Home

Guidelines

Committees

Membership

Meetings

Minutes

Travel for FAC

Academic Affairs

Employee
Advisory Council

Student
Advisory Council

<back to Index>

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.

Q - Do the Regents feel that this is not a "term tenure" issue.

A - Yes, the minutes of the Regents' Meeting should reflect that sentiment.

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.

Q - Won't the current legislative action influence the implementation of the UT policy?

A - It was the threat of legislative action that prompted the current UT PTR policy.

Q - Will the Senate bill delaying PTR have any effect on the implementation of our policy?

A - We don't know the answer to that.

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.

Q - Is there a functional difference between Organizational Guidelines and Bylaws.

A - They can be one and the same.

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.

Q - What happened to the 2 billion dollars (1 billion for higher ed) extra that was supposed to be available?

A - That is still being considered, but there probably isn't that much available.

Q - When there are opposing PTR bills, which one do you support?

A - We don't take a position on either side. We do recommend resource witnesses which include faculty members.

Q - Can more faculty be included on "select committees"?

A - It just depends on how the committees are mandated.

Q - Wouldn't it be appropriate for faculty to testify at the time that the PTR bills are being debated?

A - Can't really say when you should testify.

Q - Is the issue of charges being denied for "research procedures" performed at academic health institutions being presented again?

A - That is still a hot issue and will come up again in the future.

Q - Will the Senate pass a bill that essentially reverses a bill that they have already passed?

A - They could, but there will be a lot of back ground maneuvering.

Q - What is happening with the Core Curriculum bill?

A - Faculty have had input into this bill to try to make it as amenable as possible.

Q - Is the System trying to oppose this bill?

A - We don't oppose bills.

Q - Doesn't the Chancellor take a stand on bills and what can we as faculty do?

A - We try to educate the legislators, so if you provide us with specific concern about a bill we will pass that information along.

Q - Will anyone be exempt from PTR?

A - Administrators claim to have yearly reviews and may be exempted in some proposals. (Note that the Regents' Rule just passed does exclude administrators.)

Q - What is "sovereign immunity"?

A - Anyone who wishes to sue the State must receive permission, but I don't know if that is considered sovereign immunity.

Q - Where in the process would it be clarified as to whether administrators will be excluded from PTR?

A - There are various steps in which you can get clarification.

Q - If no legislation passes concerning PTR will the UT policy still be in effect?

A - Yes, but we do have the opportunity to go back before the Regents.

Q - Would the delay bill effect us?

A - That has to be clarified.

Q - What is the "governing board" of an institution?

A - The Board of Regents.

Q - Are there any comments on the ORP bill?

A - It will probably be difficult to bring the level back up to 8.5%.

Q - What is your reading on the Governor's property tax issue?

A - There will be a thorough review of the situation, but it has a long way to go. It would take away from Higher Education.

Q - How do you get faculty to testify?

A- Various ways, including the FAC. The lead time is usually very short.

C - There is a listserv available on the daily legislative issues run by Larry Judd (TEXFAC-L@LISTSERV.UH.EDU). Larry's email address is: Ljudd@uh.edu. There is also Texas Legislature On-Line.

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.

Q - How will your PTR policy be implemented with the "clinical" track?

A - If you become tenured then you fall under the PTR. Jean Sparks reported that the Allied Health faculty were asked to select faculty for the tribunal. Neither Tim or Jean knew if they review vice presidents. Deans and chairs are reviewed.

Q - Are adjunct faculty included in the review of administrators at all campuses?

A - There were no positive responses from the members of the FAC.

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.

Q - Are we trying to only weed out incompetent faculty or are we trying to improve faculty overall? Should we have developmental language or not?

A - Different campuses have made different choices, with some choosing not to use developmental language. Regarding Evaluation of Administrators, some, but not all administrators are being evaluated.

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.

Q - Does the medical school have multiple tracks?

A - Just tenure and non-tenure.

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.

Q - Can you stop the review at the departmental level?

A - There should be some provision for a higher level review if the administration is not satisfied with the departmental review. Some campuses have been told that the outcome of the review will go to the level of the provost. UT Dallas feels that the outcome of the review should be specified (i.e. termination for cause). After approval by the faculty, the document will go to the deans for their approval. They are currently working on a policy for Evaluation of Administrators at the vice presidents level. They are also altering their Ph.D. offerings, a decision that was made without faculty input.

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.

Q - At what level does peer review take place?

A - Always at the department level and can also occur at the school level.

Q - Does the policy mention revoking tenure?

A- Only in reference to existing rules and procedures. Kansas and Arizona have adopted PTR policies that allow revoking tenure if a faculty member is considered "unsatisfactory".

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.)

Q - Is there more than one file kept on a faculty member?

A - A file may be kept at several levels and all may be considered to be the "permanent" file. Nothing should be added or deleted without the faculty member's knowledge.

Q - Are the same files used for promotion and tenure also used for PTR?

A - They may be the same.

Q - Who has the right to take material out of a file?

A - No one may be willing to remove it, even when the faculty member requests it.

C - Many of the proposed policies rely on the "goodwill" or "good judgment" of the administrators to fairly implement the policies. Can we rely on administrators to always use "good judgment"?

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:

• 1) look at existing policies and practices;
• 2) survey the literature;
• 3) survey the students, faculty and administrators within the System; and
• 4) survey the alumni.

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.).

Q - Are portfolios currently being used?

A - That was supposed to be a part of the study, but had to be dropped. Portfolios are used on some campuses.

Q - Was the study limited to undergraduates?

A - Yes (answer later corrected to no). One instrument should not be used for everyone. There should be different instruments for graduates vs undergraduates, or one discipline vs another. Style of teaching also impacts the type of instrument that should be used.

Q - Are there particular disciplines that receive lower scores?

A - Yes, that information is in the report. Samuel encouraged the FAC to reexamine the Centers for Teaching Excellence. Few campuses have developed these centers and those that exist may receive little support. Most of us have had to rely on "Trial and Error" in developing our teaching skills. Teaching Excellence Centers would be most helpful. It was pointed out that UTSAHSC seems to have an effective program.

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.

Q - Do teachers do things to try to improve their evaluation?

A - Teachers respond in different ways, but those who provide substantive content are rated higher than those who just try to be popular. Students may respond differently to "forced choice" questions vs "open ended" questions.

Q - Why were we surveyed in Houston, since we only have post-graduates?

A - Correction, the survey did look at both undergraduates and graduates.

Q - Would it help to look at the circumstances under which we want information about teaching effectiveness, e.g. for merit vs for a tribunal?

A - Different evaluations should be used. Administrators need to be clear on the purposes for which the evaluation will be used.

Q - What is an acceptable compromise between individual evaluation vs one that fits everybody?

A - A cafeteria system can be used in which individual selections can be made from a standard list.

Q - Can the Executive Committee make the "relationship with the Chancellor" an agenda item?

A - Yes.

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.

Q - What experiences have other states had with PTR?

A - A lot of it is still in process. Francie Frederick has a chart with that information. Colorado probably has the most experience. Probably 1/3 to 1/2 link PTR to termination.

C - Termination must be "cause" based.

Q - Faculty understands accountability and is already reviewed over and over, shouldn't administrators be reviewed regularly?

A - Campuses have been given instructions to develop policies for Evaluation of Administrators. Only two academic campuses are still in the process. Implementation is a different story. Presidents are continually reviewed and evaluated by the Vice Chancellor.

Q - The responses from the campuses indicate that many more than two campuses lack effective policies. Why is there a difference between System's perception and faculty perception on the local campuses?

A - The FAC members should make those differences known to the presidents and Vice Chancellor Duncan would like that information.

Q - Why are there not written evaluations of administrators?

A - Some may not yet have been evaluated under these policies.

Q - Shouldn't presidents have more than oral evaluations?

A - They do, its done in various ways.

Q - The rules seem to be different for administrators vs the faculty. Shouldn't they be applied fairly?

A - The Vice Chancellor feels that he meets the requirements of the Board in regard to evaluation of presidents.

Q - How can we affect change with regard to evaluation of administrators?

A - The Vice Chancellor is open to faculty communication.

Q - Do vice presidents and provosts have written evaluations, particularly those justifying salary increases?

A - There is a requirement for one on at least a six year basis and written justification of salary increases are given.

Q - Do you look at both sides of a complaint, or just at the president's side?

A - Both sides are looked at in the case of a complaint.

Q - Is there anything in the System guidelines that would prohibit faculty from evaluating administrators?

A - Nothing would prohibit that from occurring, but it won't be official and should not be emotionally based. It should occur through the faculty senate, etc.

Q - The UT Pan American Senate conducts an evaluation with the cooperation of the administration, could other campuses do similar evaluation?

A - Those evaluations are outside of the System guidelines and are considered to be ad hoc.

Q - Are there written standards or code of ethics for administrators?

A - There are written "Standards of Conduct" for all System employees.

Q - An administrator at UTSA has alleged in a federal lawsuit that he was coerced into making political contributions by our president. Would you oppose the appointment of a special counsel by the Attorney General's Office to investigate this matter?

A - Due to the litigation, no comment.

Q - If the final report on the UTSA situation by the Texas Conference of the AAUP continues to call for a university-wide management and financial audit, similar to the one conducted for UT Arlington, but by an outside agency, will you support that action?

A - Audits will be and are conducted whenever and wherever needed. We are also subject to regular State audits. The UTSA president is responding to the AAUP audit report.

Q - Do you understand the guidelines to provide for direct faculty evaluation of administrators?

A - Yes, the Guidelines call for the opportunity for faculty input.

Q - Would it help if the faculty provided input in evaluation of presidents?

A - Yes, if done fairly, but it may take more than one instrument.

Q - Should the FAC work with you to develop fair methods?

A - Yes, but it needs to address local campus needs.

Q - If a campus approves a PTR process which includes administrators and submits this to System, what will the System response be?

A - That should be a local campus decision based on the teaching responsibilities of administrators.

Q - The 42 hours transfer bill concerns many of us, will the System fight it?

A - We can't take direct stands for or against bills, there has been a statute on the transferability of courses. When that bill was proposed, we did not feel that it was needed, however it passed. with the current bill, the Legislature is directing the Coordinating Board to oversee the process. We tried to provide our view before the bill was ever introduced. The current bill doesn't take away faculty prerogatives, it just focuses on a lower division core which may or may not apply toward a specific degree.

Q - Do we have the ability to test a student in a specific area before allowing them to take an advanced course?

A - We don't really know the answer to that. The Coordinating Board will have to address those types of issues.

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.

Q - Is it all right to access information from the Legislature on work time?

A - If it is related in any way to teaching, etc. it is all right. We need to work on clear informative policies in this area. The Committee also discussed how we assess who is considered to be a faculty member. Administrative salaries may come in part from faculty salaries, therefore, should they be part of PTR? This is a gray area and needs to be tied down.

C - Administrators want to be administrators and still retain their tenured, academic titles, but not be part of PTR.

C - It is made to appear that administrators are being reviewed on a regular basis, when in fact this may not be happening.

C - What harm would it do the System to insist that administrative evaluations be written?

Q - What part of the Teaching Effectiveness report is to be released?

A - The part we have right now, excluding the Executive Summary.

A motion was made by Ivor Page and seconded by Tom Schaeffer to release pages 5-42 of the Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Report, clearly marked as a draft.

C - We shouldn't send an incomplete document out through the Chancellor to the presidents.

A - That wasn't the intent. We should just provide a limited release of the draft of this report.

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.

Q - What titles are we talking about? We may not be asking for enough protection for all non-tenure track faculty.

Q - How does this differ from term tenure?

A - This is a contract for a specific period, not an award of tenure.

C - MD Anderson has a system of "term clinical appointment" for seven years and this proposal doesn't go far enough.

C - In principal, faculty should be tenured or tenure-track, but that doesn't occur in reality. However, we need to be careful about passing less than satisfactory solutions.

C - In some cases you can accomplish the whole goal by taking small steps.

C - We need to offer some security to our clinical faculty. Jack Gilbert made a motion to accept this proposal, seconded by Mike Moore. The motion passed unanimously.

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:

• 1. The FAC shall create a subcommittee of the Executive Committee. The composition of the subcommittee shall include the FAC chair, chair-elect and immediate past chair. The immediate past chair will preside over the subcommittee.
• 2. The subcommittee will be charged with collecting data during the Spring 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 subcommittee report made to the FAC at the June meeting. The data may be used also by the FAC chair in the annual report made to the Board of Regents.
• 3. The chair's annual report be presented to the Board of Regents at their May meeting.
  

  C - Lynn Little recommended that the Oversight Committee be a separate committee rather than a subcommittee of a committee since the members of the Executive Committee have their own particular jobs.

  C - The subcommittee should be expanded to five with the Chair just there to observe. Jack Gilbert stated that the purpose of this subcommittee is to collect information and the small number should be adequate.

  C - The Chair may not have time to really contribute to the subcommittee and they may need more help.

  C - Additional people could be added if necessary.

  C - Should the charges be quite so specific? Mo Mahmood made a motion to amend the motion to make it a free standing committee, seconded by Mike Moore. This will allow other members of the Oversight Committee to come from the general FAC membership.

  C - Concern was expressed as to when this committee would meet if it has full committee status. There might also be a financial impact, since a new co-chair could be added who would have to attend the Executive Committee Meeting.

  C - Making the Chair-elect and Immediate Past Chair the co-chairs would negate the financial impact.

  C - This is basically an information gathering device which could be handled as a subcommittee.

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.

C - We may need to be silent as to at which meeting the Chair makes the report.

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.

Q - Will the Oversight Committee be added to the Organizational Guidelines?

A - Yes. Comments on the proposed changes should be forwarded to the Governance Committee.

Motion passed.

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.

Q - Should the FAC be sending this type of letter about a campus issue?

Q - Has arbitration been used on the UTSA campus?

A - The faculty have requested to meet and resolve this issue.

Q - Were the charges referred to in the letter made before the review committee gave their report?

A - The original charges were made before the committee's report, however the charges continue to be in effect.

C - We need to be careful about placing the FAC in a position of passing judgment over this issue.

C - The FAC needs to decide what steps it wants to take on this issue.

C - We could rewrite the letter to more clearly state who was accused and who was not.

C - The FAC could state that we are incensed by the allegations, but not request any specific actions and we could be more or less specific about the allegations.

C - We need to support the faculty at UTSA and still maintain our credibility with the Chancellor.

C - There is a draft AAUP report and there will be a final AAUP report and the UTSA president's response to that report. Also, the court will make a final decision soon. All of these things may change the issue, but we still need to respond in some way.

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.

C - Suggested that the Chair be allowed to write a letter expressing the concern of the FAC on this issue.

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.

Q - Should the FAC see this letter before it is sent?

A - We should leave it to the chair's discretion.

Motion passed.

12. Old Business/New Business

Jerry Polinard suggested that we contact Dr. Duncan about meeting with him (as per his invitation).

13. Adjourn

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.

<top of page>

<back to index>