Faculty Advisory Council
I. New Member Orientation
Frederick/Alan Cline Information was provided to new members regarding
the FAC, travel reimbursement, policies, etc.
2. Committee Presentation/Orientation
Committee Chairs Committee chairs provided an overview of each committee and encouraged new members to select the committee that best meets their interests.
3. Call to Order/Introductions
Alan Cline Alan called the meeting to order at 10:06 am and read the Regent's Rules that govern FGO's, including their responsibilities. Each member was asked to introduce him/herself and tell where they are from.
4. Executive Committee Report/Minutes Approval
Alan reported on the Executive Committee's meeting with the Chancellor on Sept. 6 and also the called meeting of the FAC with both Chancellor Cunningham and Senator Ratliff on Sept. 17.
Unfortunately, we did not really have an opportunity to meet individually with the Chancellor at that meeting. It does not appear that the FAC will have an opportunity to meet with the Chancellor before the November Regents meeting.
Alan distributed copies of excerpts from an article in the Daily Texan, as well as a letter to the Chancellor regarding the resolutions passed by the FAC at the Sept. 17 meeting. Later in the meeting we are to have representatives from the AAUP and the TFA to provide information on the tenure issue.
It was noted that reporters may be present during the meeting, but that it is the FAC's decision as to whether to allow reporters or not (the FAC meeting is not considered an open meeting"). Concern was expressed about the negative impact that excluding reporters might produce.
A motion was made by Richard Diem and seconded by James Berry to approve the minutes of the June FAC meeting. The motion passed.
Roger Conaway made a motion and Jack Gilbert seconded to approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of the FAC on Sept. 17. The motion passed.
It was noted that one page was missing from the June minutes distributed in the packet (a complete copy was later distributed).
5. Campus Reports
UTSA - Richard Diem introduced Walter Richardson, their new Senate president-elect and then reported on campus activities which included:
UT Tyler - Roger Conaway reported on campus activities that included:
UT Southwestern - Tim Wolff reported on campus activities that included:
UTMB - Richard Rahr reported on campus activities that included:
UT HSC Houston - James Berry reported that the UT System appears to be trying to set up it's own HMO to provide care to UT employees. Campus activities included:
UT HSC SA - Linda Smith reported on activities on her campus, including:
UT MD Anderson - Joel Dunnington reported on activities on his campus, including:
UT HC Tyler - Kent Davis reported on campus activities including:
UT Arlington - Rod Hissong reported on activities on his campus including:
UT Austin - Reuben McDaniel reported on activities on his campus including:
UT Brownsville - Bill Davis distributed a written report and summarized the following:
UT Dallas - Jim Bartlett reported on campus activities including:
UT El Paso - Mo Mahmood distributed a written report of activities on his campus and summarized the following:
UT Pan Am - Gerald Brazier reported on campus activities including:
UT Permian Basin - Lois Hale reported on activities on her campus including:
6. Report on Committee on Advancement of Women
Ivor Page The Committee is still working on the policy for time out" from the tenure-track. The Committee is concerned that the Chancellor's proposal for post-tenure review will negatively impact women.
7. Report on Committee on Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty
Lynn Little/Jerry Polinard Lynn noted that there are four members of the Committee that have relationship to the FAC.
A report from the Committee meeting included:
8. Discussion with AAUP and TFA Representatives
Alan introduced Jack Getman from the UT Law School and former president of the AAUP, Charles Zucker the director of the TFA, Larry Daves an attorney from San Antonio, and some members of the press.
Professor Getman suggested that there would be a tremendous legal difficulty to do anything to tenure retroactively. He thinks that administrators really don't want to tackle doing away" with tenure and ruin a first rate university in the process. Senator Ratliff's brother is a member of the Law School. Can't understand where this is coming from. Maybe it is related to the elimination of mandatory retirement, but that really hasn't been around long enough to have an impact. We are caught between the extremes of not believing vs taking it very seriously. Senator Ratliff may simply be trying to make his constituents happy. With any of the proposals, it will still be very difficult to get rid of faculty. At least two members of the Supreme Court would reaffirm tenure. Probably should go along until you see something that is really threatening. Every university has people who shouldn't really be there, but we have other ways of dealing with such people. Question, should we have something that looks elaborate but doesn't do anything? It should be very carefully tailored to avoid something that gets out of control. You may end up with an elaborate system of record keeping.
Charles Zucker shared some information from the TFA. The president of the TFA has written a letter to Senator Bivens and received a reply that indicates that he is not in total agreement with Senator Ratliff. Dr. Zucker reminded us that the Legislature is bicameral. They have other issues that may be much more important to them. Both the House and Senate must pass any bill. Things change very quickly in the Legislature. He understands Chancellor Cunningham wants a preemptive strategy. Both the FAC and SAC were created as part of a preemptive strategy. The question is why do we need a preemptive strategy before the Legislature even meets, since you might end up with something worse. He thinks they are serious about this and tried the same thing with K-12. In that case, what came out was watered down. The Monsanto tape presented by the CEO of Monsanto gives all the problems of higher education. There is also an attack on tenure in Arizona. He feels that there will also be a change in the rules of getting rid of tenured faculty. The TFA is very concerned about this since it could really open door for retaliation. California and New York have much better protection and probably wouldn't be worried about tenure review. The TFA will try to stop this in the Legislature.
said that we need to take these threats seriously. He fights the UT System
attorneys on a daily basis. They claim that even a tenured professor is
an at will" employee. Anything they can do to undermine your contract
will hurt others in the long run. The content of your tenure contract
can be changed and individuals don't usually have the funds to fight it.
He feels that the Chancellor is an intensely political animal. The faculty
need to get organized and be involved in the election process. They need
to maintain solidarity with other employees. They need allies in the Legislature.
He worries about performance evaluations. If hurdles keep being raised,
at some point the people won't be able to jump over them.
Professor Getman responded that he does think we should take it seriously and that we need to know who are our enemies and who are our friends. He sees this as coming under the rights of employment contracts. We have claims that unite us with a larger group and we need to foster this. We have a unique claim, but we don't want to be seen only as unique.
Reuben spoke in favor of the motion which read:
The Chair will appoint an ad hoc committee to develop a proposal to be brought back to the FAC for approval and then sent forward to the Chancellor. The ad hoc committee should meet with the Chancellor and if possible the Chairman of the Board. We will take an alternative report to the Board if the Chancellor's proposal ends up being unacceptable .
The motion passed unanimously.
Reuben McDaniel moved that the ad hoc committee consider whether any item in the recommendation to the Regents could be interpreted as term tenure" , and if so, that it should be rejected. The motion was seconded by Richard Diem. Mike spoke to the motion and in opposition to term tenure, as someone who lives with term tenure.
The motion was approved unanimously.
to ask the Chair to appoint eight ad hoc committees to meet with the respective
Regents to a) determine how much information he/she has on the proposal,
b) determine their views on the issue and c) apprise them of our views.
The motion was seconded by Joel Dunnington. Jack opposed the motion. Richard
opposed the motion. Samuel indicated that it was not a good political
move. Jay stated that working with the Chancellor should include working
with the Regents.
The motion failed.
9. Committee Meetings
(Health Affairs to meet with Mr. Molloy, Academic Affairs to meet with Dr. Art Hernandez) Committees were directed to meet in the four corners of the room so that new members could chose which committee they want to attend. Committees then adjourned to their assigned rooms.
The FAC adjourned until Friday morning.
11. Call to Order
Alan Cline Alan reconvened the meeting at 9:15 am and pointed out several newspaper articles which have appeared as a result of yesterday's FAC meeting. It was pointed out that examples such as those used in some of the articles might be useful to the FAC in the coming months. It was also noted that we need to let the public know about our current evaluation process.
Alan also announced the membership of the ad hoc committee, which will be composed of: Lynn Little, Jerry Polinard, Alan Cline, Mike Siciliano, Betty Travis, James Bartlett, and Ivor Page.
12. Revising Intellectual Property Policy: Electronic Distribution of Faculty-Authored Work
Georgia Harper, Office of General Counsel Alan introduced Georgia Harper and noted that she has really been a friend to the FAC. Georgia presented a computer based presentation on the Electronic Distribution of Faculty-Authored work and also distributed a handout which summarizes her remarks.
They can be found at www.utsystem.edu/OGC/IntellectualProperty/proposal.htm
She noted the following background points:
Questions that must be answered include:
Resource allocation is an issue and decisions should be made up front. We need to clarify our policies and know that they work.
Should we provide a non-exclusive right for the university to use faculty-authored works for university purposes? When an article is published, the university or the author can retain certain rights to the article (e.g. to distribute to colleagues). Because of journal costs, libraries are canceling subscriptions to some journals. Faculty write and publish the papers, and need to take more control over the distribution of the papers. Individuals are trying to solve the problem, but there needs to be a more unified effort by the university community. Several universities have taken some steps with this issue (see Web links). Getting commercial interests involved in media presentations could create problems similar to those with journals. This issue also relates to tenure and promotion, since a faculty member may not be able to have an article published because of the university's refusal to give up rights to the article. We need to be proactive, we can't just sit back and wait for this whole issue to be resolved.
Georgia presented a proposal for revision of the Intellectual Property Policy, which can also be viewed on the Web. It was noted that the traditional preprints" have been replaced with web pages. Must those be removed when the paper is published? May depend on the contract with the publisher. Right now, a web page isn't considered to be published elsewhere. If you go to another university, you take your rights to articles with you. Other countries are dealing with the same issues.
If we get to a point where everybody is part of a consortium and information is freely distributed, is that the end point and will we stop traditional publishing at that point? Answer, that may happen. We want the access to information without the high costs that are now associated with that access.
Information is becoming available on CD ROM, should we pursue that? Yes. We need to exert an interest in retaining the rights within the university community and not let it go outside. Creators of scientific works should agree to maintain rights. A copy right can't pass out of your hand without a written signature. Do we need electronic backup in case a server goes down? Yes, and that is in the works.
It was noted that distributing information directly does not have the same value as submitting it to a peer review medium for distribution. Peer review can be used in any medium. Georgia recommended retaining our publishing in-house, either in the university, associations, etc.
Question, wouldn't this just drive up the costs? Answer, not if everyone agrees to the same rules.
Should we set up a new peer review organization within the universities? Not necessarily, but Georgia doesn't really have the answer. We constantly work with other universities to try to find solutions.
Is the distribution/publishing by a funding agency good or bad? Answer, that's really what we want, wide distribution.
faculty consortiums, who owns the rights? We need clearer rules. We need
to refer people to this web site so that people will be better informed.
Are authorship guidelines currently available? No real policies, anyone
who contributes original work is an author, but not just editors.
Alan asked Faculty Quality to think about this issue and work with Georgia in the future. Georgia suggested that we consider a video conference to address this issue. It was pointed out that we don't want to create any problems with tenure in this process. Alan thanked Georgia for her presentation.
13. Committee Meetings
(Health Affairs to meet with Dr. Guckian) Prior to dismissing the Council to committee meetings, Alan distributed copies of a proposed agenda item for the Board of Regents' meeting concerning the change in language for appointing tribunals. The question is whether this proposal should go forward, even though the FAC's recommendation were not included with regard to how members of the tribunal are chosen. It was noted that the Regents should be given both sides to the issue. Francie doesn't think it can be sold right now, but we could include background language that gives the FAC's position. Mike Siciliano made a motion to place this information, including all necessary language that will explain the FAC position, in the background section of the proposal. It was decided to postpone this motion until Old Business.
Committees were dismissed to their individual meetings.
14. Committee Reports
Governance Committee - Rod Hissong reported that the Committee had reviewed the proposal to the Regents regarding tribunals. They questioned some of the wording in section 6.31, but felt that the committee was only advisory anyway. Q - A caution was raised that we shouldn't hide behind the advisory" role. Q - The academic rank of the tribunal may not be clear, does it need to be rewritten? A - Francie indicated that we want to make it clear and will work to do so. Betty Travis announced that Jack Gilbert will be the Co-Chair. She reported on Thursday's Committee activities which centered around evaluation of administrators, including presidents. Q - We shouldn't get involved in evaluating presidents, but we should bring pertinent things to the attention of the Chancellor which might lead to the need for an evaluation. A list of policies for evaluation of administrators on each campus was distributed. It was quickly noted that MD Anderson was listed as not having a policy and that this was because they don't have academic administrators. The Committee membership was announced.
Health Affairs - Bets Anderson named the members of the Committee. The Committee met with Bob Molloy on Thursday and discussed whether our insurance plan is subsidizing smokers. The data is not real good in that area. The Committee reviewed a list that was supposed to indicate the number of smokers on each campus. Smokers currently pay $10/mo more than non-smokers, but it isn't clear whether that covers the additional cost. The Committee also met with Dr. Guckian and discussed several issues which included: the Council of Health Institutions; merging of hospitals in the Dallas area; and a UT System HMO called the Texas Universities Health Plan, Inc.
Faculty Quality - James Bartlett introduced the members of the Committee and distributed a draft of a Faculty Exit Survey that the Committee has been working on during the last year. He pointed out one error in the draft (item #25 should be moved to #15). Jim gave a brief explanation of the survey and noted that many items were drawn from the Faculty Satisfaction Survey. The FAC had an opportunity for input this past year. A comment was made that item D which covers reasons for leaving may not include global dissatisfaction . This could be added, although it may be covered elsewhere. How can we use this so that the data collected will be meaningful? It should be done through the FAC. It was pointed out that support of clinical activities isn't really addressed (will be added after #23). Roger Conaway made a motion that the Faculty Exit Survey form be recommended to the Chancellor for use on each campus and the data collected come back to the FAC. It was seconded by Bets Anderson. Francie asked how this would be distributed and suggested that it be done through the Chancellor's office. If demographic campus data was added, it could be returned to the Chancellor's office. Should individual campuses be allowed to change the survey? If we want to be able to use the data, then they shouldn't change it. The form should be used at least for one year with an ongoing data analysis. It could be presented to a meeting of the VPAA's in October. The motion passed.
Allen Martin distributed a distance learning policy which has been reviewed previously by the FAC. The purpose of the policy is to protect faculty who participate in such courses. Georgia Harper helped write the policy. If approved, the policy would go to the Chancellor for implementation. It was suggested that we vote on a motion by e-mail, but that might not be allowed by Parliamentary procedures. If we vote on approval at the next meeting, everyone will have an opportunity to review the policy. There was concern that it should be approved as soon as possible and sent to the next level. Lois Hale made a motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of voting on approval of this policy electronically within the next two weeks. Bets Anderson seconded the motion. It was suggested that we could have an electronic meeting instead, but that was not considered to be possible. Herold spoke against the motion. The motion passed by more than a two-thirds vote. If anyone has comments they should send them by e-mail. Will we be able to add or delete items before the vote? It was decided that the Chair will make any needed changes the first week and then we will vote the second week.
Affairs - Art Bronson reported that the Committee met with Art Hernandez
to discuss the Teaching Effectiveness Survey. Four action items addressed
by the Committee included: 1) receipt of the executive summary, report,
bibliography and data from Art Hernandez; 2) assignment of Samuel Freeman
to polish the executive summary, edit/revise the report, scan the data
for critical omissions and focus the conclusions ; 3) Samuel will prepare
a report for the November FAC meeting; and 4) they want to properly recognize
and reward Art Hernandez for his contributions. Art also gave a brief
background of the survey for the benefit of the new FAC members. Some
discussion ensued concerning the survey. Art also named the members of
Alan Cline quickly reviewed committee memberships to make certain everyone is assigned to a committee.
Joel Dunnington made a motion that the FAC ask the Chancellor to advise the Office of Health Affairs that no UT component is exempt from the policy of Faculty Involvement in the Evaluation of Administrators. The motion was seconded by Jay Freireich. Which administrators are included in this evaluation? Pointed out that administrators above the level of deans may not be evaluated (this will be addressed by Francie). It was pointed out that we passed a similar motion several months ago, but it may not have been specific enough. The motion passed unanimously.
Ad Hoc Committee - Alan Cline reported that the Committee had a very productive meeting with definite plans to have a proposal and meet with the Chancellor within the next couple of weeks. Drafts will be sent out at the appropriate time. The ad hoc committee is receiving a lot of help from Francie.
15. Old Business
Joel Dunnington made a motion to add language in the background section to the proposal to the Board of Regents' regarding the appointment of tribunals to help explain the FAC's position on the makeup of the tribunal. Also, a statement to that effect would be made by the Chair of the FAC at the Board of Regents' meeting. Richard Rahr seconded the motion. It was pointed out that the current language may end up working due to possible legal consequences. It was also pointed out that it would be better to have the right language in the policy. The motion passed unanimously.
16. New Business
What is legal regarding discussing things with legislators or members of the Board of Regents. You can't use state funds to lobby, which includes using state time, equipment and supplies. You can do it on your own time as a citizen. If legislators call you, you can respond with information, but don't lobby for a particular issue.
Suggested that retired faculty could be asked to lobby for us if we need them for the post-tenure review issue.
The next meeting is Nov. 7 and 8.
The meeting adjourned at 2:49 pm.
Ted D. Pate,