U.T. System Seal links to U.T. System Home Bar graphic with photo of professor. The University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council








Travel for FAC

Academic Affairs

Advisory Council

Advisory Council



The University of Texas System
Faculty Advisory Council

Meeting Minutes: December 4 - 5, 1997

<back to Index>


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 - absent
Lucy Willis - present;

UT Dallas
;James Bartlett - present
Ivor Page - present

UT El Paso;
Mo Adam Mahmood - present
Fernando Rodriguez - absent;

UT Pan American
Gerald Brazier - absent
Herold Poelzer - present
Samuel Freeman (ex officio) - present

UT Permian Basin
Corbett Gaulden;- present
Lois Hale - absent;

UT San Antonio
alter Richardson, Jr. - present
Betty Travis - absent

UT Tyler
Roger Conaway - present
Vincent Falzone - present
Allen Martin (ex officio) - present;

UT Southwestern
Jean Sparks - present
Timothy Wolff - present
Anthony Riela (alternate) - present

UT Medical Branch
Elizabeth (Bets) Anderson - absent
Richard Rahr - present
Ted Pate (ex officio) - present

UT HSC - Houston
James Berry - absent
Terese Verklan - present

UT HSC - San Antonio

George Knight - present
Daniel Chan - present
Jeffrey Ebersole - present
Michael Siciliano (ex officio) - present
Jay Freireich (alternate) - present

UT MD Anderson Cancer Center
Joel Dunnington - absent
Jim Klostergaard - present

UT HC - Tyler
Robert Klein - present

Jerry McLarty - present

UT System Administration
Francie Frederick - present
Pam Johnson - present
J. B. Pace - present (Health Affairs)

Thursday, December 4

1. Call to Order

Chair Michael Siciliano called the meeting to order at 10:07 am.

2. Minutes Approval

It was noted that Anthony Riela attended the last meeting as an alternate for Tim Wolff. The minutes were approved as amended

3. Announcements from the Chair

Teaching Effectiveness Report - Much time has been devoted recently to bringing the Teaching Effectiveness Report to fruition. Many FAC members have helped with this task.

Board of Regents’ Meeting - The Board of Regents’ meeting had a very dedicated tone and this focused on diversity. This tone will continue into the future as diversity becomes a larger and larger issue. This will also be discussed as part of broadening admissions standards. This is of particular concern at the medical institutions. Minorities want opportunity, not special treatment.

Graglia Issue - The Graglia issue was also discussed at the Regents’ meeting. It heightened awareness of the diversity issue. Mr. Farabee made a presentation that indicated that professor Graglia’s rights to make such statements were protected by the Constitution and the issue had been upheld (by precedent) by the Supreme Court.

4. Executive Committee Report

The minutes of the Executive Committee meeting were distributed. Items of interest included:

New Coordinating Board Advisory Committees - Samuel Freeman has been appointed to the Advisory Committee on Core Curriculum. Samuel gave a brief summary of the Committee’s activities to date. They have broken into five small groups to accomplish their task. There may be a module of subject matter with a variety of courses meeting the criteria for that module at various campuses.

Q - Will the curriculum become so flexible that a student could go through without actually taking a science course?

A - No, there would be something like a 9 hour minimum in science that would be required.

Q - Will this defeat the intent of the Legislature?

A - No, we think they will be happy if we have 42 hours that will transfer with no hassle.

C - The issue should be depoliticized by considering that there should be some common body of knowledge that all graduates should take, the question is what should be included in that body of knowledge.

Q - What is the timeline?

A - The initial report is due in February.

Distance Learning - The issue of distance learning has come to the forefront and will be discussed by the Faculty Quality Committee during this meeting and by the whole FAC when Dr. Gonzalez joins us tomorrow.

UT Investments - There was some concern as to whether the UT investment organ (UTIMCO) is effective. Although this may not be of direct concern to the FAC, we should encourage the Board of Regents not to be pleased with its performance (10%) as presented at the Board meeting.

Regent Evans - Regent Evans was not able to join us for our meeting.

Non-reappointment - The issue of non-reappointment of faculty has been brought up and will be discussed by the Faculty Quality Committee.

Next Board of Regents’ Meeting - The next Board of Regents’ Meeting has been moved from Tyler to Austin.

Tenure vs Salary - An issue of national concern (New York Times article) is the connection between tenure and salary. The Faculty Quality Committee will also discuss this issue.

Peer Review - Peer review for clinical scientists will continue to be discussed by the Health Affairs Committee.

Insurance Program Audit - The Health Affairs Committee will also discuss the recent audit report on the UT health insurance system.

UTSA - The audit report has been completed for the UTSA campus and will be discussed under campus reports.

Merit Raises - The issue of how merit raises are determined is still of concern. Some campuses have given merit raises to everyone and others have been much more limited. There is also a good deal of variation from school to school within campuses. We need to determine if this is an issue the FAC needs to pursue. It was reported that UT Tyler Health Center has not received salary increases for several years.

PTR Policy - The PTR policy will be discussed by Governance Committee.

5. Introduction of New Members

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

6. Campus Reports

UT Arlington - Rod Hissong reported for his campus including: 1)they do have upward evaluation of administrators, but it is not currently a formal policy; 2) the Senate is working on a formal policy.

Q - Is there formal feedback?

A - The result may be whether someone keeps their job.

Thus far the evaluations have only occurred up to the dean level, but not above.

3) The president is committed to merit raises and is trying to streamline administration by reducing the number of vice presidents. He believes that the campus is over administered. Some faculty feel that it is better to hire more faculty rather than give merit raises. The president wants to reward current faculty. 4) There is now a uniform course evaluation on campus, but there is some question as to how much faculty input went into creating this instrument. 5) They are continuing to work on various faculty documents. 6) Searches for deans continue.

UT Austin - Jack Gilbert distributed a report for his campus and summarized the following: 1) they do have upward evaluation of administrators; 2) task forces have been formed to address diversity; 3) the search for a new president is still underway and the faculty are happy with the process used by the search committee which includes faculty input; 4) a committee has been formed to look into intercollegiate athletics and its role on campus; 5) the GRE is only given electronically now and there are no test sites in Austin; 6) UT Austin is trying to convince the population of the state that it brings value to the state and therefore deserves flagship funding; 7) construction funding has been received from an outside source and construction will be carried on outside the UT System, which is supposed to greatly speed up construction; 8) courses offered in the summer are being analyzed to determine if they are equivalent to other courses.

Q - How often are deans reviewed?

A - Every six years.

UT Brownsville - Lucy Willis distributed a report that included: 1) there is an ongoing process for the evaluation of administrators; 2) their self-study process continues.

UT Dallas - Jim Bartlett distributed a report and summarized the following: 1) there is a policy for review of administrators; 2) they are considering removing the GRE requirement; 3) the 100 semester credit hour limit for funding will greatly impact their campus because many students require well beyond the 100 hours.

C - Each campus must determine what will happen to students who go beyond 100 hours and whether they will be charged out of state tuition, etc., but the school will not be reimbursed by the state.

C - The FAC should meet with key legislators and talk with them about this problem. The Academic Affairs Committee will be asked to look into this issue.

4) Faculty will have some oversight on how money is spent on information resources. 5) A recent play created much concern because it called for full frontal nudity and led to the president prohibiting such behavior in the play. A committee has been formed to look into this issue and develop a policy.

UT El Paso - Mo Mahmood distributed a report and summarized the following: 1) a policy for the evaluation of administrators is in the final stages of adoption and includes faculty input and feedback; 2) a PTR policy has been approved by the faculty senate; 3) the faculty senate is working on a grievance procedure; 4) a new learning center was recently inaugurated.

Q - Does your evaluation policy require discussions by the administrator with his or her evaluators?

A - Yes.

UT Pan American - Gerald Brazier distributed a report and summarized the following: 1) there are procedures in place for the evaluation of administrators in the HOP, but up till now, ad hoc evaluations have been carried out by the faculty (the administration intends to implement the HOP policy which would include faculty input and publishing of tabulated data); 2) the faculty grievance policy has resurfaced and has finally been submitted to the System and a disciplinary policy is now being developed; 3) there will be a local legislators’ day on campus in February.

Q- What is the purpose of the disciplinary policy?

A - Being able to invoke some discipline short of firing.

UT Permian Basin - Corbet Gaulden distributed a report and summarized the following: 1) they do have a policy for evaluating administrators up through the VPAA, conducted by the Senate on a three year cycle; 2) the PTR process will be initiated by drawing names of faculty to determine who will be evaluated first (faculty can volunteer); 3) the Senate now has a Web page.

UT San Antonio - Rich Richardson reported for his campus and summarized the following: 1) their president has declared that administrators on his campus will not be evaluated; 2) the AAUP evaluated the administration and an audit has been completed by the UT System, but the interviews of faculty conducted by the auditors did not appear in the report. The report only includes an overview and not a lot of details. Some of the faculty have asked for a meeting with the Chancellor to discuss the audit report. 3) The wording of the faculty grievance policy has been changed by the System. These changes are of great concern to the faculty. Francie Frederick commented that the changes suggested by the System were not put in the correct place in the policy initially. 4) Equity raises are of concern because two faculty received raises much larger ($10,000) than anyone else and the model used to determine raises was not the one approved by the faculty. 5) Political fund raising on campus was to be reviewed by the Chancellor, but there is some misunderstanding as to what level of review would take place.

Q - Did the auditors investigate this area?

A - We have to wait for the Open Records request of the information.

6) Performance based funding will be tried during the summer. 7) There seems to be apathy by many faculty regarding serving on committees.

UT Tyler - Vincent Falzone distributed a report and summarized the following: 1) there is a policy for evaluation of administrators with faculty input, but no feedback to the faculty; 2) the Faculty Senate has determined who will be evaluated first for PTR; 3) the Senate has approved a statement for Academic Program Review.

UT Southwestern - Tim Wolff distributed a report and summarized the following: 1) PTR will be implemented in January; 2) evaluation of administrators varies between schools at the dean level and does not include faculty input for some schools (Allied health Sciences in particular), but the VPAA is not evaluated.

Q - What happens to these reports. ANSWER - On some campuses the deans have resigned and on others it has determined raises for administrators.

Q - Does the Admissions Committee at your campus simply go by the numbers?

A - There is more emphasis on the numbers, but those aren’t the only factors.

UTMB Galveston - Richard Rahr distributed a report and summarized the following: 1) they have a new president and are in the final stages of developing faculty governance for the whole campus; 2) all administrators will be evaluated.

UTHSC Houston - Terese Verklan reported for her campus including the following: 1) there is an effective policy in place for evaluating administrators; 2) the PTR policies for each school are being evaluated for consistency; 3) the procedures for non-reappointment are being reviewed; 4) the use of multiyear contracts is being pursued (the president has asked for faculty input on this issue).

UT MD Anderson - Jim Klostergaard reported for his campus including: 1) there will be yearly evaluations of department chairs and evaluation of all administrators every three years; 2) they are searching for a chief academic officer; 3) they will be engaging in marketing through TV and newspaper using an approach to minimize negative impact on the local medical community. Some question the need for the marketing. 4) There is much concern about mid level administrators receiving very large raises at a time when faculty get very little.

Q - If the evaluation of administrators is conducted by a consulting firm, does that avoid Open Records? ANSWER - It would probably not avoid it.

C - It might be appropriate to have standing committees on each campus to address salary equities and raises.

UT HSC San Antonio - Jeff Ebersole distributed a report and summarized the following: 1) the implementation of the PTR policy is taking place; 2) an evaluation of Academic Leadership is being used to review chairs, deans and VPs, but there is no feedback to faculty; 3) they are still working on a faculty governance organization; 4) salary augmentation from grants, etc. is being initiated which will be productivity and incentive driven.

Q - What has been the result of the review of administrators?

A- No definitive result.

UT HC Tyler - Bob Klein and Jerry McLarty distributed a report and summarized the following: 1) there will be a search for a new director, since Dr. George Hurst is stepping down (there are currently a number of vacant positions); 2) faculty compensation has been a concern since the clinical faculty had a 5% withhold with reimbursement depending on productivity (administrators have not been included in this withhold to this date); 3) there is an incentive plan being developed for research faculty, but it has been put on hold until the interim director is on board; 4) a grievance policy has been developed by the faculty, but it is currently under review by the Office of General Counsel, it has been at this point for two months; 5) the search for a new Executive Associate Director for Academic Affairs is on hold; 6) the clinical and research faculty have developed a format for upward evaluation of administrators.

A summary of information about evaluation of administrators on the different campuses was developed by Alan Cline in the following table.

Evaluation of Administrators


Dept. Chair





UT Arlington




Above Dean

Not formal

UT Austin


Not yet

Not yet


Awaiting new president & provost for implementation

UT Brownsville





Includes survey by faculty

UT Dallas





UT El Paso

Yes (proposed

Yes (prop.)

Yes (prop.)

2 years

In final stages of approval

UT Pan Am





Includes president, ad hoc, run by Faculty Senate (prop. Admin. administered version)

UT Permian Basin





Run by Faculty Senate with Admin. approval

UT San Antonio






UT Tyler





In place

UT Southwestern





Only at Med school, Allied Health may prop. Something

UTMB Galveston





UTHSC Houston





Working well

UT MD Anderson





UTHSC San Antonio



Yes ?


UTHC Tyler

Not yet

Not yet

Not yet


In process


7. Pending Board of Regents' Items/ Retention Committee / Broadened Admissions Criteria

Francie Frederick, Acting Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs asked the FAC to review the suggested changes to the Regents’ Rules (distributed with the packets). Several suggestions were made for wording changes and the Governance Committee was asked to review these proposed changes.

Q - How do we insure that more than a verbal review of presidents occurs?

A - The Board, the FAC, etc need to keep watch on this.

Another issue addressed is the ability to be tenured at more than one institution at the same time, which is currently prohibited by the Regents; Rules. There were several comments made about the pros and cons of changing this policy. The Governance Committee will be asked to review this issue.

Admissions procedures and the implementation of House Bill 588 was also discussed.

Francie reported that she and Jim Guckian will look into possible partnerships between professional schools and undergraduate schools.

Francie also mentioned several other issues including: the Appropriations Act; Collection Enhancement Program to Strengthen University of Texas Libraries; a Web site for Travelers Aid (http://www.utexas.edu/business/accounting/pr/tr/travelersaid.pdf); and a Student Retention Committee which she is chairing. There were a number of questions regarding retention and what problem is occurring. The objective is to graduate the highest percentage of students possible.

Q - Are all campuses using the same retention numbers and formula?

A - They should be.

The Regents have taken an active interest in Women and Minorities and in Telecommunications. They expect the numbers of women and minorities to go up.

Q - We appreciate being asked by you for advice, are there any issues on which the Regents would like our advice?

A - No specific issues at the moment, but you are always welcome at Regents’ meetings.

8. Committee Meetings

The FAC recessed to committee meetings at 2:25 pm.

9. Adjourn

The FAC adjourned following committee meetings.

Friday. December 5

10. Call to Order

Chair Michael Siciliano reconvened the meeting at 9:00am.

11. Distance Learning Courses -

Dr. Mario Gonzalez/Ms. Georgia Harper

Chair Siciliano introduced Dr. Gonzalez and Ms. Harper who led a discussion on distance learning. Ms. Harper provided a brief history of the FAC’s work in this area and distributed a set of guidelines developed by the Faculty Quality Committee under the guidance of Allen Martin and amended by the Strategic Leadership Council. A couple of differences still exist between the FAC’s guidelines and those accepted by the Strategic Leadership Council. A compromise proposal has been reached for the FAC’s approval. The concerns include the ability of a faculty member to decide if they want to teach in distance education and the fact that all courses are not amenable to distance education. The compromise attempts to address these issues. It was pointed out that many good points have come out of this process and that the intellectual property rights of the faculty have been carefully considered.

    Q - Are video tapes produced under distance education discoverable by the Open Records Act?

    A - There are protections for that and the faculty member generally has control over those tapes, but they probably would be subject to the Open Records Act.

Dr. Gonzalez pointed out that the guidelines state that they are subject to policies and practices of the local institution and that this wording was put in to protect faculty rights. He reiterated how much progress we have made in this area and that once approved by the FAC, the guidelines will be sent to the Chancellor for his approval. The Chancellor in turn, will probably seek input from the campus presidents.

    Q - What types of talents, skills and abilities are required to put on distance learning courses and are there some faculty who can’t handle it?

    A - There are more than one type of distance education (other than real time interactive video) and probably 98% of us don’t really know how to do this now, but most could learn fairly easily if there is institutional commitment, time and resources devoted to the effort.

    C - We really need to expand our capabilities and be creative in this process and not just have a bunch of talking heads on the video screen.

    C - We received 68 proposals for an RFP for educational initiatives, but only 15 could be funded. This indicates there is interest out there to create innovative programs.

    Q- Some faculty might find these changes uncomfortable, how do we face these changes?

    C - The real pay off to this process will be a cost reduction and ability to teach more students. The concern would be when administrators take the faculty out of the teaching loop and just run the tapes, etc.

    C - Dr. Gonzalez pointed out that faculty aren’t powerless, but we should also remember that this process may provide access to a whole new population of students. Ultimately, it will be the students who decide what type of education they are willing to accept.

    C - Faculty may not have control over the method of delivery.

    C - UT HSC San Antonio is digitizing their curriculum to make it accessible to a select group of students by computer. We have to copyright the material we create.

    C- Distance learning will not work in most educational areas, but many of the technological advances used in distance learning can be of benefit in traditional classes. Critical thinking skills can’t be developed using distance learning. We need to be extremely careful how and where we apply distance education.

    C - It is the faculty’s responsibility to make these decisions.

    C - Through e-mail and other internet communications these types of critical thinking interactions are possible.

    C - I agree with those comments, but a professor can’t work with large numbers of students out in cyberspace.

    C - The guidelines address the concerns about the number of sites or number of students.

    C - No one is suggesting that distance learning replace all of our traditional educational programs.

    C - We should encourage local campuses to develop policies and procedures that are innovative but realistic. This type of education can end up taking much more faculty time and resources.

    C - Administrators will have to address these issues because it is different from what we have done in the past. We need to make sure our concerns are expressed.

    C - Some times we forget that universities are seats of learning and if we can improve the educational process it will provide more time for new discoveries. Our job today is to agree on a set of principles by which this process can occur.

    C - Faculty must be given time, expertise and resources if they are expected to produce a quality product.

    C - Dr. Gonzalez pointed out that unless we truly integrate the technological advances into our campus procedures we won’t accomplish the task.

    C - Technology will allow us to do things today that will make this process easier.

    C - The prospects of distance learning are exciting, but there are many pitfalls and this shouldn’t be approached as an experiment unless it is done correctly. How do we measure the outcomes?

    C - Ms. Harper pointed out that the measure should be how this process promotes or improves learning from a faculty perspective.

    C - Dr. Gonzalez noted that cost is not the measure of success but rather the learning outcomes.

    C - I’m most concerned that there is no money to under right this process. Are there any plans to get some money for the process.

    C - Dr. Gonzalez responded that we should not expect any new sources of state revenues, but there are opportunities for marketing and funding these programs.

    C - There are creative ways for raising money. We are faced with the same dilemma that people faced 50 years ago with television.

12. Impact of Hopwood on Faculty Responsibilities/Liabilities

Ms. Esther Hajdar, Attorney, Office of General Counsel

Ms. Hajdar is relatively new to the System and has been dealing with the Hopwood decision. She provided a brief overview of the current status of the Hopwood decision. The bottom line is that you can’t make decisions based on race. At the same time we are expected to improve diversity. We need to make sure that our criteria have a good sound educational basis. The Federal government is under the same constraints that we are. The only compelling reasons (compelling governmental interests) for using race as a criteria is if you are trying to remove the effects of previous discrimination. Ms. Hajdar encouraged us to call her if we had individual questions (512-499-4505).

Q - How can we try to do the right thing without being personally liable?

A - You need to ask questions when you are developing policies and the University doesn’t want faculty to be exposed to liability.

Q - Are we trying to get around Hopwood? ANSWER - We are trying to comply with Hopwood and still achieve racial diversity. That means we have to use new and different means to achieve this diversity which may be more complex and less straightforward than our previous means.

Q - What are these other means? ANSWER - More emphasis on recruitment programs and pre-admissions programs.

Q- How did the ruling move from admissions to the UT Law School to every other area dealing with racial diversity? Why haven’t other states taken this same stance? ANSWER - The way the opinion was written and the logic of the arguments caused us to include all these other programs. If we disregard the Attorney General’s opinion, this will increase our liability. Other states may not have to follow this decision now because they are trying to remedy past discrimination.

C - It seemed as though the UT action occurred before the Attorney General had rendered an opinion and caused the courts not to have to respond.

C - Requirements for training grants dictate that race must be taken into account, but we can’t do it because of Hopwood. Other states don’t have this problem.

C - Ms Hajdar pointed out that other states like Michigan are pursuing this. If you want to take the risk you can, but we advise against it.

Q - Legally, how do we define race since genetic backgrounds can be so heterogeneous ANSWER - The individual determines their race.

C - I think there is compelling governmental interests. The government is supposed to meet the needs of the people. If there are not enough physicians of the proper gender or race to meet the needs of the people, then this should be a compelling governmental interest. We have to recognize this if we want to solve these problems.

C- The Supreme Court has specifically held that these are not viable arguments.

Q - If the Federal Government is under the same requirement, how can NIH send out RFP’s that include racial requirements?

A - I would like to ask them that.

Q - Why don’t you sue the Federal Government?

A - I’ll ask my boss.

13. Comments from the Chancellor

The Chancellor commented on a number of items including:

UT Investments

UT investments through UTIMCO have given us a reasonable return considering the amount of exposure in the stock market that we have. We are trying to pay out a minimum of 4 % and grow the funds at a rate at least equal to inflation.

Q- What would be considered a bad return?

A - It is hard to beat the market. We have made 18.9% on our private stock market investments, even considering our losses. We are on the way to doing quite well. UTIMCO has moved us up in our endowment investments from 9/9 (relative to other universities with similar endowments) to 7/9 and we can do better.

Changes to the Regents’ Rules

Q - Are the proposed changes to the Regents’ Rules relative to evaluation of both faculty and administrators moving along as expected?

A - Yes, we have received back positive comments from the presidents.

Insurance Program

Q- What is the biggest problem with the insurance program?

A - We are adding more staff.

Q - Will the components also beef up their manpower?

A - We will encourage it, but it will be up to the components. Please send me any specific comments.

Evaluation of Presidents

Q - Do you have plans to include faculty input in the evaluation of presidents?

A - There isn’t anything to prevent us from doing that at some point, but it should include input from all the constituencies (faculty, students, staff, etc.).

C - The word "all" seems to mean all below the president.

100 Hour Rule

Q - The 100 hour rule may be devastating to our campus, what can we do about it?

A - We are suffering from the practices of others who forced students to take classes that weren’t necessary just to make money (U of H).

Q - Can we persuade the Legislature that there is a better way to solve this problem?

A - Probably not, a student should be able to get a PhD within 100 hours.

Q - If a student bypasses the MS degree, it may take more than 100 hours. What can we do?

A - Maybe we could alter the wording to 100 hours after a MS degree. That may be doable.

Distance Learning

Q - Are there any issues that the FAC should be thinking about?

A - Distance learning is an important issue both at the component level and the System level. The next component to the University may well be a "Virtual University".

Regional Health Center

Q - What is the status of the regional health center for South Texas?

A - They are currently in the process of putting that in place.

Q - Did anything come out of the Regents’ Retreat with the presidents of the academic institutions?

A- It was a friendly meeting.

14. Committee Meetings

The FAC recessed to committee meetings at 11:15 am.

15. Tribute to Alan Abedor

The following resolution was proposed to recognize Alan Abedor on the occasion of his retirement:

Be it resolved that the UT System Faculty Advisory Council expresses its appreciation and gratitude to Dr. Alan Abedor for his many years of service to his discipline and to the faculty at the UTHSC Houston School of Allied Health Sciences, and for his most excellent contributions to the UT System Faculty Advisory Council.

The resolution passed unanimously.

16. Committee Reports

Faculty Quality Committee - Jim Bartlett reported for his committee. The Committee reviewed the Distance Learning Guidelines and presented a motion to approve the guidelines.

Q - Would faculty maintain copyright to the material?

A - Yes.

Q - Do faculty have a right to refuse to participate in distance learning?

A- It would not be completely voluntary at a system-wide level and would not really be any different than being asked to teach any type of course.

C - A video could not be used unless approved by the faculty member.

The motion passed unanimously.

The Committee met with Joe Stafford and learned that there may be exceptions developed to the 100 hour limit. This will be considered by the Academic Affairs Committee.

Q - Did the "dummy course" problem occur before or after the 100 hour rule was passed by the Legislature?

A - It apparently occurred after.

The Committee considered changes to the Regents’ Rules regarding program closure for bona fide academic reasons. Considered adding: 1) a committee of faculty early in the process; 2) tenured faculty in the effected program would contribute to the process; and 3) a hearing will be granted to every effected faculty member.

Q - Isn’t the program the item for consideration and shouldn’t it have external review

A - Yes.

Q - Wouldn’t a program being closed have to go through the program review process?

A- The language isn’t clear in that area.

Q - Do all campuses have a program closure policy? ANSWER - No, there are a few that don’t have a policy.

Q - Do those with a policy include faculty input? ANSWER - Not necessarily.

The Committee will consider the current campus policies as it continues to address this issue.

There are a number of other issues that the Committee is considering including: non-reappointment, tenure vs salary, etc.

Academic Affairs Committee - Corbet Gauldin reported for his committee. The Committee recommends in the form of a motion that the Teaching Evaluation document be accepted subject final editing to be completed by February 1, 1998. The report consists of: Table of Contents; Executive Summary; Key Findings; Recommendations; Discussion of Findings; Guidelines; Annotated Bibliography; and Technical Appendices.

C - This is a project that members of the FAC with the help of Art Hernandez have worked long and hard to complete. The report includes many different components and once complete it will be delivered to the Chancellor.

C- Samuel Freeman summarized the results of the project and indicated that they found a wealth of information in the literature, but most instruments do not make use of that information. Utilizing the results of this project will take a great deal of time and resources.

C - This report does not endorse any particular evaluation instrument and how it should be applied.

The motion passed unanimously.

The Committee also considered the Guidelines for a Student Exchange Program Among Component Institutions. The Committee feels that the rights of faculty at the home campuses are not well protected and proposes some additional language as item IIIc as follows:

"Each institution will designate individuals to coordinate student exchanges at home and exchange institutions. Coordinators will facilitate communication between the student and appropriate major advisors at both home and exchange institutions. All advising will be the responsibility of the advisors on both campuses. Advisors on both campuses, particularly the home campus, are the final authority on courses to be exchanged." A motion was made on behalf of the Committee to submit the proposed language change for inclusion in the document and endorsement of the amended document.

Q - Would transferring medical students have a problem with liability insurance?

A - Perhaps only at UTHSC Houston.

The motion passed unanimously.

The Committee is also working on the 100 hour limit and will continue to do so.

Health Affairs Committee - Tim Wolff reported for his committee. The Committee met with Mr. J.B. Pace and Mr. Bob Molloy and discussed several issues including the audit of the UT insurance program. Several control weaknesses were identified in the audit and Mr. Molloy indicated that a major problem at the System level is understaffing. The Chancellor has indicated that more staff would be added. Mr. Molloy indicated that UTMB Galveston has had particular problems and that UTHSC Houston had made significant strides in solving problems. They are trying to address the problems identified in the report. Mr. Molloy is willing to visit the components and discuss these problems and possible solutions. Mr. Burck has set up a System committee to help address these problems.

Anthem will be sold and the new contract for insurance will go out for bid in January. It is likely that the triple option will not be available to any campus next year. There is a goal to give employees at all campuses the ability to utilize providers at the health campuses.

The Committee met with Budge Mabry from the Medical/Dental Application Service to discuss admissions and recruiting efforts, particularly in the wake of the Hopwood decision. A System committee is being appointed to look into partnerships between the professional schools and undergraduate institutions. A table (from Mr. Mabry) showing applicants and matriculants to Texas medical schools was distributed to the FAC.

C - If the local campuses don’t work to solve eligibility and reporting problems, we all will suffer by having to pay higher insurance premiums.

Q - Is the phone number still available to call and receive information about coverage of specific procedures?

A - Yes, it is supposed to be available.

Q - Who is following up on the audit?

A - Mr. Burck.

Q - How do you interpret the admission data provided by Mr. Mabry?

A - There is a decrease in the number of minorities, specifically African American, entering Texas medical schools.

Governance Committee - Jack Gilbert reported for the Committee. The Committee considered the issue of holding tenure at more than one institution. The Committee recommended in the form of a motion a change to the proposed language being submitted to the Regents as follows: In paragraph 6.26, after the new language "unless the initial appointment at the component institution of the System specifically authorizes the holding of such position." add "Compensation issues under such circumstances are subject to negotiation at the time of the initial appointment."

The motion passed.

The Committee reviewed the proposed changes to the Regents’ Rules regarding Evaluation. Several changes were recommended in the form of a motion including:

37.41 Chief Administrative Officers. Evaluation of the chief administrative officer of each component institution is [the] primar[y]ily the responsibility of the Chancellor or the Executive Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs, as appropriate.

37.42 Vice Presidents and Deans. Subject to the requirements of Subsection 37.3 and Subdivision 37.43, the evaluation of the vice presidents and deans is [the] primar[y]ily the responsibility of the chief administrative officer or delegate.

37.431 Each academic administrator below the level of chief administrative officer [President] (or its equivalent should be reviewed in writing at least every six years.

37.433 The review process should provide an opportunity for written, anonymous input by all faculty members in the academic unit(s) reporting to and/or affected directly by the administrator being evaluated.

C - All changes except the addition of "anonymous" would be considered non-substantive.

Q- Do we need the word "anonymous" or would "confidential" be adequate? ANSWER - Due to the Open Records Act you can’t guarantee confidentiality.

C - Most of the questionnaires used on the campuses are anonymous.

Q - If we don’t include the word "anonymous" can you be forced to sign it?

C - Recommended that it read "written, anonymous"

Q - Do we need the words "in writing" in section 37.432?

C - We need to get it into the Regents’ Rules and then wordsmith it later.

C - Lets get it right the first time.

C - Francie suggested using a sentence "The substance of the review will be contained in a written report."

C - It was suggested that section 37.4 could be called "Written Evaluation of Administrators".

A motion was made to amend the original motion by adding the sentence The substance of the review will be provided in a written report." And remove the words" in writing".

The amendment passed so 37.431 would read:

Each academic administrator below the level of chief administrative officer [President] (or its equivalent should be reviewed at least every six years. The substance of the review will be provided in a written report.

The amended motion passed.

The Committee also discussed the suspension of a faculty member with pay by the chief administrative officer. The Committee suggested adding some language to the policy that governs this issue that would require the governance body be consulted. Several pros and cons to this addition were discussed.

C - Simply asking that the governance body be consulted does not seem to be unreasonable.

The Committee will continue to explore this issue.

17. Old Business/New Business

There was no old or new business.

18. Adjourn

The meeting adjourned at 3:05 pm.

601 Colorado Street  ||  Austin, TX 78701-2982  ||  tel: 512/499-4200
U. T. System   ||
  Email Comments   ||   Open Records   ||   Privacy Policy   ||   Reports to the State
© 2002 U.T. System Administration