Home

Guidelines

Committees

Membership

Meetings

Minutes

Travel for FAC

Academic Affairs

Employee
Advisory Council

Student
Advisory Council

<back to Index>

Attendance

UT Arlington Brooks Ellwood - present Rod Hissong - present UT Austin Alan Cline (ex officio) - present Jack Gilbert - present Shelley Payne - present UT Brownsville Farhat Iftekharruddin - present Lucy Willis - present UT Dallas James Bartlett - present Ivor Page - present UT El Paso Mo Adam Mahmood - present Fernando Rodriguez - present UT Pan American Gerald Brazier - absent Herold Poelzer - present Samuel Freeman (ex officio) - present UT Permian Basin Corbett Gaulden - present Lois Hale - present UT San Antonio Walter Richardson, Jr. - present Betty Travis - present UT Tyler Roger Conaway - present Vincent Falzone - present Allen Martin (ex officio) - present

UT Southwestern Jean Sparks - present Timothy Wolff - absent Anthony Riela (alternate) - present UT Medical Branch Elizabeth (Bets) Anderson - absent Richard Rahr - absent Ted Pate (ex officio) - present UT HSC - Houston James Berry - present Ronith Elk-Seligman - absent Terese Verklan (alternate) - present UT HSC - San Antonio Daniel Chan - present Jeffrey Ebersole - present Michael Siciliano (ex officio) UT MD Anderson Cancer Center Joel Dunnington - present Jim Klostergaard - present UT HC - Tyler Robert Klein - present Jerry McLarty - absent Barry Peterson (alternate) - present UT System Administration Francie Frederick - present Pam Johnson - present J. B. Pace - present (Health Affairs)

Thursday Oct. 2

Orientation of New Members - Immediate Past Chair Alan Cline provided new members with information about the FAC and introduced them to other officers present.

1. Call to Order

Chair Michael Siciliano called the meeting to order at 10:05.

2. Minutes Approval

The minutes of the June FAC meeting were approved as distributed.

3. Announcements from the Chair

Teaching Effectiveness Report - The report is expected to be out in December. Samuel Freeman will meet with Academic Affairs Committee to discuss this project.

American Express Mileage Program - A letter was written making our arguments as to why it was an effective program for getting faculty to use the Corporate Card and cost the University nothing. Therefore, it should be totally appropriate to allow continued use of the program. The General Services Commission is going to make their decision on that in about two weeks. That is what Mike Siciliano was told by Ms. Gerry Pavelka, the program director of the State Travel Management Program.

Meeting with the Chancellor - Items covered in Chair Siciliano’s meeting with the Chancellor included:

• Discussed PTR and the language concerning dismissal. The language contained in the documents from each campus will be examined very carefully with this regard.
• Discussed the inconsistency of merit raise criteria among campuses. This issue will be investigated by the Faculty Quality Committee.

Attendance at Board of Regents Meeting (Lynn Little and Ivor Page also present)

• It was learned that the position of Exec. Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs was to be eliminated and Francie Frederick would assume the position of Acting Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
• On PTR, Chair Siciliano advised the Board that six year review sounded like term tenure and that more emphasis should be placed on the annual reviews instead. He reminded the Board that faculty only receive merit raises which are determined by the annual reviews. The Chairman of the Board was interested in this issue.

Status of UTSA

• The audit of the situation at UTSA may be complete and the FAC is supposed to have access to the report after it has been reviewed by the campus president.
• The status of the AAUP report concerning the UTSA situation is uncertain.
• The law suit filed by Betty Travis was overturned by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That decision is being appealed. A number of organizations are ready to support this appeal. Betty will remain a full professor until the appeal is resolved one way or the other.

Regents Interactions

As a result of the Chancellor’s he question has been raised as to whether the FAC is advisory to the Board as well as the Chancellor. The Regents' Rules seem to clearly state that the FAC is advisory to the Board. The Governance Committee will pursue this issue

Core Curriculum

The Chancellor has forwarded names of members of the FAC to serve on the committee that will make recommendations on Core Curriculum. The Academic Affairs Committee will look into this issue. The issue of students taking courses on other campuses will also be reviewed by Academic Affairs.

Upward Evaluation of Administrators

The implementation of this policy seems to have been lost in the cracks on many campuses, which prompted the creation of an Oversight Committee for the FAC.

Health Affair Issues

Houston and Galveston were carved out with regard to health insurance premiums. An audit is underway on this issue. The Health Affairs Committee will continue to pursue this issue.

Access to information from Promotion and Tenure committees versus credentialing is an issue on health campuses, particularly with regard to any appeals. The Health Affairs Committee will investigate this issue.

Distance Education

This is an up and coming issue and our efforts have been led by Allen Martin. We have made recommendations to Dr. Mario Gonzalez who passed our recommendations along to the System Committee. The revisions made by the Committee must be addressed by the Faculty Quality Committee.

Micromanagement on the UT Austin Campus

This issue has been raised and will be addressed by the Governance Committee.

Hopwood Decision

Several areas have been affected by this decision, such as the effect on training grants, admissions to professional schools, etc. Academic Affairs will discuss how we will conduct ourselves in a post-Hopwood era.

Faculty Satisfaction Survey

Jerry Polinard has requested that we conduct a second FSS to follow up on results of the initial survey. The Faculty Quality Committee will discuss this issue.

Lois Hale raised the issue as to what happened to the Faculty Exit Survey that was approved by the FAC last year. Francie Frederick will investigate and it will also be reviewed by the Oversight Committee.

Changes in the Agenda

The remarks by Professor Graglia have raised several issues, including a request by a member of the Board of Regents for Professor Graglia's removal. Regent Lebermann was to address the FAC on this issue. He will not be able to meet with us, therefore, we will use that time to discuss this issue. The Academic Affairs Committee will have some preliminary discussion prior to tomorrow.

4. Introduction of New Members

Each member was asked to introduce themselves, including where they are from, what they do on their campus and what their interests are on the FAC.

5. Campus Reports

UT Tyler - Barry Peterson reported for his campus including the following issues: a 2.5 year search for an Executive Associate Director for Research continues with two excellent candidates under consideration; the Biotechnology and Environmental Sciences masters programs in cooperation with Stephen F. Austin State University had its first students on campus this past August; the K-12 Science Education Partnership is very active with 35 faculty and staff members working with over 350 teachers from 200 East Texas schools on over 700 occasions per year; the clinical and research faculty organizations have submitted to the administration for review separate grievance policies and salary incentive plans based on clinical or research productivity; both faculty groups are just beginning to form a policy for upward evaluation of administrators below the level of Director.

Q - The question was raised as to whether salary supplements from grants was allowable and apparently several campuses have workable policies in place.

Q - Did faculty receive raises this year?

A - No.

UT MD Anderson - Joel Dunnington distributed a written report and summarized the following: new COO and CFO and search for Chief Academic Officer; program abandonment policy; grievance policy; conflict of interest document; upward evaluation of administrators document; record income from both PRS and hospital and clinics (in spite of predictions by consultants); and putting 30% of research faculty’s salary on grants with bridge funding mechanism (which hasn’t been finalized).

Q - Were there raises this year?

A - Raises were merit, averaging 4%, and were determined by the Chairs.

UTMB Galveston - A written report was distributed, although no representatives from Galveston were present. The key points included: a set of draft Bylaws has been developed for a campus-wide faculty senate involving all four schools; each school has put together its PTR plans and forwarded them to Austin for review; each of the four schools has a statement related to termination within the PTR document; and all four schools are making the annual review part of the PTR process.

UT Southwestern - Jean Sparks distributed a written report from the Allied Health Sciences School and summarized the following: regarding post-tenure review, the faculty do not hold tenure track positions but will participate in future hearing tribunals; and there is a policy for the evaluation of administrators (which doesn’t seem to have faculty input). Anthony Riela distributed a report from the Medical School and summarized the following: there has been a significant drop in minority applications and admissions; security on campus is a concern to faculty; and new construction on the North Campus.

Q - Were raises given this year?

A - The faculty are more controlled by the base salary plus income generated. No evaluation of administrators seems to be present. Raises were given to some faculty and employees received across the board raises.

Q - Did the admissions committee rely primarily on objective criteria?

A - Yes and this had a detrimental effect on women and minority applicants.

(The FAC needs to deal with the issue of tenure vs salary. The Faculty Quality Committee will work on this issue.)

Q - Please clarify your policy on PTR which seems to be just a reiteration of the Regents’ policy.

A - There are some local rules and procedures that have been developed, but they may be minimal. (Local campuses are given leeway on how much detail they want to include.)

Q - How will the Admissions Committee address the minority issue?

A - They will have to look into it. (The diversity issue is a problem for all the Health institutions as well as the other institutions.)

UT Austin - Jack Gilbert distributed a report and summarized the following: 2.5% raises; policy on periodic review of faculty is through the faculty; diversity is even more of an issue since the Hopwood decision and admission criteria have changed (this resulted in more students enrolling than expected); the Senate passed a resolution defending Professor Graglia’s freedom of speech; committees on status of women and minorities have been established; they are still searching for a president (a short list is expected soon and the search committee may then have no further input); the visibility of intercollegiate athletics on campus vs academics is of concern; the relationship between faculty and central administrators continues to prosper with Board of Regents retreats (initiated by the Chair of the Regents); and the impact of the student exchange program is being evaluated.

Q - Should we request that Board retreats include a representative from the FAC or campus FGO?

A - Yes. (Governance Committee was asked to look into this.)

Q - Will students be attending the Regents’ Academic Affairs Committee?

A - Yes, but it may be a special meeting.

Q - Why hasn’t the FAC been allowed to meet with this committee?

A - Francie Frederick suggested that the FAC pick a particular issue and ask to meet.

UT HSC San Antonio - Dan Chan distributed a report and summarized the following: a search for a Allied Health Dean is complete; there is a new VP for Institutional Effectiveness and Planning; 61 faculty received promotion without tenure; copyright issues are being addressed with Georgia Harper; and they are trying to formalize a university-wide senate. Jeff Ebersole also discussed salary issues that included funding merit raises from grants. The Dental School has recommended that faculty be able to double their state salary by augmentations from grants, CE or private practice. If this is approved, it will be used in all schools. A PTR policy has been developed based on input from all the schools. Administrators (at least up to the dean level) are being reviewed on a regular basis.

Q - Are the faculty given the results of the evaluations?

A - No.

Q - Why do you have five faculty assemblies?

A - Not sure why it exists, but it has both benefits and drawbacks.

Q - Is there one PTR document for the campus?

A - Yes, but each school may emphasize different criteria.

UT Houston HSC - James Berry distributed a report and summarized the following: the PTR document has been approved by System; increasing costs of animal care; implications of three year clinical contracts; why faculty have less access to information than the general public; Ronith Elk is the new chair of the IFC; administrators are being evaluated; and merit raises were given to some faculty (not sure of percentage).

Q - What happens when employees use the Freedom of Information Act?

A - Some have been given a message that they should not pursue certain information.

UT Tyler - Vince Falzone distributed a report and summarized the following: merit raises were given to faculty; evaluation of vice presidents hasn’t been implemented; a PTR document has been developed by the faculty with only slight modification by the administration; and consolidation of printing services and purchasing between UT Tyler and UT Tyler HC. Roger Conaway reported that there is a search for a new president (the Advisory Committee will generate a slate of candidates that will be submitted to the Board of Regents).

UT San Antonio - Walt Richardson distributed a report and summarized the following: a PTR document has been developed with emphasis on the annual review; a grievance policy was approved by the faculty but never sent forward to the UT System (it may soon be submitted); funding for downtown campus which is now open, but enrollment is down; a move to a more streamlined governance process; a merit raise formula was developed but never used (most faculty faired better this year than last and administrators received a $100 per month raise plus merit raises); still working on evaluation of administrators; and still do not have a budget for the faculty senate.

Q - How can administrators receive a staff raise and a faculty raise? A - This has been a continuing problem.

Q - Are students dropping out or transferring to another school? A - Dropping out.

UT Permian Basin - Lois Hale reported that: they survived a takeover attempt by the A&M System; they have completed the first cycle of evaluation of administrators and faculty do receive feedback (working on the evaluation of other types of administrators); merit raises were given this past year; problems on campus with payment for health problems; and the PTR document developed by the faculty has been revised and resubmitted.

Q - There is a question about when the PTR document should be implemented and the first review occur. Francie Frederick indicated that it should go into effect Jan. of 1998.

UT Pan American - Herold Poelzer distributed a report and summarized the following: their PTR policy has been sent to the System; faculty disciplinary policy has been developed; a new faculty workload policy is being developed (12 hours now unless teaching graduate courses then it is 9 hours); and a search has begun for a new Provost/VPAA.

Q - Can faculty decide which workload level they want to be evaluated by? A - 12 hours is considered a maximum and faculty do have input into what they teach and are evaluated on.

UT El Paso - Mo Mahmood distributed a report and summarized the following: the faculty played a significant role in developing the PTR document; the policy for evaluating administrators is still being developed and implemented with cooperation between faculty and administration; salary compression has stimulated a policy for salary adjustments; and a grievance policy is in the process of being developed. Merit raises were given to some but not all faculty.

Q - If a faculty receives a favorable review at the department level, does it go any higher? A - No, it stops right there.

UT Dallas - James Bartlett distributed a report and summarized the following: the PTR policy was developed and revised by a committee made up of administrators, faculty and students; another committee is working on a consulting policy that includes self approval; a change to the undergraduate grading system to include both "+" and "-"; and the Committee on Effective Teaching is developing a policy for more thorough and rigorous evaluation of teaching. Ivor Page pointed out that if you do consulting during the school year, any ideas developed belong to the University (patents, etc.).

UT Brownsville - Farhat Iftekharruddin distributed a report and summarized the following: the PTR policy has been developed and there is a question as to whether it will impact teaching and research equally; self study for SACS accreditation is underway; new science and technology building; Graglia hasn’t been an issue; there was an almost across the board 3.5% raise and 1.5% raise planned for next year; and evaluation of administrators is not working well.

Q - What is downward expansion?

A - We can now admit students directly into a four year program instead of relying on the junior colleges.

UT Arlington - Rod Hissong reported that: raises as high as 9% were given but there was a question of where the money came from; enrollment is down; the PTR document has been submitted to the Board of Regents; evaluation of administrators has been done for some administrators; searching for two new deans and hired a new dean of the graduate school; and there are now ten members in the Academy of Distinguished Teachers. Brooks Ellwood pointed out that part of the money for raises is coming from M&O.

Q - Why are we seeing enrollment declines across the System, perhaps it is because more costs are being shifted to the students as less money is put into higher education.

Q - Are class sizes increasing as faculty are leaving? A - Some classes are increasing in size and some classes aren’t being offered and students go elsewhere.

C - One third of our classes are taught by non-tenured faculty with no protection for academic freedom.

Francie Frederick distributed several items of interest to the FAC.

Draft agenda item for the Regents’ meeting regarding a proposed revision to the Regents’ Rules, Part One, Chapter VIII, Section 3 (Medical and Hospital Services). The proposed amendments clarify that no charge need be made for health care services rendered by faculty in a clinical setting at a general academic institution.

Attorney General Opinions on:

Collection of technology fees (may not be covered by legislation).

Disclosure of Promotion and Tenure documents at a Health institution (considered confidential).

Request for opinion on the constitutionality of Senate Bill 149.

Ethics of incidental use of state-owned phones, e-mail and internet services. (Note that there are both state and federal statutes on unsolicited FAX. There is a $500 fine.)

A report was distributed (UT System Student Admissions Recruitment/Financial Air/Retention Guides) that provides guidance for the components regarding the Hopwood decision (what you can and cannot use). A question arose about liability and there is now a 10 million dollar policy to cover officers who are sued. To date, no UT employee has had to pay a judgment out of their pocket. (Unless a faculty member purposely does something illegal they should not have personal liability.)

Q - What is a mechanism for identifying agenda items for the Regents’ Academic Affairs Committee that may be of interest to the FAC.

A - Past Academic Affairs have not been in depth working meetings. If that changes then there should be an action agenda that can be addressed. The FAC should ask again to meet with the Committee.

Q - Are there deliberations at the Health Affairs meeting?

A - It may work the same as Academic Affairs.

8. Committee Meetings and Adjournment

The FAC recessed to committee meetings and then adjourned until Friday morning.

9. Dinner with the Chancellor at the Bauer House

The Chancellor presented data and discussed the favorable comparable productivity of the University of Texas when measured against other major institutions getting much more resources. This was going to be used to approach lawmakers to help us in our struggle for funding for higher education.

The Graglia issue was discussed (see below).

Friday October 3

10. Breakfast and Call to Order

The meeting was reconvened at 8:55am.

11. Discussion of the Graglia Remarks

Chair Siciliano summarized the System view regarding the Graglia remarks. The Chancellor was disappointed with the actions taken by the Council at UT Austin on this issue. There is a question as to whether the FAC needs to make a statement or not.

C - We need to have a motion as to whether we want to get involved and if we do, we need to look at Professor Graglia’s statements very closely. He didn’t appear to have any evidence to back up his statements.

C - We really aren’t in a position to debate the diversity issue.

C - A student last evening reported that they did not boycott Graglia’s classes, although asked to do so.

C - No one seems to feel that Graglia broke the law, but it may be an ethical issue.

C - This is a conflicting issue and we need to go slow. Is free speech really being threatened? Maybe or maybe not. Graglia has been making these types of statements for many years and students have boycotted his classes in the past because of his reputation. Do faculty have the right to make students feel uncomfortable or unworthy with regard to ethnicity? What is the purpose in passing a resolution?

C - We can 1) uphold his right to free speech, 2) deplore his statements, or 3) ignore it and watch it go away.

C - We have a media problem rather than an academic issue. Racism is the problem we need to address. We are either for it or against it. We don’t want to be depicted as supporting Graglia’s remarks.

C - The System is involved in damage control. Problems need to be addressed, not swept under the rug. We need to strongly disagree with what was said, but also strongly defend his right to say it. There should be no punishment for his making those remarks.

C - We should move slow, this is like a grievance and we haven’t heard all sides to the story. Where is the transcript of his remarks? No one seems to have it.

C - We have all been affected by this whole situation.

C - No one has said that Graglia will be punished, so we should ignore the whole thing.

C - We disagree with what we think he said even if we don’t know exactly what was said.

C - That is why the UT Austin Council issued a weak statement.

C - Professor Graglia has not claimed to be misquoted.

C - Reuben McDaniel resigned from the UT Austin Council because of this issue and seemed to present good reasons. If we are sensitive to these problems, then maybe we should condemn them.

C - Not sure that the remarks as we’ve heard them are really racist.

Motion by Herold Poelzer and seconded by James Berry that the FAC respond to the statements attributed to Professor Graglia.

C - The statement that whites should not associate with lower classes is a racist statement.

C - The faculty at UT Austin appreciates the concern or support of the FAC, but will this add anything positive to this situation or will it just prolong Professor Graglia’s media coverage.

C - A quick vote on any resolution may be misinterpreted.

C - People will already misinterpret what has been said here. We probably should support the System view on this.

C - If the motion is withdrawn, we could go on with our chat. While his remarks are without basis, we shouldn’t give him more press.

C - If we don’t respond we will be viewed as for him, not against him.

C - We should go on the record as condemning Professor Graglia’s remarks because the majority of our faculty do not agree with what he said. We need to consider how the public will view our response. We cannot afford to be interpreted as condoning his statements.

C - A simple response is to endorse the Chancellor’s statement on the issue.

C - If we vote for this motion then we must consider what our response will be and make it clear that we do not support Professor Graglis’s comments.

C - Since Professor Graglia has not kept quiet, we need to make a statement. Alternates were allowed to vote on the motion. The motion carried. The Academic Affairs Committee will be asked to prepare a draft statement.

C - We need to see Professor Graglia’s response to the Chancellor’s statement.

C - Our statement should be heavy on the condemnation of the remarks.

C - Our statement should be positive on the side of supporting diversity.

C - We may want to consider a statement that would be presented to the Board.

C - We should not make our statement to the Board.

C - We need to think carefully about the real purpose of our statement.

C - We could word it in a very positive way.

C - The statement about not mixing with other classes calls for a strong statement against it.

C - The resolution could be worded in many ways. Are we going to mention free speech? What are we adding to this?

C - A possible response could be: "While no one would argue with Professor Graglia’s right to free speech, the UT System Faculty Advisory Council deplores the remarks attributed to Professor Graglia and believes that these or similar remarks do not further the UT System’s goal to increase diversity on its campuses."

C - We shouldn’t use the word attributed.

C - We should support the System’s statement.

C - We could say that the FAC supports diversity of people and ideas.

C - We could say that we support diversity and we need to work harder in this area.

C - We need to simply state that Professor Graglia’s remarks do not reflect the feelings of the UT faculty.

C - We need to clarify the audience.

C - The Academy is under attack from two sides and we need to be prepared to fight on two sides at once.

C - Another possible statement would be: "The UT System FAC condemns the statements by Professor Graglia. Although academia is the seat of freedom of expression, the faculty have supported and continue to support diversity in the UT System."

Discussion will continue later.

Samuel Freeman presented a brief history of the Teaching Effectiveness Survey and discussed its current status.

The survey was to accomplish: 1) a comprehensive review of the literature; 2) survey students, faculty and administration about teaching evaluation; and 3) make recommendations for developing an evaluation instrument and process. The report is taking much longer than projected. The data has been reevaluated to make sure that nothing was missed. A small amount of additional material will be added to the report and it will be ready for approval at the next meeting. It should be distributed by the middle of November. Monty Jones in Francie Frederick’s office is willing to do grammatical editing before it is distributed.

What did we learn from this experience as well as the Faculty Satisfaction Survey? Many things have been learned. We should continue to do these types of surveys, but in a more efficient manner. We should contract with a research director who will do the design, budget and timeline. The timeline should be reasonable and not overly ambitious. The report should be finalized by a member or members of the FAC. The report shouldn’t be too long. There should be a project director who is a member of the FAC and the research director should report to the project director. The project director should be experienced in conducting and reporting surveys. The project director should remain in contact with the Chair of the FAC and make periodic progress reports to the FAC. A committee of the FAC should help oversee the project, but should not be required to write the report. Changes in the project should be approved by the FAC or the Chair of the FAC. Travel requirements for the project should be accurately estimated. Outside reviewers should be used to evaluate the report before presenting it to the FAC. The report should finally be presented to (in advance) and approved by the FAC.

13. Committee Meetings

The Council recessed to committee meetings.

Jim Bartlett reported for the Committee. Members of the Committee are: Jim Bartlett and Gerald Brazier, Co-Chairs, Jean Sparks, Shelley Payne, Brooks Ellwood and Lois Hale.

The Committee considered the revisions made to the FAC recommendations regarding Distance Learning. The revisions were made by the Information Technology Strategic Leadership Council which contains no faculty membership. It was noted that the Strategic Leadership Council made their revisions based on a synopsis rather than the complete FAC document. The Committee found that the revisions, in general, were not in the best interests of the faculty. The Committee will resubmit (after a review by Georgia Harper) the complete document to Dr. Gonzalez for consideration by the Strategic Leadership Council. It was suggested that FAC representatives present the document to the Leadership Council.

A motion was made by Vince Falzone and seconded by Brooks Ellwood that the full FAC Distance Learning document be sent to Dr. Mario Gonzalez for distribution and review by the Information Technology Strategic Leadership Council. It is our further recommendation that representatives of the FAC be invited to discuss the document and consider their comments before finalizing the document for submission to the Chancellor. The motion carried.

The Committee investigated the status of the Exit Survey that was developed earlier by the FAC. Several minor changes were recommended before forwarding the Survey to the Oversight Committee. Comments have already been received from the VPAA’s. It was pointed out that the Survey should go to the Chancellor instead of the Oversight Committee. This will be done.

The FAC does not have a library that contains past and current documents, etc. developed by the FAC. The Committee recommends creating such a library within the FAC. Brooks Ellwood made a motion seconded by Rod Hissong that all documents approved by the FAC be distributed with the minutes as attachments. The motion carried.

The Committee considered the relationship between Tenure and Salary. A report from Executive Vice Chancellor Mullins recommended that tenure should not be connected to salary. This report was apparently approved by the Chancellor. The AAUP guidelines call for a definite relationship between tenure and compensation and has been endorsed by the American Association of Colleges and Universities.

Q - If the statement says that tenure is a condition of continued employment, doesn’t that tie tenure with compensation?

A - Not necessarily, on some campuses they have tried to dissociate salary from tenure. The referenced report makes a clear statement that tenure and compensation are two separate issues.

C - There are instances where faculty have teaching assignments in one department and their tenure resides in another department. The Committee will be asked to re-examine this issue and interact with the Health Affairs Committee.

Q - Is there legal precedence for connecting tenure and salary?

A - Not sure what has been done.

The Committee is still looking into Program Abandonment.

The Committee does not agree that a second Faculty Satisfaction Survey should be done at this time. They feel that we should wait for the results of PTR.

The committee report was accepted.

Corbett Gaulden presented the report for the Committee. The members of the Committee are: Corbett Gaulden and Fernando Rodriguez, Co-Chairs, Daniel Chan, Lucy Willis, Farhat Iftekharuddin, Vincent Falzone and Jerry McClarty (represented by Barry Peterson).

The Committee considered the proposed Student Exchange Program. They feel that the language could be made stronger and clearer concerning decisions by the home campus, fee setting, grading, etc. The Committee will develop some specific language recommendations.

The Committee considered the System guidelines for dealing with the Hopwood decision.

The Committee discussed the appropriate response concerning Professor Graglia’s remarks and makes the following recommendation presented in the form of a motion:

The University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council deplores Professor Lino Graglia’s remarks denigrating minorities. While we unequivocally support the right to free speech, we believe that these and similar remarks undermine the faculty’s goal to increase diversity and understanding on our campuses.

C - Do we know if these are Professor Graglia’s exact remarks.

C - We should remove Professor Graglia’s name.

C - The motion should be passed as presented.

C - We should change the motion to read "the FAC disagrees with the remarks attributed to Professor Lino Graglia regarding minorities. Although proposed as an amendment, there was no second.

Rod Hissong made by motion seconded by Jack Gilbert to table the motion. The motion to table was defeated. The original motion carried and will be sent as a resolution to the Chancellor.

Governance Committee

Betty Travis reported for the Committee. The members of the Committee are: Betty Travis and Jack Gilbert, Co-Chairs, Jim Klostergaard, Rich (Walter) Richardson, Rod Hissong, Roger Conaway, Ronith Elk (represented by Terese Verklan), Herold Poelzer, and Mo Mahmood.

The status of the report by the AAUP on the UTSA issue is unknown. The audit report on that situation has just been received.

The Committee discussed faculty participation in the Board retreats and recommends in the form of a motion that the Chair of the UT System FAC write to the Chair of the Board of Regents expressing our appreciation for the opportunity to enhance dialogue between the Regents and faculty representatives of the component institutions. Should the periodic , information-gathering retreats continue to be open meetings, we request that the Chair of the UT System FAC be notified to coordinate the participation of the faculty governance leaders from each participating campus. The motion carried.

A proposed revised copy of the Organizational Guidelines was distributed and discussed. The draft contained the following recommended changes: 1) addition of "advisory to the Board of Regents and to the UT System Administration" in the Preamble; 2) the addition of an alternate; and 3) the way that meetings are called, including electronic meetings (many were uncomfortable with an electronic meeting).

Brooks Ellwood made a motion and Farhat Iftekharruddin seconded to strike the sentence about electronic meetings.

C - Votes could still be conducted electronically. Roger Conaway made a substitute amendment that would change "meeting" to "business" in that sentence and stop the sentence after "electronically providing a majority of the FAC participates" and move it to a fifth item, seconded by Rod Hissong.

C - Discussion can take place and if a quorum is present, a vote may be taken.

C - The elected chair of the FAC would not abuse this point.

The substitute amendment passed.

The motion carried to approve the revised Organizational Guidelines. Some of the changes (i.e. regarding an alternate) will require approval by the Chancellor.

Joe Dunnington reported for the Committee. The members of the Committee are: Joel Dunnington and Tim Wolff, Co-Chairs, Anthony Riela, Ted Pate, James Berry, Robert Klein and Jeffrey Ebersole.

The Committee reviewed the minutes from the last meeting of the Council of Health Institutions and discussed several issues including:

• suspension of several audits by the Health Care Financing Administration and the Office of the Inspector General;
• a five billion dollar cut in Medicare funding for physician payments over the next five years;
• the appointment of an Advisory Committee on Graduate Medical Education by the Coordinating Board;
• a model policy dealing with the Hopwood decision will be developed by the Medical Dental Application Service;
• a special UT Health Component Committee on Work-Related Resources has recommended that each component develop policies and procedures regarding testing and treatment of employees with work-related exposure to blood and body fluids;
• individual faculty are not to sign managed care contracts;
• The Texas University Health Plan has a new director and board members;
• the Texas Senate has scheduled an interim study of Health Science Centers, except MD Anderson and Tyler to look at formula funding; and
• a regional academic health center will be placed in the valley.

The Committee met with Bob Molloy and discussed the current medical insurance plan. He is collecting data on how we are doing, but the final data will not be available until June or July. Many errors are being made in entering or transferring insurance data. They are trying to solve these problems. In the past, the bonus plan for NYL Care was very easy to attain. This has been changed. The switch to a new drug provider has encountered some glitches. There is an ongoing audit of the UT System Insurance department and its procedures.

Conflict of Interest changes at MD Anderson seem to be different from the rest of the System. We need to have a System wide Conflict of Interest policy.

Tenure procedures vs credentialing procedures varies from campus to campus, particularly with regard to confidentiality. Information regarding someone’s clinical ability may or may not be discoverable.

The Committee briefly discussed the funding of research at UT institutions by the Tobacco Council.

Members are asked to verify that the information on the FAC list is accurate so that it can be placed on the FAC Web page. We need departmental addresses for each member.

Q - What is the status of UT faculty being witnesses against the state.

A - It has not been enforced.

15. Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at 2:44pm.

16. Executive Committee

• Do we want to request time to read our Graglia resolution.? The feeling was that this is not necessary.
• Should we ask to meet with the Academic Affairs Committee along with the students? Chair Siciliano will contact Regent Lebermann concerning this issue.

• We will ask Regent Evans to attend our next meeting

Other

• We need to put the FAC members on the audit list to receive audit reports.
• We should have a secretary assigned to the FAC to handle clerical duties, etc.

Ted D. Pate, Ph.D.
Secretary

<back to top>

<return to Index>