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: September 26 - 27, 1996

<back to Index>

I. New Member Orientation

Francie 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:

  • a difficulty they were having with policies that were approved locally and then changed before they go to the UT System (this included Grievance of Promotion and Tenure policies);
  • a number of faculty spoke out about the tenure review issue at their recent meeting;
  • the students seem to have received a very slanted view of the tenure review issue; and
  • the FAC resolution was endorsed.
  • Betty Travis gave an update on the status of their Bylaws. They have found significant changes made by the administration. Betty also reported on her suit against the University which she won, but the University is appealing. Walter Richardson reported that students believe that the Tenure Review committees will be chosen blindly". (Francie indicated that this is not true.) Richard noted that no funds are provided for the Faculty Senate, but his provost is considering budgeting $2,500 for their use. Mike Siciliano voiced his concern about Betty's situation and asked who is the University" that allows administrators to oppose the court decision against our own faculty members. Ivor Page noted that things regarding policies and Bylaws, etc. are handled very differently and much more openly on his campus. Jay Freireich reported that a student from his institution who had attended the Student Advisory Council confirmed that they were being given a one sided view. It was suggested that the FAC should meet with the Student Advisory Council.

UT Tyler - Roger Conaway reported on campus activities that included:

  • dealing with a grievance policy;
  • cost saving measures that have been taken that may affect faculty quality;
  • approval of an engineering program by Coordinating Board which will start in 1997; and
  • a Finer Performing Arts facility scheduled for completion in May.

UT Southwestern - Tim Wolff reported on campus activities that included:

  • his senate has endorsed the FAC resolution; and
  • discussed some health-related issues that were happening on his campus.

UTMB - Richard Rahr reported on campus activities that included:

  • a doctoral program in nursing has been approved;
  • proposed Bylaws for an interfaculty council fashioned after the UTHouston IFC; and
  • individual faculty groups are currently deliberating on the FAC resolution.
  • Richard asked that salary distribution be reviewed by Faculty Quality Committee due to the salary compression that is taking place with only merit raises available. Mike Siciliano suggested that we should also look at the issue of the link between tenure and compensation. Richard Diem noted that the University of Minnesota is doing away with base pay".

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:

  • a follow-up Faculty Satisfaction Survey that was conducted at Houston which the administration wants to repeat the survey every three years, and has committed to working to improve those areas of dissatisfaction; and
  • the IFC supported the FAC resolution.
  • Mike Siciliano noted that faculty at M.D. Anderson are no longer more satisfied than everyone else.

UT HSC SA - Linda Smith reported on activities on her campus, including:

  • internal faculty evaluations;
  • their dental school ranked #1 again;
  • nursing programs in the valley;
  • they have inherited the Cytogenetics Center from Houston; and
  • difficulties with the South Texas Border project.

UT MD Anderson - Joel Dunnington reported on activities on his campus, including:

  • administrative changes/retirements/searches etc.;
  • still working on policies, particularly grievance policy; and
  • downsizing has caused a high number of firings.

UT HC Tyler - Kent Davis reported on campus activities including:

  • the completion of a new building;
  • a grievance policy for which they are seeking approval and implementation;
  • they probably will not address the FAC resolution; a lack of network connectivity; and
  • an administrative position that is vacant.
  • Shaun Black reported on activities with the research faculty. They are electing officers next week for a new FGO.

UT Arlington - Rod Hissong reported on activities on his campus including:

  • their new representative to the FAC;
  • start of the second century for the school which will be accompanied by a SAC's accreditation;
  • administrative openings;
  • decline in student enrollment;
  • approval of the FAC resolution;
  • an AP&T document;
  • they are looking into a grievance document;
  • there will be an open hearing for tenure documents; and
  • the Center for Mexican American Studies and the problems with the firing of its administrator (members of the Mexican American community seem to be rallying to his defense).

UT Austin - Reuben McDaniel reported on activities on his campus including:

  • plans to consider the FAC resolution; an alternate proposal on Post-Tenure Review (a draft was distributed to the FAC);
  • some deans have supported the Chancellor's proposal;
  • the Academic Freedom Committee feels that we should make our evaluation procedures work better;
  • the standing committee structure has been reorganized with appropriate advisors for each committee plus reporting procedures; and
  • administrative vacancies (deans).

UT Brownsville - Bill Davis distributed a written report and summarized the following:

  • celebration of the 70th anniversary of the college;
  • a new VP for Academic Affairs;
  • Self Study;
  • a new music BA (which the staff of the Coordinating Board opposed); and
  • they passed the FAC resolution.

UT Dallas - Jim Bartlett reported on campus activities including:

  • support of the FAC resolution;
  • an alternate proposal for Post-Tenure Review (a draft was distributed to the FAC). His campus thought the Chancellor's plan was really term tenure. The alternate plan was really closer to Senator Ratliff's and does have real teeth in it. It also addresses workload and burden of proof. They also passed a motion asking for language in the Regent's Rules regarding Deviations" from UT System guidelines. This proposal will be discussed later.

UT El Paso - Mo Mahmood distributed a written report of activities on his campus and summarized the following:

  • Grievance and Faculty conduct policies;
  • salary compression and inversion issues; and
  • evaluation of administrators by faculty.

UT Pan Am - Gerald Brazier reported on campus activities including:

  • approval of the FAC resolution; and
  • a questionable composition of a dean's search committee.
  • Richard Diem noted that a new Audit Committee has been appointed on his campus. This type of committee is also in place on other campuses.

UT Permian Basin - Lois Hale reported on activities on her campus including:

  • evaluation of administrators;
  • screening of external candidates for administrative positions (faculty should be involved);
  • the Senate did not support continuation of term tenure of Don Miller;
  • they supported the FAC resolution; and
  • they have an up coming faculty retreat during which tenure issues will be discussed.
  • Alan noted that 8 campuses have approved the FAC resolution and it will soon be considered by most of the remaining campuses. An update on the tenure review situation at Colorado was distributed, along with an article concerning Minnesota. Alan recognized the presence of a representative from the American Statesman.

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:

  • the Chancellor says he doesn't want to destroy tenure, but does want to head off the legislative approach;
  • the Chancellor asked for word-smithing of his proposal;
  • the question was raised by Jerry as to whether we really need this proposal at all and input was then sought from the rest in attendance (shouldn't fix a philosophical problem with a mechanistic approach).
  • Jerry reported that it was a difficult meeting and the charge of the committee was unclear. The Committee seemed to divide along faculty vs administrative lines, with the majority being administrators. The Committee will meet again on Oct. 29. Jerry recommends naming an ad hoc committee of the FAC to develop a specific proposal from the FAC. He feels that with this we could gain an audience with the Chancellor.
  • The question was raised as to what we do with the Chancellor's proposal in the mean time. It was noted that the Committee was not charged with getting input from the faculty on each campus. Also, there was a question of whether the Legislature will drop the issue if the UT System comes up with it's own policy. There doesn't seem to be a clear answer to that question.
  • A question was raised of what other systems in the state have been doing and is the UT System being targeted as a trial balloon. The Chancellor implies that other systems will fall in line.
  • A question was raised as to whom the Chancellor's proposal had been circulated. They are available on the WWW.
  • It was reported that Senator Ratliff had met with two faculty from the North Texas State system. It was noted again, that legislators do not understand our evaluation methods and they need to be educated. The motivation for the Chancellor's proposal was questioned and whether he is being forthright with us. It was stated that we cannot afford to undergo the same purges that occurred during the McCarthy era. The Chancellor voiced to the Committee that the current system doesn't work and he wants to fix it. Alan raised the question of how many revocation of tenure cases the administrators that are on the Committee have brought up during their time as a dean, department chair, etc.
  • The question was asked as to whether any data was presented on the problem. How does the Chancellor know that the system isn't working? If faculty identify faculty who should be terminated, what more should we do? Faculty who tried to do more" by censuring faculty at UT Pan Am were sued and not supported by the UT System. Is this a move toward term tenure which will save the System lots of money? Is there any way that the Legislature could pass this bill before the Regents February meeting? It was felt to be highly unlikely.

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.

Larry Daves 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.

Q - This isn't a preemptive strike, but driven from within. How likely is this good citizenship" clause to be used as it was at MD Anderson?

A - The president shouldn't have the power to just unilaterally do this, although, injustices go on at many universities, often in the name of excellence. The citizenship issue is very dangerous. You should be slow in taking an adversarial position against the administration.

Q - Where in the legislative process is a bill reviewed for the possible legal outcomes that will result?

A - Don't know if that really happens, but be careful because if it does, you might get an answer you don't want. This will probably be part of a larger bill and it would be helpful for Professor Getman or Professor Ratliff to show up and testify about the legal consequences. They could pass a bill that isn't legal.

Q - Where is this coming from? Could it be a political tradeoff to get more money for the UT System?

A - The salary stick is also being used. There may be other deals that have been cooked up. The general populace aren't dissatisfied with higher educators, but leaders are dissatisfied. They want flexibility and tenure limits their flexibility. This is a similar battle as the one that was fought on program closure. Professor Getman pointed out that its an awfully hard way to gain flexibility. With a combination of militancy and bargaining we can end up fairly close to the administration.

Q - Legislators in the SA area are concerned and are willing to meet with us locally. Regents think they need to do something at the November meeting. What can we do to prevent the Chancellor's proposal from being adopted?

A - You have an excellent opportunity by going to the individual members of the Regents. Any kind of pressure you can put on them will be beneficial.

Q - Faculty like to fight logical battles. To what extent should we align ourselves with other labor groups? Do we really have a chance with the Regents?

Q - Others have also told us that this will create a big legal mess. Why are the Chancellor's advisors telling him it won't? Don't we have a commitment to warn the Chancellor?

Q - As the FAC we can't do some of the things that have been suggested here, but they can be done at the local campuses. The people that sit around and talk about the legal costs don't really care since its the state's money.

A - University counsel are not indifferent to these issues, although it may vary from place to place. Professor Getman asked why it wouldn't be better to start things with the current more liberal Board of Regents? However, it may provide a bad precedent to subsequent Boards.

Q - It seems like we can take the information we have and funnel it through an ad hoc committee to provide advice to the Chancellor and Board.

A - Dr. Zucker pointed out that the A&M faculty were able to slow down their process from Sept. to Jan. Professor Getman thinks that we should meet with the UT University Council and take advantage of the expertise that is available. Jerry Polinard stated that he is glad to see the FAC taking a stand on this issue. However, we shouldn't necessarily put a dark twist on everything and maybe we should make use of the current liberal Board. We should respond to the Chancellor's proposal and make sure there are faculty involved at every step in the review process. If the Board has to chose between a proposal from the Chancellor or the FAC, we don't have a chance. We can't win a political battle. He will represent the FAC wishes on the Committee. The administrators on the Committee will go along with the Chancellor. Jerry thinks that the Chancellor will listen to changes that we propose.

Q - As educators how do we deal with people who don't believe with giving out information and being above board? Concern was expressed about the possible Polly Anna" nightmare. Should we agree with a plan on paper and then continue doing what we are already doing. Would that work?

Q - Many colleagues would rather have Ratliff's plan. What's the basis of the stonewall" remark by Ratliff? Professor Getman asked why the Chancellor's plan is worse than Senator Ratliff's?

A - term tenure. You first need to focus on what is considered to be unacceptable. He has found the Chancellor willing to negotiate in the past.

Q - The Chancellor has not been willing to really discuss this issue with the FAC yet, although he has met with the students.

A - I don't think that the Chancellor purposely not met with the FAC.

Q - We need to move ahead with the ad hoc committee to come out with a viable alternative ready to go for November.

A- Richard Diem made a motion to establish an ad hoc committee appointed by the Chair to develop a proposal to be brought back to the FAC for approval and then sent forward to the Chancellor. The motion was seconded by Reuben McDaniel. It was suggested that we should also meet with Chairman Rapport. A friendly amendment was proposed by Rod Hissong for the ad hoc committee to meet with the Chancellor and if possible the Chairman of the Board. The amendment was accepted. It was suggested that we take an alternative report to the Board if the Chancellor's proposal ends up being unacceptable (this was also included as a friendly amendment). The ad hoc committee should solicit input from all FGO's. Ivor suggested that we should offer the Chancellor a suit of clothes" that he can't turn down. Lois pointed out that many of our ghosts" may exist at out local institutions. James supports and urges everyone to attend the Board meeting. Linda supports. Reuben asked if the ad hoc committee should prepare a proposal for the Chancellor and also one for the Board? Richard felt that would be appropriate under his motion and that we want to advise both the Chancellor and the Board, but go to the Chancellor first.

Q - Are administrators included in the reviews? A - In previous conversations with the Chancellor there are exceptions.

Q - An administrator's academic appointment should be reviewed.

Q - The ad hoc committee should address this issue as well as others.

Q - Where is the pressure really coming from, is it possible that it is really coming from the Regents? (Francie hasn't heard that) Should we meet individually with the Regents?

A - There was a motion to call the question which failed. Reuben asked for the ad hoc committee's charge. Richard indicated that the Chair of the FAC and the ad hoc committee should be trusted to carry out the will of the FAC and bring back a viable proposal. If the FAC does not approve the Chancellor's final version, then we go to the Board with a alternate report. Rod asked whether we are being inconsistent by first passing a resolution to delay and then appointing an ad hoc committee to develop a proposal? Richard thought that we are not being inconsistent and that we should try to develop a proposal if possible. Ivor asked how much license we should give to this committee? He pointed out that we are only giving them license to address the specific issue. After the motion was reread, Reuben indicated that he was satisfied that the question of charge is addressed by the motion. Alan again clarified the charge to him as Chair and to the ad hoc committee. Lynn asked whether the System will support this activity. Francie said yes and that we may even need another full meeting.

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.

Jay moved 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.

Q - Was each component asked make comment on the Chancellor's proposal?

A - Yes, the response was to be before Oct. 23 and was sent to the presidents of faculty senates.

A - One president was told by the Chancellor to form a committee to address the issue.

A - A provost indicated that none of the administrative officers have been asked for a response.

Q - One campus has asked for a committee.

A - The senate has the right to do this on its own.

Q - If each FGO doesn't have time to vote on our proposal, will we be put in a difficult position since they will have addressed the Chancellor's proposal?

A - That is a good point and we should spend the time we have here to develop something before we leave. Most faculty aren't really concerned about this issue, but we can call emergency meetings if we need to.

A - We should try to get support by the FGO's.

A - We can get this done in time, even if we have to call emergency meetings.

A - You can't meet the charge to the committee within 20 hours unless the Chancellor is in town.

Q - What is our goal on our local campuses, we need to be united?

A - I would like to go back to my faculty with the main issues.

A - We need all current proposals before our senates meet. Reuben pointed out that the Academic Freedom Committee has worked on this issue for some time and probably won't accept a proposal much different than the one they have already come up with.

Q - We should provide input to the Chancellor.

A - From his actions, the Chancellor doesn't seem to want to listen to faculty on this issue and we need to be ready to go to the Board.

A - All chairs of faculty senates should be present at the Board meeting.

A - Members of the FAC can also attend. Jerry recommended that the ad hoc committee be appointed this afternoon. Rod thanked those from institutions that don't have tenure for participating in this discussion.

Q - How many faculty actually received information on this issue from their presidents?

A - Eight or nine campuses did not.

Q - we need clarification about the possibility of the ad hoc committee calling emergency meetings.

A - There was no restrictions on calling meetings.

Q - The Chancellor's committee will review draft 3 on Oct 29; when will we see draft 4, the one going to the Regents

Q - Could we request of the Chancellor to see draft 4 before it goes to the Regents?

A - It will need to be ready by Nov 4 in order to get on the Regent's agenda.

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.

10. Adjourn

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:

  • increasing complexity of faculty-authored works;
  • increasing costs to create faculty-authored works;
  • escalating costs to acquire faculty-authored scholarly works;
  • flat library budgets; and
  • increasing need to access works electronically within the university community.

Questions that must be answered include:

  • what are scholarly works?;
  • should we treat didactic the same as scholarly works?; does this apply to graduate students?; and
  • should this apply to non-faculty employees?

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.

With 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.

Academic 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 the Committee.

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.

17. Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at 2:49 pm.

Ted D. Pate, Ph.D.
Professor of Basic Sciences, Physiology
UT Houston Health Science Center Dental Branch
P.O. Box 20068, Houston TX 77225
Phone: 713-500-4519 FAX: 713-500-4520 or 4500
e-mail: tpate@bite.db.uth.tmc.edu

<top of page>

<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