pimpernell
Powderpuff
Mexican Hat
Indian Blanket
Golden Wave
Palafoxia
Hierba de Marrano
Lazy Daisy
Texas Frog Fruit
Heliotrope
Vines
Annuals-flowering
N; (Thymophylla pentachaeta); showy yellow flower
N; (Stachys drummondii); showy
N; (Anagallis arvensis); showy scarlet flower
N; (Mimosa strigillosa); showy pink flower
N; (Ratibida columnaris); showy flower; full sun
N; (Gaillardia pulchella); showy flower; full sun
N; (Coreopsis tinctoria); showy yellow flower; full sun
N; 2 varieties (Pal. texana, Pal. ambigua); purple flowers
N; (Aster subulatus); violet-white flower
N; (Aphanostesus ramosissimus); white flower; full sun
N; (Phyla nodiflora); great butterfly plant
N;(Heliotropium angiospermum); white flower; butterflies
Fig Vine
DELETE
English Ivy
DELETE
Bougainvillea sp.
DELETE
Mexican Flame/Love V.
non-N, but very showy and good for butterflies
Butterfly Pea Vine
N; (Centrosema virginianum); showy purple flower
Cape Honeysuckle non-N; flowers, insect food source
Snail Vine
??????
Malay Vine
DELETE; demo only
Mandevilla
DELETE; demo only
Pandora Vine
DELETE
Passion Vine
use N. sp. Only; (Corona de Cristo- Passiflora foetida; Pass.
Filipes; Pass. Suberosa;
Pass. Tenuiloba)
Allamanda
DELETE; demo only
Climbing Rose var. non-N; demo only; N sp. Zarzamora (Rubus trivialis); food source
Hyacinth Bean
DELETE
ADD:
Blue Boneset
Balloon Vine
Morning Glory
Moon Flower
Oja de Vibora
N; Blue mistflower; butterflies; also different species on SPI
makes more of a bush
N; (Cardiospermum halicacabum); food source
N; (Ipomoea amnicola); pinkish flower
N; (Ipomoea alba); large white flower
N; (Evolvulus alsinoides); small purple flower