U.T. System Seal links to U.T. System Home Bar graphic with photo of professor. The University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council
 

 

Home

Guidelines

Committees

Membership

Meetings

Minutes

Travel for FAC

Academic Affairs

Employee
Advisory Council

Student
Advisory Council

 

 

The University of Texas System
Faculty Advisory Council

Meeting Minutes: June 27 - 28, 1996

<back to index>

I. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 10:08 am by Chair, Lynn Little, who welcomed everyone to the meeting. Everyone introduced themselves for the benefit of the new members.

II. Executive Committee Report/Minutes Approval

Executive Committee meeting minutes will be forth coming. Lynn shared two letters from the Chancellor with the Council. One concerned the appointment of tribunals, with suggested changes to the FAC's recommendation regarding this matter. Governance will be asked to review the suggested changes. The second letter concerned a possible change to the Academic Workload Requirement for academic campuses. Academic Affairs will be asked to review this matter. The Executive Committee set the agenda to include legislative issues that have been proposed by the Senate Education Subcommittee. The minutes of the February Meeting were approved (Friday morning) as distributed.

III. Campus Reports

A. UT Arlington - John Beehler distributed a written report and then summarized the following issues:

1) low enrollment causing a budget crisis;
2) resignations by a number of upper-level administrators;
3) faculty forums on distance learning; and
4) grievance procedures and guidelines for promotion and tenure.

B. UT Austin - Reuben McDaniel distributed a written report and then summarized the following issues:

1) election of officers of the Faculty Council;
2) development policies;
3) undergraduate student admissions;
4) student progress toward degrees; and
5) assessment of the new Faculty Council.

C. UT Brownsville - Bill Davis gave an oral report to minimize the environmental impact including the following:

1) search and hiring of two deans and a VPAA;
2) music bachelors program has been deferred;
3) budget review;
4) fee increases; and
5) budget shortfall.

D. UT Dallas - James Bartlett distributed a written report and then summarized the following issues:

1) faculty development leaves;
2) expanded recognition of excellence in teaching; and
3) formal review of an administrator (a dean). The Provost felt that broad input was helpful. He also was concerned about confidentiality of material collected. The process was labor intensive.

E. UT El Paso - Art Bronson gave an oral report which included that:

1) UTEP has successfully completed the review by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), although the university now faces the challenge of implementing 22 recommendations, especially those based on performance issues, and
2) UTEP must determine the impact of its enrollment resulting from New Mexico's waiver of out-of-state tuition for students located near, but outside the New Mexico border. As a result of the waiver, students residing in El Paso, Texas will be allowed to pay in-state tuition to attend New Mexico State University located 45 miles from El Paso in Las Cruces, NM.

F. UT Pan American - Gerald Brazier gave an oral report which included:

1) SACS accreditation and
2) split of Arts and Sciences College into three colleges and recruitment of new deans. Samuel Freeman distributed a copy of an article on Freeport-McMoRan.

G. UT Permian Basin - Roger Olien gave an oral report which included:

1) off the AAUP censure list;
2) new academic vice president selected and faculty were involved;
3) evaluation of administrators; and
4) distance learning.

H. UT San Antonio - Betty Travis distributed a written report and then summarized the following issues:

1) grievance policy;
2) developmental leave policy;
3) workload policy ;
4) evaluation of administrators;
5) lack of approval of bylaws of the newly created Division of Mathematics and Statistics and therefore, lack of Division Director; and
6) lawsuit won by a faculty member concerning sex discrimination.

Q - Should the FAC ask the Chancellor to look into areas of campus unrest and administrative problems?

A - The FAC should help focus attention on problem areas to aid in resolution of the problems.

Faculty Governance Committee will be asked to review the report from UTSA and make recommendations.

Lynn Little distributed an article on Faculty Satisfaction.

I. UT Tyler - Pat Gajda gave an oral report which included:

1) faculty roles;
2) construction;
3) library improvements; and
4) faculty development leave.

J. UT Southwestern Medical Center - Lyman Bilhartz distributed a written report and then summarized the following:

1) grievance policy;
2) evaluation of administrators; and
3) salary vs productivity of faculty vs years of service. Tenure at Southwestern means a guarantee of 75% of a core" salary.

K. UT Medical Branch - Bets Anderson gave an oral report which included:

1) 6% budget cuts;
2) participation in community clinics; and
3) trying to receive approval for doctoral degree in nursing. Richard Rahr reported that Dr. Anderson received the Mustard Seed award which is very prestigious.

L. UT HSC Houston - James Berry distributed a written report and then summarized the following:

1) grievance of promotion and tenure;
2) policy for transferring faculty between schools with tenure; and
3) review of the TFA meeting. (Jerry Polinard referred to the latest TFA Bulletin.)

M. UT HSC San Antonio - Nancy Girard gave an oral report which included:

1) international travel;
2) director of distance learning; and
3) many open key" chair positions and soon to start a dean search for the school of nursing.

It was noted that international travel can be funded, but only under very specific conditions.

N. UT M.D. Anderson - Jay Freireich distributed a written report and then summarized the following:

1) new president Dr. John Mendelsohn and process used in search;
2) tenured Associate Professor terminated for cause after filing a grievance under the new grievance policy. Recommendations by the Grievance Committee were ignored. The Senate was allowed to appoint a member to the tribunal, but this process may be far from adequate for reaching a fair conclusion.

O. UT Health Center Tyler - Kent Davis summarized a written report presented to the secretary, which included the following:

1) grievance policy and
2) new clinic building. Cathy Wu added information about the Research Faculty Assembly which is still being developed. The representative to the FAC will now be elected.

IV. Appointment of Tribunals

Francie Frederick addressed the Chancellor's recommendations regarding Regent's Rules 6.33 (appointment of tribunals). Important points are that faculty input into the process of selection of faculty for tribunals could occur in 1 of 3 ways. Governance will review the specific options and make recommendation to the FAC. The FAC needs to work toward a compromise that the Chancellor will accept and still accomplish the FAC's goal. The Chancellor currently supports the presidents appointing the tribunal.

V. Report on Committee on Advancement of Women

Ivor Page reported that the Committee hasn't met for some time. Issues which will come to the FAC include: 1) tenure clock time out"and 2) mid tenure review. Don't know if the Committee will continue to meet or what the response to the Committee's recommendation will be. It was pointed out that these are important issues and shouldn't be put on the back burner.

VI. Hopwood vs. U.T. Austin

Francie Frederick first addressed the Chancellor's letter recommending a change to the workload policy that would make it a part of the Regent's Rules. Francie then summarized the Hopwood vs UT Law School case and the broad ramifications of the ruling by the 5th Circuit Court. The Board of Regents have asked the Supreme Court to consider an appeal, but the Board is not in unanimous agreement on affirmative action. The Supreme Court could refuse to hear it on the basis of UT admitting to some errors in their admissions procedures. It was pointed out that if the Supreme Court takes the case, Clarence Thomas may have to recluse himself since he was involved in the UT admissions procedure (although, based on his record thus far, he may not do so). The 5th Circuit's ruling still leaves ways to achieve diversity, so it was pointed out that the sky has not fallen" yet. It was also pointed out, that regardless of the outcome, affirmative action will probably not be the same in the future. (Since our meeting, the Supreme Court decided to let the 5th Circuit Court's decision stand.)

VII. Ratliff Proposal, Legislative Issues, etc.

Tom Scott reviewed the recent recommendations adopted by the Senate Education Committee and then opened the floor for comments and questions. Of particular importance is the establishment of a faculty evaluation policy which would include annual review of the performance of all faculty.

Below standard evaluation in two consecutive years could provide cause for termination of a tenured faculty member. The UT System currently has an annual review in place which may or may not meet the proposed requirements.

Steve Ogden, a legislator, has initiated a meeting with faculty. It was pointed out that the wording of the recommendation allows sub standard performance in research to be grounds for removal. The wording also doesn't specify the process to be used. We need to be actively involved in determining the outcome.

Mr. Scott suggested that the Senate Education Committee staff be asked to meet with the FAC in Sept. Policies for higher vs lower education may need to be different, but both need to be held accountable. A&M is currently developing a policy, but their emphasis seems to be on what can be done to improve faculty who receive poor evaluations. Current climate with corporations downsizing, is a move to hold everyone more accountable with a focus on evaluation processes.

Mr. Scott pointed out that the Committee seems to place high value in tenured faculty, but wants adequate tenure review. If we don't take care of it, then they will. The system may be in place, but isn't used very effectively in some cases. Maybe they need to focus on administrators who are not doing their job. We need to educate the legislators as well as the public. Communication is really the key. Compensation needs to be tied to performance to give incentive to faculty to do a better job. Our annual review must include quality control while still protecting academic freedom. This issue may soon be openly discussed in the press. It was noted that for tenure to be abolished, it would have to be done everywhere at the same time. Otherwise, faculty would go to those institutions who offered tenure.

Mr. Scott does not feel that the Senate Education Committee is trying to get rid of tenure. We need to be proactive in making sure that tenure doesn't disappear. A good, fair review process could help preserve tenure rather than hurt it. Tenure helps protect the diversity of knowledge and helps knowledge move forward. An article from the Houston Chronicle gives some background on Senator Ratliff's motives in this issue. The question was raised as to whether tenure really was still alive at our medical schools. Some would argue that it is and should be. It was commented that if not tenure, then perhaps unions are the answer.

Mr. Scott also addressed the recommendation that control of tuition rates be shifted to the Boards of Regents. Along with this, is the removal of the general use fee. This may or not be an issue that could pass the legislature.

Mr. Scott offered to work with the Executive Committee in whatever way the FAC would like to proceed in an effort to educate the Senate Education Committee on these matters. The Executive Committee will discuss the best way to proceed.

VIII. Election of Committee Co-Chairs

Discussion ensued of when committee co-chairs should be elected. It was suggested that they not be elected until the Sept. meeting. There was general agreement to this idea, but after later discussion it was decided that chairs should be elected at this meeting. Also, the Council considered the need for changes to the bylaws in certain areas such as election procedures. It was moved and seconded that the wording in the bylaws be changed to reflect the requirement of a simple majority. The candidate receiving a majority will be elected. If no candidate receives a majority, the smallest group receiving a majority of the votes cast will have a runoff election." The motion passed. A motion was also made, seconded and passed to hear from the candidates for chair-elect at this time (after a 5 minute break).

Each candidate for chair-elect made a short presentation.

IX. Committee Meetings (Dr. Guckian to meet with Health Affairs) The Council adjourned to committee meetings.

X. Andersen Consultants

The meeting resumed at 8:42 am with Dr. Mario Gonzalez from UT System introducing Brad Englert from Andersen Consulting to discuss information technology. Their goals are:

1) to identify the System-wide information technologies, services, and delivery mechanisms necessary for the UT System Administration and the components to achieve their basic missions;
2) to identify possible organizational structures needed to enable the effective implementation of System-wide information technologies, services and delivery mechanisms; and
3) to estimate capital and operational costs associated with such an implementation.

The project is right on schedule, with data being collected through focus groups and interviews. The final results should be available early fall. Input has been sought from a wide variety of people throughout the UT System.

Key opportunities that have been identified are: (For Academic and Health Components) Telecommunications Infrastructure, Distance Learning, Multimedia Educational Information Delivery, Enhanced Research and Workgroup Collaboration, Knowledge Management; (For Health Components) Telehealth, Shared Clinical Research and Outcome Information, Support for Managed Care; (For Administrative Processes) Next Generation Learner Information Systems, UT Smart Identification Card, Common Data Warehouse, Shared Financial Support Systems; and (For IT Support) Shared IT Training, Shared Procurement of IT Assets.

Q - How can you be sure the data is accurate?

A - The source of data will have to be analyzed and authenticated.

Q - Is this whole process truly realistic for the whole UT System due to the expense?

A - Everything doesn't have to be multimedia or distance learning, these are just some tools to use. Training and support of faculty must be an integral part of the plan if it is going to be successful.

Q - What will be the specific recommendations?

A - Will recommend that every faculty have some type of Internet access device and that the appropriate infrastructure and support is available. Also, will recommend that a number of Telehealth facilities are set up.

Q - There appears to be an increased centralization of power, is this true?

A - Directions should be decided by each campus or groups working together. There may be some System-wide decisions as well as some that are localized to particular campuses.

Q - Will communication within campuses as well as between campuses be facilitated?

A - Access needs to be available at all levels and locations where needed.

Q - What will prevent this new system from being burdensome?

A - we need to make sure that doesn't happen.

Q - Who will bear the cost of upgrades?

A - Different sources will have to be identified.

Information is available on the project home page: http://www.utsystem.edu/TIF/infotech.htm (No longer a working link)

XI. Teaching Effectiveness Survey

Lynn Little called the meeting back into regular session and introduced Dr. Art Hernandez to discuss the Teaching Effectiveness Survey. A draft report of the survey will be distributed to the Academic Affairs Committee today and a copy to the full FAC membership later this summer. A copy of the Executive Summary was distributed to the FAC. Dr. Hernandez reviewed how teaching data is utilized across the System and the results of the survey. Teaching is felt to be undervalued compared to research or service for promotion, tenure or merit decisions. Students agree that most teachers seem sincerely interested in doing a good job teaching". Administrators believe that teaching is rewarded, but faculty do not agree. The definition of quality teaching" is not universally agreed upon by administrators, faculty and students.

Dr. Hernandez made the following recommendations:

1) the evaluation of teaching should begin with a systematic effort to define the construct;
2) given the nature of the construct, all constituents (faculty, students and administrators) should participate in defining it;
3) teaching is a multidimensional construct and as such, multiple and diverse indicators should be used in teaching evaluation;
4) the construction of instrumentation should follow standard psychometric procedures;
5) each campus should establish consistent, formal practices; and
6) outcomes of the evaluation of faculty should be made available to students as well as faculty and administrators.

XII. Committee Meetings (Dr. Hernandez to meet with Academic Affairs) The Council adjourned to committee meetings and was asked to elect new officers for the committees.

XIII. Chancellor's Address

Dr. Cunningham addressed the FAC concerning the UT strategy going into the next legislative session. Last session, no new money went into formula funding, but rather to special items. The current theme is to put any new money into the formulas which fund the basics. This could mean a lot of money to a lot of schools, but the UT System must be joined by the other systems for this to work. Everyone will be asked to sign a letter asking that money be put first into the formulas and only into special items once the formulas are taken care of. Formula funds are received based on formulas, but are then unrestricted. The health institution need a similar influx of new money that is unrestricted, since they are not covered by formula funding. The local campuses will decide how the money is used (i.e. salaries, etc.). One of the problems is that the legislature responds to the problems of the day" and we can't really claim there is a crisis" in higher education. We do however, need more resources and can justify those needs. We will show the legislature that if you give us money, these are the kinds of things we can do (libraries, etc.).

Q - Couldn't the problem of managed care be considered a crisis?

A - We do have a significant problem in how we deal with managed care, but its hard to claim that it is a crisis. Places where we own our own hospitals are of the most concern.

Q - Is the goal to increase salaries to within the 10 most populous states real or pie in the sky?

A - They are real. We are close to being competitive, but we need to keep working on it.

Q - Do you still support faculty senates?

A - Yes, and I will encourage the presidents of campuses where they don't exist to facilitate such organizations.

Q - How will the System respond to the move to tie two poor evaluations to tenure removal?

A - We have sent a letter to Senator Ratliff documenting the types of evaluation we use. Our peer evaluations may not be as extensive as we would like. Tenure is difficult to defend to those outside of education, but that doesn't mean that it will go away.

Q - The legislative staff does not seem to know much about academic vs health care institutions. Should faculty be more involved?

A - In general, we would prefer that faculty not interact with the legislature on their own, but it can be beneficial if organized (i.e. campus tours, etc.).

Q - Do you support the removal of the general use fee?

A - No, we need a flexible fee system to be able to deal with local campus needs, however, we need to communicate what those fees are to the students. By this fall, we will have a one page handout to give to students that will fully explain the fees.

Q - When will the issue concerning removing of faculty with tenure" go to the Board of Regents?

A - It will go in August.

Q - Why should presidents pick the members of a tribunal which will ultimately give advice to the president?

A - The presidents are held responsible with what goes on at the institution and therefore should have some control over the appointment of advisory groups. The faculty should play a role, but not have veto power.

Q - Couldn't a panel be selected that was agreed upon by both the faculty and administration?

A - I would support that type of idea and we would be happy to study that issue.

Q - Since the tribunal is charged with providing the Regents with a peer review opinion, shouldn't there be some separation from the president?

A - That sounds like a reasonable idea, but I don't want the panels to be divisive.

Q - What is the Systems position on distance learning legislation?

A - We don't want the individual campuses competing with each other.

XIV. Elections (Chair-Elect, Secretary)

Elections were held for the position of Chair-elect, with four nominees (James Berry, Jay Freireich, Ted Pate and Mike Siciliano). A runoff was then held between Mike Siciliano and Ted Pate. Mike Siciliano was elected as the Chair-elect. Jay Freireirch and Ted Pate were nominated for Secretary. Ted Pate was elected to serve as Secretary.

XV. Committee Reports

A. Governance Committee

The new co-chairs are John Beehler and Betty Travis. The Committee has made some revisions to the proposed changes to RR 6.33 which would require that at least 50% of the members of a tribunal be appointed from a panel selected by the faculty governance organization or committee as follows:

6.33 In cases where other offenses are charged, and in all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused faculty member will be informed in writing of the charges. If the chief administrative officer determines that the nature of the charges and the evidence are such that it is in the best interest of the institution, the accused faculty member may be suspended with pay pending the completion of the hearing and final decision by the Board.[] On reasonable notice, the charges will be heard by a special hearing tribunal of at least three persons whose academic rank is at least equal to that of the accused faculty member. The hearing tribunal members are [] appointed by the chief administrative officer. At least 50% of the tribunal members will be appointed from a pane selected by a procedure established by the faculty governance organization, or, absent a faculty governance organization, selected by an existing faculty committee with oversight for university-wide faculty committee selection or selected through an approved process designed to provide appropriate faculty input into the selection. The remaining members of the tribunal shall be appointed by the chief administrative officer []. The panel selection process shall be pursuant to approved institutional policy.

A motion was made and seconded to adopt this recommendation. During the discussion, a justification for this change was presented. It was also pointed out that one sentence was redundant (The remaining members of the tribunal shall be appointed by the chief administrative officer) and it was agreed to remove that sentence. It was suggested that we need to work toward a mutually agreed upon panel rather than the recommended wording. Because the motion is to adopt the recommendation, we must then decide what to do with it if it passes. There was further support for the idea of a combined panel with rather general wording to allow flexibility. We shouldn't be confrontational, but work toward mutual agreement. Could work the same way as jury selection for a trial. It was pointed out that with mutual selection, every member of the panel will be selected by the president. It was also pointed out that someone who is selected by the president but not by the faculty may be in a difficult position.

A substitute motion was made and seconded which would allow joint approval of the panel from which tribunal members are selected. The substitute motion read:

6.33 In cases where other offenses are charged, and in all cases where the facts are in dispute, the accused faculty member will be informed in writing of the charges. If the chief administrative officer determines that the nature of the charges and the evidence are such that it is in the best interest of the institution, the accused faculty member may be suspended with pay pending the completion of the hearing and final decision by the Board.[] On reasonable notice, the charges will be heard by a special hearing tribunal of at least three persons whose academic rank is at least equal to that of the accused faculty member. The hearing tribunal members are [] appointed by the chief administrative officer from a standing panel (pool) of members of the faculty. The panel members from which the tribunal members are selected shall be selected by a procedure that assures that each panel member has the approval of both the chief administrative officer and the faculty governance organization, or, absent a faculty governance organization, an existing faculty committee with oversight for university-wide faculty committee selection . []. The panel selection process shall be pursuant to approved institutional policy.

During discussion it was pointed out that the presidents may be more opposed to this motion than the original motion. It was recommended that we go with the original motion and ask that the Chancellor present it to the System Council. However, other members recommended going with the second motion. Further discussion suggested additional wording. The motion to substitute passed and replaced the original motion. The motion passed. Francie will transmit the sense of the motion informally to the Chancellor and the final written motion when available.

Chip Dameron reported that the Committee had discussed the situation at San Antonio and felt that the local campus still had some work to do first. It may come back to the FAC at our next meeting.

B. Academic Affairs

Ivor Page reported that the Committee met with Georgia Harper about copyrights and will bring some recommendations to the FAC at a later date. They also met with Art Hernandez and look forward to receiving the full survey report later today. Once preliminary changes have been made, it will be sent out to the full FAC for input. Ivor thanked those members who had worked on the project.

Bill Davis reported on the Committee's review of the proposed changes to RR Section 36. They proposed some additions to these changes (see below). These include inserting the word service" in the next to the last sentence in Sec. 36. (Texas Education Code Section 51.402(b) recognizes that important elements of workload include classroom teaching, basic and applied research, service, and professional development.). They also recommended adding the following sections:

36.24 Service to Academic Discipline. Workload credit may be granted for a faculty member who edits a journal, holds elective office in a major discipline related professional organization or chairs a major discipline related conference.

35.25 Academic Governance. Workload credit may be granted for faculty members who occupy leadership positions in academic governance organizations.

A motion was made and seconded to accept the proposed additions. The motion passed.

Arturo Bronson and Ivor Page were elected as co-chairs for next year. An additional question was posed regarding the Teaching Effectiveness Survey and whether we are trying to rush it through too quickly after waiting so long. The Committee responded that they would like to have it finished in a timely manner and are concerned with the length of time the project has taken. Members of the Committee will work actively to edit the report and make sure it is meaningful and uses proper language. Dr. Hernandez may need to be given a deadline. Ivor reported that he has the data and will share it with appropriate members of the Committee.

C. Health Affairs

Lyman Bilhartz reported that James Berry and Bets Anderson were elected to co-chair the Committee next year. He also reported that the Committee met with Dr. Guckian and were informed about the meeting of the tenure committee from the health campuses. That committee recommended no changes to the tenure processes. The salary plan adopted originally by the System in 1991 is currently used by Southwestern and is also being implemented by UTMB and UTHSC Houston. The committee recommended allowing a faculty member to move from a tenure-track to a non-tenure-track at the end of the probationary period. Also, Dr. Guckian reported that a faculty member could retire and then be rehired part-time, but that tenure would be forfeited. His committee also defined tenure, but separated it from compensation, which is consistent with the Regent's Rules. Local rules and procedures may link tenure and compensation.

The Health Affairs Committee discussed concern by some FAC members that we are being pushed into HMOs, but Mr. Molloy was not available to comment.

Q - Shouldn't we keep pushing for tenure and academic freedom and not roll over on this issue?

Q - If faculty are hired with certain jobs or goals in mind (i.e. tenure track), they shouldn't redefine their track at a later time.

D. Faculty Quality

James Bartlett reported that the co-chairs for next year will be James Bartlett and Allen Martin. James distributed a handout Policy Framework for Rights, Support and Training of Faculty Involved in Distance Learning". FAC members were asked to review this document and e-mail (or snail mail) comments to James. Georgia Harper has indicated that faculty cannot be coerced into giving up their property rights as it applies to distance learning.

James also distributed a Faculty Exit Survey" document which has been revised based on input from FAC members. Members are asked to review the document once more for possible adoption at the Sept. meeting. The Committee hasn't decided how these documents should be distributed once they are approved.

The Committee has been asked to look into the issue of distance learning and the virtual university". Any input into this issue would be appreciated and should be sent to James.

XVI. Old Business

Proposed change to the bylaws. Suggested that officers take over responsibilities following the election and meeting. A motion was made, seconded and passed to make these changes.

XVII. New Business

1. Mike Siciliano thanked the FAC for their confidence in him as the newly elected Chair-elect.

2. Chair, Lynn Little, distributed certificates to the FAC members on behalf of the Chancellor and Board of Regents.

3. Lynn thanked Francie Frederick, Pam Johnson and the other members of Francie's staff for all their hard work.

4. Lynn also thanked those members who would not be returning in Sept. In addition, a special gift was presented to Jerry Polinard, the Immediate Past Chair, for his dedicated work on behalf of the FAC.

5. Reuben McDaniel brought up the action of the A & M Board of Regents in regards to a humanities center. He presented a resolution regarding this action which reads:

Whereas, the Texas A&M University Regents have denied the Texas A&M University faculty the right to establish a Humanities Center at Texas A&M University and whereas, by that action the Texas A&M University Regents have seriously breached academic freedom at Texas A&M University. Therefore, be it resolved that The University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council expresses its extreme disappointment in this action of the Texas A&M Regents and further, be it resolved that The University of Texas System Faculty Advisory council condemns such Regential interference in the intellectual activity of university communities.

The resolution was made in the form of a motion and seconded. There was much concern as to whether this was appropriate and a motion was made and seconded to refer this to committee (Academic Affairs). The motion passed.

6. Alan Cline announced the dates for future meetings: Sept. 26 & 27, 1996 (Executive Committee Sept. 13), Nov. 14 & 15, 1996 (Executive Committee Nov. 1), Feb. 27 & 28, 1997 (Executive Committee Feb. 14), and June 26 & 27, 1997 (Executive Committee June 13). Alan also asked the members of the FAC to consider what the role of the FAC should be and the types of issues that it should respond to. A home page has been set up on the WWW for the UT FAC (http://www.utfac.utsystem.edu/UTFAC/) and a list serve has been set up (utfac@utsystem.edu) which allows everyone to mail to the entire FAC membership.

7. Alan presented Lynn Little with a gavel for recognition of his service to the FAC.

XVIII. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 pm.


I. Call to Order

Alan Cline called the meeting to order at 3:05 pm.

II. Old Business/New Business

Two items of business were discussed. First, the Committee discussed what to do with the Teaching Effectiveness Survey Report. It was decided that Alan needs to write to Art Hernandez and give him further direction toward the completion of the report. The other item discussed was the need to meet with legislators. The Committee decided to defer this until the Sept. meeting.

III. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 3:10 pm.

<back to top>

<back to index>

 
601 Colorado Street  ||  Austin, TX 78701-2982  ||  tel: 512/499-4200
U. T. System   ||
  Email Comments   ||   Open Records   ||   Privacy Policy   ||   Reports to the State
© 2002 U.T. System Administration