Faculty Advisory Council
1. Call to Order
Alan Cline called the meeting to order at 10:00am and discussed some changes in the agenda. The Chancellor will not be able to meet with us.
2. Executive Committee Report/Minutes Approval
Alan Cline reviewed the November Regents' Meeting with regard to FAC participation. At that meeting, Alan spoke on behalf of the FAC's proposal for selecting Tribunals, however, right before Alan's presentation, the Chancellor offered a substitute proposal which differed from the FAC's recommendation, but would require one member of the tribunal be selected from a faculty selected panel. This substitute proposal was approved. Local campuses must adopt policies to implement this rule change.
A number of people spoke regarding the Post-Tenure Review proposal. The Regents made one change to the proposal which would require the Regents approve each campus policy. These policies will have to be approved by the August Regents' Meeting in order to be implemented by Sept. 1, 1997. The activity on PTR policies on local campuses will be discussed in this meeting. Mike Siciliano pointed out that several members of the Board were concerned about academic freedom and that the Board's Academic Affairs Committee will oversee these policies.
Alan Cline welcomed representatives of the Daily Texan.
Ivor Page pointed out that the Regents indicated that teaching should be given priority in the Post-Tenure Reviews and that if we are good teachers we should receive a good review.
Lynn Little commented that he was very proud of the faculty who represented the FAC at the Regents' Meeting and commended them for their efforts.
Alan Cline also commented on the Executive Committee Meeting held February 14, 1997. He asked for reports on PTR and Evaluation of Administrators. He also discussed a FAC representation problem on the UTSA campus. There may be some ambiguity on this subject in our Bylaws. A letter was written to the Chancellor on this issue and expressed the Executive Committee's point of view which stated that the elected faculty representative (Walter Richardson) should be given the vote . Rich Diem commented that he appreciated the manner in which Alan Cline handled this on behalf of the FAC. They have changed their Bylaws to prevent this type of problem in the future.
The minutes of the November FAC meeting were approved with one minor change (to move the UT Tyler report up under section 4 with the other campus reports).
3. Post-tenure Review Oversight Proposal
Jerry Polinard presented a written proposal along with justification for the creation of a standing Oversight Committee. The Committee would include the Chair, Chair-elect, and Immediate Past-Chair, and would be responsible for keeping track of action taken by the FAC and report the outcomes. Several of the resolutions approved by the FAC in the past year or two have not been implemented on the local campuses. The proposal was referred to the Governance Committee for consideration.
4. Proposed Revisions of Organizational Guidelines
Lynn Little presented some proposed changes to the Organizational Guidelines. He pointed out that this is necessary because over time, some of the practices of the FAC have changed or evolved and should be codified in the Organizational Guidelines. There are also areas, such as representation, that may be ambiguous in the present form. The proposed changes will be reviewed by the Governance Committee.
5. Ms. Gwen Grigsby from the Office of Governmental Relations
Gwen Grigsby reported that this is the fastest session and things are really moving. The Appropriations Bill is pretty flat right now until they know how much funding is available. They have to follow a large number of bills. The TAAS bill will come up soon and some others are still being worked on in the background. They are trying to prevent financial aid from being taken from the general budget. The Senate PTR bill has moved over to the House, but so far a sponsor has not been identified. The bills to postpone PTR for in depth study are also being considered.
6. Campus Reports
UT Tyler - Roger Conaway distributed a written report that included: 1) Periodic Review of Tenured Faculty; 2) Evaluations of Vice Presidents; 3) Presidential Search Process; 4) Merger Discussions with Local Junior College; and 5) the Longview Branch. Roger then discussed the PTR policy. The policy for evaluating vice presidents has not been implemented, but deans and chairs are being evaluated.
UT Southwestern - Tim Wolf gave an oral report on the PTR activity on his campus. They have basically just followed the Regents' guidelines. They will probably still need to develop a set of written guidelines on how this will be implemented. They are also in the process of tribunal selection. Occupational exposure is also a big issue on their campus.
UTMB - Richard Rahr distributed drafts of their PTR documents from Nursing and Allied Health. The Medical school is also working on a document. (Many concerns were expressed about the language in the UTMB PTR documents.) There is a lot of activity on this issue on their campus. The Allied Health review committees will utilize members from the other schools. Three policies will be approved from their campus. In regards to the Evaluation of Administrators, every administrator is evaluated, but not necessarily by the faculty in general. Each school does it a little different. They still do not have a campus-wide faculty governance organization, but they are working on it.
UT Houston HSC - David Turner distributed a written report and drafts of two PTR documents, one from the HSC and one modified by the Dental Branch. He summarized the report, including mention of the new "whistle blower's" hotline. David and other members from UT Houston fielded questions about the PTR documents. Many concerns were raised about the current language in these draft documents.
UT San Antonio HSC - Daniel Chan gave an oral report. They are in the developmental stages of a PTR document, but they do not have a draft yet. He distributed a report from their Special Assistant to the President regarding Evaluation of Administrators. He did not know whether vice presidents would be included in the evaluation.
UT MD Anderson - Jim Klostergaard gave an oral report. Since they do not have regular tenure, they are not developing a PTR document. They are working on Upward Evaluation of Administrators. The ideas proposed by the faculty are being considered by their president. Revenue is exceeding the previous two years, therefore, the sky doesn't really seem to be "falling". They are currently involved in a Program Abandonment action under financial exigency. Since the Regents' Rules were not followed, they have decided to start over and approach it from the academic side. They have recognized that the procedure is pretty vague under "bona fide academic reasons". They do not have an approved local policy that deals with this issue. Concern was raised that the Regents' Rules are much too vague on this issue and perhaps should be changed. In the past, the Chancellor has asked each local campus to develop a policy that covers this issue. This issue will be forwarded to the Faculty Quality Committee.
UT Tyler HC - Shaun Black distributed a written report that included: 1) Ambulatory care building; 2) Skilled nursing facility; 3) Administrative turnover/recruitment; 4) Grievance policies; 5) Internet access; 6) Upward Evaluation of Administrators (they have been excluded from this process); 7) Restoration of research faculty meetings; and 8) Biotechnology graduate program (in conjunction with Stephen F. Austin State U.). Since they do not have tenure, they are not working on a PTR document. The FAC will once again pursue their inclusion in the Evaluation of Administrators. (During the Health Affairs Committee meeting, J.B. Pace, Assistant to Vice Chancellor Mullins, indicated that he had communicated to the UT Tyler HC president the need to develop this policy.)
UT Arlington - Rod Hissong distributed a copy of their PTR document and then briefly summarized their policy. Some concern was expressed regarding parts of their proposed policy.
UT Austin - Paul Woodruff distributed a written report and summarized its content. Their PTR policy has been approved at the campus level and has been sent to the System for approval by the Regents. They have worked with Senator Bivins office to amend the Senate PTR bill to preserve "good cause" as the reason for termination. However, Charles Zucker with TFA was able to introduce a different amendment which removed some protection. They are working on Evaluation of Administrators. Other issues included: additional support for their General Faculty Office; and altering the time frame for constituting committees.
UT Brownsville - Jaime Garza distributed a report prepared by Bill Davis which included: 1) Grievance policy; 2) Post-Tenure Review; 3) Faculty salaries; 4) Faculty workload; and UTB expansion. Jaime discussed the PTR policy and Evaluation of Administrators. The PTR policy seems to be running a little behind. The first draft should be ready next week.
UT Dallas - James Bartlett distributed a written report and draft copies of their PTR document, and discussed their PTR document. It has explicit linkage to termination to call attention to its seriousness. An adverse finding is grievable under their Grievance Policy. The dean initiates the procedure and his or her finding goes to a faculty committee and then back to the dean. The policy does not allow the consideration of hearsay and anonymous letters. (A faculty member should be notified when anything is placed in his/her file.)
Another issue on the UT Dallas campus is a new consulting policy which required detailed information about faculty consulting. They are in the process of revising this policy. It should be noted that any intellectual property produced during the consulting belongs to the State. Other schools have also been asked to disclose detailed information concerning outside income.
Evaluation of Administrators occurs at the department level, but not necessarily at the dean level.
UT El Paso - Mo Mahmood distributed a written report that included: 1) Post-Tenure Review; 2) Evaluation of Administrators by the faculty; 3) Salary compression and inversion; and Faculty Grievance and Conduct policies. They are a little behind on the PTR development. Their policy for Evaluating Administrators hasn't really been implemented. They are trying to correct problems created by salary compression and inversion. Their Senate is concerned about their Grievance and Conduct policies.
UT Pan American - Jerry Brazier distributed copies of their PTR policy. They are looking for a new VPAA and several deans. They have a policy for Evaluation of Administrators. The evaluation of department chairs is on a 3 year cycle and is not covered by this policy. Deans and vice presidents are covered by the policy. No administrator has been reviewed under that policy. The Faculty Senate has conducted evaluations of administrators and the results are published. This evaluation has resulted in improvements in some administrators. Their evaluation includes the president. Jerry Polinard summarized their PTR policy. There is one mandatory level of review with a second optional level of review. The policy has been approved by their Senate and will now go to their Council of Deans.
UT Permian Basin - Lois Hale distributed a written report as well as copies of their PTR draft policy and their policy on Evaluation of Academic Administrators. She discussed the responses they have received to the PTR draft. Peer review will be at the university level since they have about 100 faculty and 40 tenured faculty. Chairs are included in the review, but not deans and above. Their current annual merit review does not include a peer review component. They have had Evaluation of Administrators which has been used to varying degrees over the years. Other issues include selecting tribunals. Faculty and administration have agreed to use 9 faculty elected to a grievance pool to also serve as a tribunal pool. The president can add to the tribunal pool if necessary.
UT San Antonio - Betty Travis announced that she has received her promotion to full professor. Betty also distributed a written report and a draft copy of their PTR document. She then summarized their document and pointed out that they may add language that says this policy is being developed under duress. The deans and provost have been generally supportive of the development procedures, however, they wanted to include non-tenured faculty on review committees. Although they have a "new" policy for Evaluation of Administrators, the policy doesn't have adequate faculty input. Their Faculty Senate currently comes under the University Assembly which includes staff, administrators, students and faculty. They are trying to rewrite their Bylaws to change that relationship. Using the Texas Open Records act they have requested all academic evaluations of administrators and only received a handful. This indicates that administrators are not being evaluated. Administrators have received academic raises without any documentation of academic evaluation. On another issue, they approved a Grievance Policy last year, but even though the president also "approved" the policy, the policy was changed before it went into the HOOP. They have now passed a resolution instructing the president to implement the approved policy. Rich Richardson read an answer from Mr. Faraby (UT System General Counsel) to a question about whether faculty should sign their contracts next fall without adding language that reserves the right to challenge in court the changes that have occurred with regard to tenure.
7. Committee Meetings
(Health Affairs - OHH 1; Academic Affairs - ASH 5)(Mr. J. B. Pace to meet with Health Affairs)
The Council adjourned to committee meetings at 3:54pm.
8. Call to Order
Alan Cline reconvened the meeting at 9:00am.
9. Report on Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Project
Samuel Freeman presented a report on the Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness, starting with a little history of the project and its origin. He pointed out the importance of this project to the current PTR issue. The FAC attempted to avoid the pitfalls encountered with the Faculty Satisfaction Survey and contracted with Art Hernandez to be the principal researcher. The project fell way behind schedule and remains behind schedule. Samuel expressed hope that the UT System will continue to support such studies, but that the FAC will keep searching for ways to keep such studies on schedule. The goals of the project were to:
In the end, #2 and #3 became the objectives of the project. Presenting the results of the surveys in a clear and succinct manner has been a problem and has caused much of the delay. There is a lot of valuable information in the report, even though it is incomplete. We need to get that information out to the campuses. A critical aspect of Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness is that everyone (students, faculty and administration) must be clear on its purpose and intent. An evaluation should be customized for local component needs and differences. The intent is to have a finished report to present to the FAC in June for its approval. The next step is to look at other aspects of Teaching Evaluation other than just student evaluation (e.g. peer evaluation, resources developed, etc.).
Samuel expressed concern over the current relationship between the FAC and the Chancellor and encouraged both the FAC and the Chancellor to work to improve that relationship. He admonished the Chancellor to "reach out" to the FAC and also admonished the FAC not to let the outcome of a couple of recent issues adversely affect the FAC's working relationship with the Chancellor.
10. Vice Chancellor James Duncan
Vice Chancellor Duncan distributed an organizational chart of the Office of Academic Affairs and made some brief comments on that organizational structure. The Vice Chancellor interacts with the presidents and is responsible for filling presidential vacancies. He also distributed copies of articles on tenure and PTR.
10. Committee Meetings
(Health Affairs - OHH 1; Academic Affairs - ASH 5)(Mr. Bob Molloy to meet with Health Affairs)
The Council recessed to committee meetings.
11. Committee Reports
Faculty Quality Committee - James Bartlett reported on the activities of the Committee. The Committee considered the problem of Program Closure for Academic Reasons and the language that exists in the Regents' Rules (6.11). The Rules are pretty vague about what must be done and by whom. The time frame is also pretty vague. There is no discussion of opportunity for retraining. There is much more detail and protection for faculty in the section for closure for Financial Exigency (6.12). The Committee recommends amending 6.11 to provide much more specific protection for faculty and will work on language to that effect. The Committee will look at the policies from local campuses. There are campuses that are currently using this rule. All campuses were supposed to write a local policy, but not all have done so. A "retraining" option is one possibility that might be added.
Academic Affairs - Ivor Page reported for the Committee and expressed an interest in meeting with Vice Chancellor Duncan more often. The Committee recommends that the sections of the report on Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness that we have be passed on to the campuses. The Committee also discussed the requirement that faculty sign a document regarding computer security. Many faculty will not currently sign such a document because of the vagueness of what it means. The law still applies to you whether you sign the document or not. A related issue is incidental use of computers for personal use. The Committee believes that occasional personal use such as sending email to your children or calling home, is reasonable use. It might be possible to have a fee for use policy.
The motion passed unanimously.
Health Affairs Committee - James Berry reported on the activities of the Committee. The Committee met with Bob Molloy and discussed problems with CareMark, our contract drug company. There don't seem to be wide spread problems with CareMark, but the data is difficult to collect in this area. The Committee also met with Jim Guckian and J.B. Pace and discussed, among other things, the idea of multi-year contracts for clinical faculty. Without a change in the Regents' Rules, this is not possible. The Committee is proposing changing the language of the Regents' Rules (1.83) to allow multi-year contracts for clinical or research faculty, and for annual renewal of these contracts. The intent is to give presidents and deans the ability to award longer term contracts when they desire.
The Committee also reviewed the minutes from the Council of Health Institutions. The academic campuses have a similar group, but according to Francie Frederick, they do not produce minutes.
Governance Committee - Jack Gilbert reported for the Committee. On behalf of the Committee, Jack made a motion that the FAC approve the following amendment to the Organizational Guidelines to create a Subcommittee of the Executive Committee on Oversight:
The amendment passed. Jerry Brazier made a motion to eliminate the wording during the spring, seconded by James Bartlett. Motion passed. Ivor Page made a motion to include "FAC Chair" in the last sentence, seconded by James Bartlett. Motion passed.
Rod Hissong moved and Herold Poelzer seconded to remove the reference to the May meeting. The motion passed. James Berry moved and Jerry Brazier seconded that the Chair-elect and Immediate Past Chair would co-chair the committee. Motion passed. A motion was made and seconded to remove at the June meeting from #2. Motion passed.
The amended motion reads:
1. The FAC shall create an Oversight Committee. The composition of the committee shall include the FAC chair, chair-elect and immediate past chair. The immediate past chair and chair-elect will co-chair the committee.
2. The committee will be charged with collecting data from each component concerning the implementation and impact of policies adopted by the FAC, and of such other system-wide policies that affect faculty, as determined by the FAC. The data will form the basis of the committee report made to the FAC. The data may be used also by the FAC chair in the annual report made to the Board of Regents.
The amended motion passed.
The Committee also recommends accepting the proposed changes to the Organizational Guidelines and considering their distribution as a first reading. Jack Gilbert made this motion on behalf of the Committee. A vote on the changes will occur at the June meeting.
The Committee discussed the UT San Antonio issue and distributed a proposed letter to the Chancellor. The Committee recommends sending the letter to the Chancellor, asking him to respond to this issue. This would be a first step. Jack Gilbert presented this as a motion on behalf of the Committee. There was much discussion concerning the wording of the letter.
Alan Cline suggested taking out the specific items, leaving the first and last part of the letter. Rod Hissong made a motion to amend in this manner, seconded by Richard Rahr.
Richard Rahr made a motion to table the issue, seconded by Rod Hissong. Motion passed. James Berry made a motion, seconded by Richard Rahr, instructing the Chair to communicate to the Chancellor the FAC's concern about the problems on the UTSA campus, including the following points: the FAC is gravely concerned about this issue; we have been following and continue to follow this issue; the FAC will help if we can; and we would be happy to meet with the Chancellor about this issue if he wishes.
12. Old Business/New Business
Jerry Polinard suggested that we contact Dr. Duncan about meeting with him (as per his invitation).
The meeting adjourned at 3:10pm.
14. Executive Meeting (Friday February 28, 1997)
1. The meeting was called to order by Alan Cline at 3:10pm.
2. The Committee discussed what had transpired during the FAC meeting with regard to the UTSA issue and what the FAC responsibility is in this issue.
3. Alan Cline asked if there are other issues on the horizon that we need to consider and where we are going with the report on the Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness.
4. Alan plans to invite the FAC to his house for dinner during the June FAC meeting.
5. The meeting was adjourned at 3:20pm.