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 7 - 8, 1996

<back to Index>


1. Call To Order

Alan Cline called the meeting to order at 10:09 am.

2. Executive Committee Report/Minutes Approval

Alan reported a small turn out from the Executive Committee meeting due to weather problems. The Executive Committee prepared the agenda with one change noted in the time the Chancellor will meet with the FAC. Minutes approved with one change under the Faculty Quality report (Georgia Harper helped with the preparation of the distance learning policy, but she did not write it).

3. Report on Committee on Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty

Lynn Little/Jerry Polinard Lynn reported that the Committee met with the Chancellor on Oct. 29. The second meeting went the same way as the first, with the Chancellor sticking to his proposal. The Committee tried to provide input into the document, but the faculty didn't gain much ground. One of the administrators made the same suggestion as the FAC regarding not having automatic in-depth reviews and it was heard by the Chancellor but not incorporated.

Jerry placed an image of Goofy on the table (perhaps reflecting all of our feelings of frustration) and proceeded to give his report. Some changes have been made to the document, but fall way short of what the FAC has proposed. The final version of the Chancellor's proposal was pointed out as being a part of the FAC members' packets. There are only minor changes from the previous (Nov. 5) version. Four areas are inadequate.

  • No triggering device for an in-depth review (left up to the dean).
  • Language regarding peer review is too ambiguous, with the dean given the authority to select the committee.
  • Linkage between the process and termination is open ended (who is unsatisfactory and who isn't?).
  • The appointment of a tribunal is still left up to the president with no guarantee of faculty input (the currently proposed change to the Regents' Rules does not correct this problem).

    Q - Was the FAC's document presented to the Committee?

    A - It was circulated but not discussed.

    Q - Who wrote the Chancellor's proposal?

    A - Francie Frederick had the job of putting it on paper.

    Q - Who will be the first faculty to be reviewed?

    A - Don't know, but it won't be administrators.

    C - There is a lot of vague language that lawyers will love to interpret.

    Q - Which administrators will be excluded?

    A - This will vary from campus to campus.

    Q - What does counseling refer to?

    A - This is a term that showed up from ad hoc committee members and might refer to psychological counseling or to some other type of counseling.

    Q - What does additional institutional support mean and how much money will back this up?

    A - We need to ask the Chancellor, but a faculty member isn't guaranteed more support.

    C - There are serious concerns over offering a faculty member remediation and whether that tags a faculty member.

Jerry pointed out that the process used to develop this policy was probably a good example of how not to deal with an important policy.

Mike Siciliano reported on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee and referred to a proposal that was circulated. The Committee decided to develop a set of principles and then develop a proposal based on those principles. We need to do something right not something wrong. Principles included:

  • Review based on annual reviews at departmental level;
  • No system of periodic review that requires faculty to reestablish their tenure;
  • Full review at higher than departmental level only for those putatively incompetent;
  • All reviews accompanied by specific charges;
  • All peer review committees nominated by appropriate FGO.

Mike then reviewed the proposal which is based on these principles. Points he made include: took out the word "?periodic"; all tenured faculty reviewed (including administrators); summary statement submitted every five years; three or more poor annual reviews results in an in-depth review; remediation not addressed since faculty should know what they need to do and such decisions should be left to an administrator; peer review committees selected by faculty.

C - The Ad Hoc Committee was commended for all their hard work.

C - Alan Cline noted that buttons had been created that read "Keep Tenure Keep Freedom". Francie asked for and received a button. Alan also noted how dedicated and how much work the Committee had done and thanked the members. There were some pretty heated e-mail discussions during the process.

C - Alan Cline noted that the Committee had tried to work with the System and included reference to a five year review, but the Chancellor still didn't buy the Committee's proposal. The Committee will recommend that the FAC approve the Committee's proposal and reject the Chancellor's proposal. This will be handled under new business. The recommendation will include presenting the Committee's proposal at the Regents' meeting and for each member to go back and get support from each campus.

C - The Chancellor should be asked to respond to our proposal when he meets with us later today.

C - Alan Cline made reference to a letter written by Ivor Page (and circulated to the FAC) to be sent to individual Regents. He also referred to a letter that Alan himself wrote and circulated by e-mail. Alan also reported on a meeting with one of the Regents is which he responded to questions about the evaluation process on our campuses. The Regent was trying to understand, but had not been involved in an academic setting as a faculty member. Although the language says the process is not term tenure, it was pointed out that if faculty believe it is then that is the way they will behave. Alan also talked to Chair Rappaport and tried to give him some background on this issue and the faculty concerns.

C - The Regents from San Antonio are being contacted by FAC members.

4. Campus Reports

UT San Antonio - Richard Diem reported the following:

  • action taken on tenure review policy;
  • difficulties in receiving approval for tenure and grievance policies and may have to file for the documents under the "Open Records Act";
  • question of how money is being spent on athletics;
  • concern over downtown campus;
  • requested a copy of the budget request to the Legislature.
  • Betty Travis also reported, including an update on her law suit. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals denied a System request for a stay of the verdict which was in favor of Betty, which means the System is in contempt if they don't comply.

C - Alan noted that each campus is supposed to select two representatives to the FAC. UTSA selected two individuals, but the president selected someone different which seems to be at conflict with the FAC guidelines. While this does not directly violate the UTSA Bylaws, it goes against their accepted policy.

Q - Who goes to jail if the System is in contempt?

C - Mike Siciliano pointed out that the FAC should address abuses of administrative authority on local campuses and asked the Governance Committee to investigate the actions on the UTSA campus.

UT Southwestern - Tim Wolff reported that they are working on a policy for exposure to needle sticks. Jean Sparks reported that they are also revising admission procedures based on the Hopwood Case.

UTHSC Houston - David Turner distributed a written report and summarized the following:

  • reviews of Executive VPs;
  • meeting with the president regarding post-tenure review; and
  • a seminar on the Hopwood case.

UTHSC San Antonio - Dan Chan reported the following:

  • searching for a dean of nursing;
  • discussing a faculty senate.
  • Linda Smith reported that they are also looking into policies for faculty for needle stick exposures.

UTHC Tyler - Kent Davis reported the following:

  • improving access to the Internet;
  • grievance policy;
  • moving into a new building, but it isn't named yet;
  • hiring an Executive Associate Director of Academic Affairs;
  • looking into review of administrators regarding to whether the System policy applies to the Tyler campus;
  • a compensation plan will put some faculty salaries at risk if the plan doesn't do well.
  • Shaun Black reported that he was elected as Chair of Research Faculty and named the other officers. Concern was raised that the Chair will be the representative to the FAC and therefore, will only serve one year on the FAC. They will address that issue.

    Q - What happened to the FAC resolution that UTHC Tyler UTMD Anderson should be included in Evaluation of Administrators?

    A - Francie talked to the Health Affairs Office, but they didn't feel it was appropriate. Therefore, the FAC needs to present a formal letter to the Chancellor.

UTMB Galveston - Not present.

UT Arlington - Rod Hissong introduced their other representative, Mike Moore, and then reported the following:

  • lawsuit brought by Dr. Gutierez was settled out of court;
  • new funding formula for summer employment;
  • faculty senate will be voting on new grievance procedure and to increase admission requirements.

UT Austin - Paul Woodruff reported the following:

  • the new system of faculty governance working well;
  • developing new admissions procedures;
  • review of administrators will be in place soon;
  • requested delay of the post-tenure review proposal and protested two areas in the proposal.

    Q - What is the status of review of administrators at UT Austin.

    A - The president is about to approve the policy.

UT Brownsville - Bill Davis reported the following:

  • action taken on the post-tenure review proposal and passed along to the Chancellor;
  • grievance policy including peer review coming to fruition.

UT Dallas - James Bartlett reported the following:

  • endorsed principles similar to those presented by the FAC ad hoc committee;
  • consulting policy.
  • Ivor Page reported that the School of Engineering met with the provost regarding the consulting policy. The faculty felt that they should be allowed to consult as part of continued faculty growth and development.

    Q - Does consulting include serving on company boards?

    A - Yes, it should include a lot of different activities.

UT El Paso - Mo Mahmood reported the following:

  • grievance policy;
  • salary compression and inversion (need equity adjustments);
  • evaluation of administrators;
  • a new learning resource center;
  • endorsed FAC resolution to delay post-tenure review proposal.

    C - There may be reasons for salary overlaps and differences based on productivity.

    C - Some schools have used equity adjustments that have ended up wiping out the results of merit raises.

UT Pan Am - Gerald Brazier reported the following:

  • dedication of new building;
  • evaluation of administrators;
  • lawsuit has finally been settled and the senate has withdrawn the censure;
  • faculty forum on post-tenure review which resulted in a resolution which included three principles;
  • faculty encouraged to write Regents with their views.
  • Jerry Polinard brought Samuel Freeman's regards since Samuel is under the weather and couldn't be here.

UT Permian Basin - Lois Hale distributed a written report and summarized the following:

  • action on post-tenure review;
  • meeting with the Chancellor;
  • faculty evaluations;
  • HOOP changes (including changes in the grievance procedures) which resulted from a substitution error somewhere in the system. Also dealing with the issue of who can enter an office with a key.

    C - Ivor Page reported that their president must authorize someone entering someone else's office.

    C - It was noted that mail can also be opened once it hits the local campus.

    C - Network services on some campuses have access to offices.

UT MD Anderson - Joel Dunnington reported the following:

  • approved the FAC version of the post-tenure review proposal;
  • need several vice presidents;
  • new president didn't like some of the outreach programs;
  • president is meeting with each department;
  • new marketing office;
  • total revenue last year of $703 million, down only $2 million from last year.

UT Tyler - Allen Martin distributed a written report from Roger Conaway and summarized the following:

  • exploring consolidation between UT Tyler and the UTHC at Tyler;
  • the approval of an engineering program;
  • an enrollment drop;
  • retirement of their president, leading to a search for a new president (faculty will be involved, but not sure of the impact).

5. Report on Committee on Advancement of Women

Ivor Page A Draft Summary of Primary Recommendations from the Committee was distributed. Items pointed out were: 1) stopping the tenure clock; 2) guidelines for establishing a policy for mid-probationary review.

Q - What will happen after the report is submitted?

A - Some items will be acted upon by the Board.

Q - Did you consider possible abuses of stopping the tenure clock?

A - We did consider this, but wanted to focus on the benefits to faculty.

Q - Will special cases need to be made if the post-tenure review proposal is passed?

A - Women could be disproportionately disadvantaged by post-tenure review.

C - The report will go to the Board of Regents on Nov. 14.

6. Report on Survey of Teaching Effectiveness

Francie Frederick Ivor Page gave a little background on the survey. He reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee will review the executive summary and report back tomorrow. Alan Cline noted that this project has been delayed for a long time.

C - Art Bronson has volunteered to help finish the report.

C - Ivor pointed out that we just need to finish this whole thing.

C - Alan Cline noted that since many of the problems we run into on our campuses involve legal issues, we will have Mr. Farabee join us tomorrow.

Continuation of discussion about access to offices:

C - Network services have access to all offices on some campuses. There is a law giving them that right in order to protect the State, but they must sign certain security documents.

C - Inappropriate use of University resources including computers, phones, etc. in against the law, and faculty and administrators can and are fired if they abuse this.

C - There is a lot of variability as to how this law is used.

Q - Is the fact that "everybody is doing it" a defense?

Q - Should e-mail be viewed the same as phone use?

Q - Are we criminalizing minor and unimportant things?

Q - Can faculty pay something to use the Internet for personal use?

A - We do pay for long distance phone calls.

C - Maybe the FAC needs to develop a policy on providing these services to faculty for a fee.

C - On the topic of policies, in many cases we're missing a feedback loop for policies whereby faculty know what policies are in effect and if they are the same policy that was submitted. In addition, many policies are developed without any input from faculty.

C - Our HOOPs have gotten out of control, with many different versions existing at the same time. Its a real tree killer. Putting the HOOP on the Web might help, but you still have the problem of changes that may occur since the last time you looked at it. Also, not all faculty have access to the Internet.

C - A "What's New Section" could help solve this problem.

C - The version on the Internet must be kept up to date if this is going to be effective.

C - We need to be careful that the policy that is sent back from System is the same policy that was submitted. If changes are made, these should be communicated to the faculty.

Q - What is the real purpose of sending a policy to the Office of General Counsel?

7. Chancellor William H. Cunningham

The Chancellor reported that he has been working closely with the chancellors of the other systems in Texas to present a united front to the Legislature. The goal is to graduate an additional 15,200 students in Texas. If we don't do something, we will have more poorly educated citizens in Texas in the future. We are asking for a 12 or 13% increase in our budgets over a two year period. They are meeting with a number of legislators who say they want to help, but need to wait a see how much money is available in the budget (projected to be $2.5 billion). Part of any surplus will go to lower education ($1 billion) and to prison operation ($0.5 billion). There will be others trying to get the balance of the surplus. If a change in the tax policy is revenue neutral, positive or negative, that will affect the outcome. We have to wait and see at this point.

Q - How far are we behind per capita education?

A - 20% or more, depending on how you measure it, such as the number of graduates. In terms of the 10 most populous states we are further behind.

Q - Is there money for pay raises?

A - Yes, but it will be handled on the local level and we don't know how much. We have been able to achieve raises from other sources during the last biennium.

Q - Why are administrators excluded from the post-tenure review process since in many cases, administrators are not being reviewed under other policies and procedures? Aren't there just as many problems among administrators as among faculty? Will the number of administrators increase because of this process? What about golden parachutes?

A - Most administrators are reviewed, at least it is the System policy that this occurs. At UT Austin this does occur and in more depth that the post-tenure review. (Francie will give the Chancellor a report of what is happening.) The policy is not designed to eliminate faculty. The only golden parachutes that exist in the UT System is time given to prepare to go back into teaching after you have been an administrator.

Q - Why is there is such a time press on the post-tenure review issue?

A - Senator Bivins plans to submit a bill to the Legislature and we need to address this and get it over with.

C - In some schools, administrators are acting as full-time faculty and should be subject to review, but they will be excluded.

A - We're trying to let the local campuses have as much flexibility as possible.

Q - Why was the word counseling included since it may lead to misunderstanding?

A - I'll look at it.

Q - Why does the dean appoint the peer review committee?

A - In some places the dean appoints an APT committee and in others the FGO does it, it should follow the local policy.

Q - Why are we being sold out to the Legislature? Isn't this a problem of trying to place an academic institution into a business model? A lot of good faculty will leave Texas.

A - A number of other states are already doing this. We can agree to disagree.

Q - Why isn't this term tenure?

A - The burden of proof is on the institution, not the faculty member.

C - We have suggested that the burden of proof be in the process rather than a statement at the end.

Q - Why should the president pick the tribunal if the president is going to submit the charges?

A - The presidents didn't want to change and we made a compromise. I believe in shared governance as much as possible.

Q - Does the president make the case to the Board?

A - No, the tribunal makes its report directly to the Board.

Q - Is there really a lot of support in the Legislature for this issue?

A - Its a hot button with certain members of the Legislature, but we haven't really surveyed the Legislature.

Q - Why did you reject the FAC proposal and what are the consequences of implementing the 5 year proposal?

A - We considered it carefully and feel that we have incorporated most of the principles submitted by the FAC. We did not agree with a review stopping at the departmental level. If everyone is not reviewed, an administrator could abuse that and only send forward for review those faculty they wanted to eliminate. Some departments might try to protect themselves and not send anyone forward for review. The consequences are: 1) faculty can review where they are in their career; 2) faculty will want to receive good reviews and will sharpen their skills; 3) a few faculty will be asked to leave the institution; 4) for the majority, it will give the dean the opportunity to find out how they can help the faculty. I don't think we will become awash in bureaucrats, but faculty will have to spend time on this.

Q - Do you have a dollar or time figure as a result of this?

A - Don't know exactly, but the dollar cost should be fairly small and the time required shouldn't be inordinate.

Q - If this won't cost a lot in dollars, does that mean that money won't be spent on remediation?

A - I was focusing on the review process and not the remediation.

Q - Will MD Anderson be included in this?

A - No.

Q - Will this policy enhance the ability to get more money?

A - There is no deal to get more money if we pass this policy.

Q - If we go through an in-depth review for merit raise purposes, will that count for the periodic review?

A - A merit raise review is not intended to take the place of the post-tenure review.

Q - Why is the term unsatisfactory used?

A - There wasn't anything magic about that term.

C - Peer review committees will spend a lot of time on this process. If faculty go through this process without peer review they have not been afforded due process.

A - An administrator should be careful in selecting committees; if they aren't, they will probably get burned.

C - If a dean doesn't know about poor faculty, then you have a problem with the dean.

C - You seem to have an undying trust in administrators.

Q - Who will be reviewed first?

A - Each campus will have to decide that.

Q - If this passes, how will we implement this without allowing administrators to read things into the policy that aren't there?

A - Call the Chancellor if you have problems.

Q - What is the history of action at the System level, in particular, what about the case at UTSA?

A - We review every case that is brought to us, if we think the System is in the right, then we will pursue the case, if we don't think we are in the right, then we try to settle as soon as possible. (This was apparently an emotional issue for the Chancellor.)

Alan thanked the Chancellor for his comments.

Feedback Discussion

C - Committees of tenured faculty that have to worry about their tenure will not be the same as tenured faculty today.

C - The Chancellor is firm on his proposal and will make the case that he has received hours upon hours of input on this issue.

C - Someone needs to really do the figures on the cost in time and money of this whole process.

C - This will drive even a bigger wedge between faculty and administrators and will take power away from faculty. It will cost the UT System in immeasurable ways over the long run. Other states are backing away from this. Also, more faculty will join unions, etc.

Q - Will the Regents buy these arguments or should we come up with other arguments?

Q - If this policy had been in place 5 years ago, what would we have done differently. Maybe less participation in professional organizations, etc. We will all start looking much more the same.

Q - Do we really need to do this?

C - The five year reviews could change the things we do if we let it happen, we need to make sure that doesn't happen.

C - On some campuses this policy may not be enforced as carefully as on others. We need to prepare our presentation to the Board carefully. They can and do occasionally reverse themselves.

C - We shouldn't think of this process as over, but focus on our long term goals and also the make up of the tribunals.

C - It is our responsibility to put together some guidelines that can be used in implementing this policy on each campus.

Q - What kind of message do we want to deliver to the Board of Regents? The officers need the help of the FAC members. Remember that each FGO chair has the right to speak.

Q - Who do we want to speak at the Board meeting?

A - We need to decide that tonight or tomorrow.

C - Some campuses have a much better relationship between the faculty and president than others and the Regents need to know that.

Q - What can we say to educate the Regents, Chancellor, media, etc.? We need to use our time carefully and be prepared. Someone needs to tell the Regents that some of the presidents (to put it nicely)?aren't wearing any clothes.

C - An estimate for evaluating all faculty is between 3 and 4 million dollars.

C - The Regents may not be impressed with a couple of million dollars in the scheme of things.

C - The ad hoc committee has tried very hard to work on behalf of those who do not have the best relationship with their administrators.

Arthur Dilly - Secretary to the Board of Regents

Permission to speak before the board comes from the chairman. Both requests thus far have been given 10 minutes to speak. Three or four more requests have come in but have not been addressed by the chairman yet. This matter will probably come up about 1:30 pm Nov. 14 at UT Southwestern HSC, Rm. NB2.402 -403 in the Simmons Biomedical Bldg.. Material submitted has been distributed to the Board.

Q - Can any member of the Board make a motion regarding the topic on the table?

A - Yes.

Q - Do you have to be on the agenda ahead of time in order to speak?

A - Yes, you must ask ahead of time.

Q - Can each FGO president request to speak?

A - Yes.

C - The campus presidents and the presidents of the student organizations are the only ones that have a right to speak without prior permission.

Q - Can we ask for a briefing session for the FGO presidents to meet with the Board.

A - You can request it, but it may or may not be possible.

C - We can request a total amount of time and then divide it as we see fit.

Q - What time will the Board meet on Weds.

A - Briefing from 1-3 and meeting at 3 pm on Weds at the hotel.

Alan thanked Mr. Dilly for sharing his comments with us and answering our questions.

Q - How many people will choose peer reviews?

A - A straw pole showed that about 50% of the FAC would choose peer review and 50% would choose administrative review.

C - Many factors may determine whether or not a faculty wants peer review.

Q - Will policies developed on campuses be changed at the System level?

C - It doesn't seem possible to have all these policies in place by Sept. of 97.

8. Committee Meetings

The Council adjourned to committee meetings at 4 pm.

9. Adjourn

At the conclusion of the committee meetings the Council adjourned until Friday morning.

10. Call to Order

Alan Cline called the meeting to order at 9:15 am. James Berry, who could only be present today, reported that the Chancellor did not make it to the Honors Convocation in Houston. Alan asked that committee chairs make their reports this afternoon fairly brief in order to leave time for New Business items.

Q - Are we going to ask Mr. Farabee about privacy issues? Things have changed a great deal over the years, moving from a family atmosphere to a corporate atmosphere.

A - That would be appropriate. An individual from A&M reported various invasions to his privacy.

C - There seems to be an antagonistic attitude toward faculty who make requests under the ADA.

11. Role of Office of General Counsel Related to Faculty Issues

Mr. Ray Farabee, Vice Chancellor and General Counsel Alan Cline introduced Mr. Farabee and remarked how pleased we have been with the work of Georgia Harper who works out of Mr. Farabee's office. Mr. Farabee commented that there are parts of his job which involve being helpful and parts that involve being adversarial. He referred to the song "Which side are you on?. They try to avoid conflict, but it isn't always easy. They try to provide certain legal services to the component institutions, the System and the Board. They try to coordinate other services, such as representation by the Attorney General. They hire outside counsel to represent faculty physicians when they are sued. They set up an Office of Risk Management to avoid problems. There is also an environmental office to avoid environmental problems. The OGC provides services regarding copyright law, patent law (royalties are shared 50:50 after expenses), medical liability (saves about 50% in what we would pay in premiums, which leaves more for benefits), claims section (makes an effort to collect delinquent loans), collect hospital fees (for MD Anderson and UTMB), requirements of the PUF, and compliance with Federal regulations. The group that mainly deals with faculty (a relatively small part of the OGC's legal business) is the general law division. This involves questions regarding employment, termination, etc. they provide counseling and coordination up to the trial, which is then handled by the Attorney General's Office (or in some cases an outside firm). Claims for slipping and falling, etc. are also handled by this office (paid for by component institutions). There are also attorneys at the health components and at UT Austin. They try to work closely with one another.

Q - Is the general law division the one that reviews proposed changes to the HOOP?

A - Yes.

Q - There seem to be long delays in this process; is there a turn around time that you adhere to?

A - Try to turn it around as quickly as possible, but it varies depending on the complexity of the changes or the availability of staff who are familiar with this type of change. (Let Mr. Farabee know if it takes too long. You can check the Web site.)

Q - On the question of post-tenure review, what happens when we change the rules applying to tenure, are those who have been awarded tenure previously subject to the changes?

A - You are subject to the Regents' Rules as they change, just as retirement programs can change.

Q - Are you really comparing tenure to our retirement program?

A - I'm just saying that the Regents can change the rules if they want to and, for instance, make tenure "term tenure" if they wanted to, but nobody is suggesting that we remove tenure.

Q - Isn't tenure a property right that you are given when you receive tenure?

A - I would have to check that out.

Q - Can a faculty member refuse to participate in a post-tenure review if it wasn't in effect when you achieve tenure?

A - You have to follow the rules as they apply at the current time. Rules change and we must follow the rules.

Q - Does the OGC always defend the person at the highest level in a dispute?

A - Not a clean yes or no. The OGC looks at the situation and tries to determine if certain rights are involved. They don't necessarily go forward in "lockstep" with the administration. Things are not always clear cut. The Attorney General also reviews the cases to make a determination.

Q - What is the proper appeal procedure concerning things that are in the HOOP that are ambiguous or inconsistent?

A - Go through the Vice Chancellors and then maybe to the OGC. (Bring it to Mr. Farabee's attention.)

Q - Under what conditions can an administrator conduct a search of a faculty member's office or property?

A - Everything belongs to the State, so they have the right to search if they have reason to believe something is wrong. Don't know of situations where this has happened.

C - This happened to Dr. Lehga at MD Anderson.

A - Allegations are not necessarily fact.

Q - Can you tap phones or e-mail?

A - Don't know if that has happened, but I would certainly discourage it. E-mail is not secure, its different than a phone. Also, it is subject to open records.

Q - What about opening mail?

A - I don't know of that happening.

Q - What constitutes "cause" for the purposes of searches?

A - Don't mislead yourself, your office and everything in it is the property of the State. Some things are illegal, some things are against the rules, and some things are just in conflict with our academic mission.

Q - If someone simply makes a claim that somebody is doing something illegal, what will happen?

A - The president should contact the OGC, but they don't have to.

Q - How many of our normal rights are we giving up as a state employee?

A - We need to be careful not to violate each other's rights, but we still need to maintain the order of our academic community.

Q - Faculty keep certain sensitive documents in our offices (patient information, grades, research data) and it seems dangerous to violate this necessary sense of privacy.

A - These special concerns need to be overriding factors even though everything does belong to the State. We should be sensitive to this.

Q - The follow-up on medical malpractice cases by the OGC is poor at best. Nobody tells you when you are dropped from a suit or whether information has been received, etc. Why can't we receive more timely communication?

A - We have a good record on malpractice cases. We have to make decisions about when we settle, when we don't, etc. We usually communicate with the attorneys rather than the individual faculty.

Q - As a faculty member, shouldn't I be told what is going on by the counsel who is representing me?

A - We will try to do better in keeping you informed.

Q - If a faculty member writes a grant, submits it and then someone else's name is put on it in the "best interests of the university", how can that happen?

A - Georgia Harper answered that a proposal for a grant is an individual's proposal, unless it was written at the request of the university.

Q - How would you deal with such a case?

A - Find out the facts and assume the best. A lot of people don't understand intellectual property laws and may not have done anything intentional.

Q - Can a faculty member go to OGC claiming that an administrator stole their intellectual property?

A - It isn't the job of the OGC to go after the administrator.

Q - Should I go to the next higher administrator?

Alan Cline thanked Mr. Farabee for his comments.

C - Jerry Polinard recommended that the FAC develop a policy concerning the circumstances under which an administrator can search a faculty member's office, etc.

C - At MD Anderson they have been told that a court order must be sought in order to search an office, particularly if the evidence is going to be admissible.

C - Georgia Harper volunteered to provide some articles that address this area.

C - Richard Diem named a person (Frank Kenemmer a professor at the University of North Texas) who is an expert in this field and has a couple of texts available.

C - Alan Cline asked Academic Affairs to look into this matter.

12. Committee Meetings

The Council adjourned to committee meetings at 10:45 am.

13. Ms. Gwen Grigsby - Office of Governmental Relations

Alan Cline introduced Gwen Grigsby. Gwen reported that they are trying to get ready for the legislative session. She distributed copies of the election results from around the state from last Tuesday's election. There is already a little flurry about who is in control in the Legislature. Issues that will be addressed include: post-tenure review; many of the other recommendations from the Senate Education Committee (Senator Bivins is very student oriented); TSTC; a simplified funding formula (headed up by Senator Ratliff); differences between the House and the Senate on tuition and fees; managed care issues at the health components and how to fund medical education; practice plans will continue to be under scrutiny; unified message to the Legislature by members of higher education (called Back To Basics, a program to help students finish high school then matriculate through college) to increase funding for higher education to the level of $900 million.

Q - Are there serious plans to revive the idea of a Rising Junior test?

A - Senator Bivins is trying to do something.

Q - Are the coffers pretty flush this year?

A - Yes, we have been good stewards of our money and we would like some of that surplus.

Q - What are some of the things the legislators want from faculty?

A - Work harder, speak English.

Q - Is there a push for more tenure track faculty?

A - Yes, but we will try to educate them as to the importance of non-tenure track faculty as well.

Q - Will there be any new special items?

A - Can't say for sure, but everyone is trying to restrain themselves and be a member of the team.

Q - Will there be a push to decrease enrollment in medical schools?

A - Haven't heard about any specific bills.

Q - Will some of the current line items be in danger?

A - Don't think that those that are doing well will be in trouble.

Q - Are they ignoring the attempt at medical schools to get rid of tenured faculty?

A - They may be focusing on undergraduate education.

Q - Could it be dangerous to tinker with the funding formulas?

A - We will have to be very careful.

Q - Are there any rumors about opening new institutions?

A - Systems, but not institutions. Texas Tech would like to start a new system. They need to go through proper channels.

Q - What is the fate of the Coordinating Board?

A - Senator Bivins is a supporter of the Coordinating Board.

Q - Is there any information regarding Medicare issues?

A - One person in the office is staying on top of those issues.

Q - Do you think Senator Bivins will still pursue the post-tenure review issue?

A - Yes, he will push something forward.

14. Committee Reports

Academic Affairs - Ivor Page reported that the Committee discussed the information they had received from Art Hernandez. A lot of errors still exist and the Committee would like Alan Cline, as chair of the FAC, to ask Art to deliver all information relating to the study to the FAC, within a period of two weeks. This was made as a motion, seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The Committee also discussed guidelines related to searching offices, accessing computers, etc. They will also look at the "trivial use" of telephones and e-mail. (It was suggested that the Committee might need legal help with this issue, maybe from the law school or someone else from the OGC).

Faculty Quality - Jim Bartlett reported that the Distance Learning Policy was approved through the e-mail vote. A motion was made that this policy become a Regental Policy. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The Exit Interview has been distributed to the VP's on the academic campuses with positive feedback. Only one item, which contained a list of details, was questioned. Due to current circumstances, the Committee considered whether an item should be added regarding post-tenure review (could be added to section D and worded as "did you leave because of the policies for performance review at the institution"). A motion was made and seconded to add wording to this effect as item #12 in section D.

Q - Will this wording allow us to track "post-tenure" review?

A - It may make it hard to tack, but we wanted to be unbiased in our wording.

Q - Would it be appropriate to add this in another section?

A - This seemed like the appropriate place.

C - If the purpose is to know if post-tenure review affects the decision, you won't know the answer.

Q - Could you add several specific policies so that one will not be singled out?

A - Several items are already in there, so why not single out just post-tenure review.

C - Jim Bartlett indicated that he would accept a friendly amendment to change the name to "periodic performance review", but none was forthcoming.

C - There are legitimate questions that could be asked about evaluation procedures.

The motion passed, but not unanimously.

Governance Committee - Betty Travis reported that the Committee discussed the evaluation of presidents and will try to collect information about that process from other universities across the country. The other issue was to focus on UTSA, and gather information about a number of items that were of concern to the FAC, regarding specific actions by the president that may be in violation of System policies.

Health Affairs - James Berry reported several items including: 1) problems with CareMark that could not be followed up because Mr. Molloy was not present at their meeting; 2) the Health Affairs Committee's relationship with Vice Chancellor Mullins which they seek to improve; 3) the process by which policies move through the system before reaching final approval in an effort to improve this process (each campus is asked to document their own experience with this matter) (Francie suggested putting a date on the document by which you would like the document returned); 4) consider multi-year contracts for various levels of non-tenure track faculty.

Q - What are the aspects of the decision that goes into determining that a person will be non-tenure track instead of tenure track?

A - Some use it as a way to bring in clinicians who don't want to do all of the things necessary to become tenured. There may also be some budgetary concerns.

Q - Don't you need to work with Dr. Mullins and would he be more likely to meet with the Committee if you have this single issue?

A - That will be pursued.

15. Old Business

No old business was noted.

16. New Business

Post-Tenure Review - The Ad Hoc Committee recommends three motions: 1) that the FAC recommends approval by the Regents of the policy developed by the ad hoc committee; 2) that the FAC recommends disapproval of the Systems' proposal for post-tenure review; and 3) that the FAC mandate the ad hoc committee to present the proposal to the Regents.

A motion was made by Richard Diem that the FAC request the Board to delay action until February. The motion was withdrawn based on further discussion. The results of the previous FAC resolution on this issue is: 3 of the 6 health campuses approved it and all of the academic campuses approved it. A motion was made by James Berry and seconded to adopt the ad hoc committee's recommendations.

C - We must consider why we are doing this. Even though we may not win with the Regents in the immediate time, we are preparing to win in the long run. We want to prepare a model policy to be used on the local campuses.

C - The point should be made to the Regents that, were there to be an additional two or three months, the two proposals may have been merged into one.

C - Lets not forget to also concentrate on the tribunal issue, which will come up after the post-tenure review issue.

Q - If there is a postponement, will we continue to support a five year review or would we go back to just the annual review?

A - It should depend on why the Regents don't approve the Chancellor's policy, so we need to play it by ear.

Q - Did the Chancellor's last version incorporate some of the ad hoc committee's points?

A - Some say it does, but others feel that it violates the FAC's principles. Some of the statements that were incorporated may be useful, but the process may not provide enough safeguards.

A - The documents read more like each other with each draft, but the ad hoc committee feels that the System document doesn't adequately address the FAC principles. On the positive side, there may be enough ambiguity in the System document that we may be able to draft satisfactory policies on the local campuses.

A - One of the principles not approached was about only reviewing those who really need it.

C - The System document is flexible enough that we can work with it; however the five year issue is still a problem.

Alan Cline welcomed a reporter from the Daily Texan.

C - The reason for negotiating the five years, was that this was a point the Chancellor really wanted and that he might be willing to give on the tribunal (which he didn't). On some campuses there will be abuses of this flexible policy and we won't end up with something that we want to live with.

Q - Could campuses be required to submit their policies as early as May?

A - Francie indicated that it should be even earlier.

C - This is just the first step in doing away with tenure in this state and I think we will look back and wonder why we cooperated at all on this. We're cutting our own throats. Its sad for the people who will come after us and for the people who have put a lot of money into education in this state.

C - Agree with that comment and feel that the ad hoc committee document would provide the visible accountability that we are being asked for. The System document will be the demise of tenure and loss of academic freedom.

C - We tried to make a genuine attempt to comply with the Chancellor's wishes. What's going to happen when this doesn't work and the next step is worst?

C - Disappointed in the Chancellor's lack of faith in his faculty.

The motion passed unanimously.

Alan Cline promised that the next meeting will not be as discouraging.

The next meeting is February 27 and 28, 1997 and the Executive Committee will meet on February 14, 1997.

17. Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at 2:25 pm.

<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