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

 

Home

Guidelines

Committees

Membership

Meetings

Minutes

Travel for FAC

Academic Affairs

Employee
Advisory Council

Student
Advisory Council

 

 

The University of Texas System
Faculty Advisory Council

Meeting Minutes: March 26 - 27, 1998

<back to Index>

Attendance

UT Arlington
Brooks Ellwood - present;
Rod Hissong - absent

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 - absent;

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
W
alter Richardson, Jr. - present
Betty Travis - present

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

UT Southwestern
Jean Sparks - present
Timothy Wolff - present

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

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

UT HSC - San Antonio

George Knight - present
Jeffrey Ebersole - present
Michael Siciliano (ex officio) - present

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

UT HC - Tyler
Robert Klein - absent

Jerry McLarty - present

UT System Administration
Francie Frederick - present
Pam Johnson - present

 

Thursday March 26

1. Call to Order - Chair Michael Siciliano called the meeting to order at 10:00 am.

2. Minutes Approval - The minutes were approved as distributed.

3. Announcements from the Chair and Executive Committee Report

Tenure vs. salary - The Chancellor has been asked to comment on the relationship between tenure and salary. A report from a committee appointed by the Executive Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs has stated that there is no connection between tenure and compensation. The Chancellor has approved this report. The statement applies to faculty on the health campuses. It is in conflict with the AAUP Guidelines. COMMENT - On the academic campuses, salary increases are based on merit, but tenure should have some connection to base salary. COMMENT - A professor in the Midwest has not been paid in two years, although he has not lost his tenure.

  • Non-Reappointment - We are working on a Regents’ Rules change to provide reasons for non-reappointment.
  • OGC - We want to know if faculty have the opportunity to access the OGC without going through the campus president.
  • Salary - Salaries are a problem on all our campuses. Faculty should be involved in the budget process.
  • Distance Learning - We are still trying to develop a policy that is friendly to faculty. A lot of activities are going on under the leadership of Dr. Mario Gonzalez and we need this policy. Faculty Quality will continue to pursue this issue. Without a good policy, faculty will lose the right to control the curriculum.
  • Core Curriculum - We would like to hear from someone from the Coordinating Board, but that won’t be possible at this meeting. Academic Affairs will continue to look at this issue. A proposed core curriculum has been distributed, but it will probably become more specific in order to satisfy the Legislature.
  • Handbook Disclaimer Issue - The current disclaimer has been withdrawn, but there may need to be a new statement about who changes what in the handbook. Governance will look into this issue.
  • Regents’ Meeting - Dr. Alan Cline suggested to the Board that they meet with the FAC on a yearly basis. We would like this to occur, but, at least for this year, it will only be the Executive Committee that meets with the Board (at their May 13 meeting in Permian Basin). We need to prepare well for this meeting. A proposed Regents’ Rules change concerning the FAC meeting with the Board will be discussed later in the meeting.
  • Election of Officers - The members of the FAC are encouraged to be thinking of nominations for Chair-Elect (must come from a health institution this year) and Secretary. Nominations should be submitted to Dr. Siciliano anytime between now and the next meeting.

 

Ms. Francie A. Frederick, Acting Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs - Pending Board of Regent’s Items - Francie will become the Executive Director to the Board of Regents in June, so this will be her last meeting with the FAC. She expressed her sadness at leaving the FAC. She distributed a number of items for FAC input that included:

  • Copying of Copyrighted Materials
  • THECB - Report of the Advisory Committee on Core Curriculum
  • Student Discipline Guide
  • Agenda Item - Faculty Advisory Council/Student Advisory Group (wording changes)
  • Model Faculty Grievance Policy - drafted for information only at this time, not for distribution to the institutions (it is not recommended that there be a System wide grievance policy at this time) (Governance will look at this policy)

Francie asked for input on these issues. Ed Sharpe will be the new liaison to the FAC.

4. Campus Reports

UTMB Galveston - Dr. Siciliano read a report from Richard Rahr. They are in the process of electing representatives and officers to their new Faculty Senate. Faculty leaders have regular meetings with the new president and everything seems to be going well.

UT Arlington - Brooks Ellwood reported for his campus including: an answer to a question from the UTSA FAC representative concerning alleged firings of UT Arlington employees (no faculty were fired, but a staff member was relieved of her duties; a letter from UTA President Witt was included with the report); search for three deans; privatizing of a number of elements of the university; possible elimination of funding for athletics hinging on a student vote; PTR timing (they noted a lack of tenure records); cap on full time FTE’s (both faulty and staff), based on historical standing of the university (all hiring offers will now have to go through the provost and president).

    C - Permian Basis has faced this issue too and it covers all employees.

    C - Francie will ask Randy Wallis to provide some information on this issue later in the meeting.

    C - This can have a severe effect on our institutions.

    Q - Is there a System wide policy on searches?

    A - Just at the level of the presidents.

    C - It would have been nice if the FAC had been asked for input into the selection a new Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs.

UT Health Center Tyler - Jerry McLarty reported for his campus including: new hirings; evaluation of administrators which provides some feedback to faculty; salary cut (5%) for physicians allowed them to earn back their pay cut (which most have done) (there is a formula for incentive earnings for physicians but not research faculty); grievance policies (both research and clinical) are still in the office of OGC (this seems to be a common problem at many campuses - up to 4 years delay was reported).

UT Brownsville - Farhat Iftekharruddin reported for his campus including: completion of SACS accreditation; the lack of the disclaimer in their handbook; faculty involvement into allocation of resources; new buildings; policy for post-tenure review of administrators is being considered.

    C - PTR does not remove the necessity for upward evaluation of administrators. The two should complement one another, but not necessarily be connected.

UTHSC San Antonio - Jeff Ebersole distributed a report for his campus that included: recruiting administrators; preparation for SACS accreditation; the Dental School has just completed accreditation; Masters of Occupational Therapy approved; cooperative Occupational Therapy program with UT Pan Am; new building for Allied Health; effects of Hopwood on recruiting; DDS/PhD program being developed; PTR on track.

UT El Paso - Mo Mahmood distributed a report for his campus that included: evaluation of academic administrators will be implemented in November 1998; periodic performance evaluation of tenured faculty (the Faculty Senate will select two thirds of the faculty for hearing tribunals); faculty grievance procedure which will include the ability to grieve the president’s decision, with the Chancellor having the final decision; meeting of the Executive Council with the Chancellor, including a discussion about non-reappointment, and the PUF vs. the HEAF funds (the Chancellor will not recommend taking money from the UT Austin Excellence Fund).

UT Permian Basis - Corbett Gaulden distributed a report for his campus that included: selection of faculty for PTR and the intent that the PTR process would stop if the dean and faculty committee agreed on the outcome; second year of administrative evaluation; concern about grades (D’s in particular) accepted from other institutions in the core curriculum (60% of their students are transfer students).

C - Tenure dossiers have become very formal and lengthy, we don’t want PTR to follow that same course. PTR should be a very simple, non-threatening process.

C - Administrators should use traditional mechanisms to get rid of incompetent faculty.

C - Other institutions (systems) are not taking this process seriously.

C - The Chancellor has indicated that this should be a simple process.

C - Perhaps grades for courses that are prerequisites should have higher requirements.

C - We have to convince our colleagues that PTR should be a simple process

UT Tyler - Allen Martin reported for his campus including: search for a new president; shared governance in operation (going to MWF classes despite negative input by faculty and students, and new carpet despite objections by the faculty); declining enrollment trend (with enrollment caps).

Q - How hard did the System fight against the enrollment caps?

A - I don’t think they fought it.

UT MD Anderson - Joel Dunnington reported for his campus including: dealing with their new Chief Academic Officer; salary information request (such as electronic copy of the budget, including budget for 1999) met with difficulty; relationship between department chairs and faculty senate; credentials committee issues; medical insurance problems; non-reappointment issues; minority hiring.

C - The salary/budget information should be readily available as public information, including electronic format.

C - We need to know how the money was spent, not just how it was budgeted. The computational formula changes, which makes it difficult for us to analyze the data.

C - The budget for UT Austin is no longer in the library.

C - An individual can put the budget in the library. It should be available on the Web.

UT Austin - Jack Gilbert distributed a report for his campus that included: central administration changes; privatizing certain aspects of the athletic facilities (profits to be used for both athletics 60% and academics 40%); providing staff merit raises from the faculty merit pool (a recognition on the part of the faculty that staff were under compensated).

Q - Has a study been done to determine the degree of under compensation of both faculty and staff?

A - A study has been done. He also reported that: applicant pool is up, including minority applicants, but don’t know what the yield will be; double majors is a problem, particularly with phone registration; dropping minimum requirement on GRE (individual departments can still have requirements); 99 hour rule has a large financial impact ($5,000,000); annual ceremony to recognize faculty, staff and students who have died during the last year.

UT San Antonio - Rich Richardson distributed a report for his campus that included: PTR policy in place; changes were made to the grievance policy without the faculty’s approval and the faculty want to use the original language (still trying to resolve this issue)(the desire is to resolve grievances without resorting to legal recourse).

C - These policies are being dictated by legalities rather than by reason. He also reported that they are trying to fix equity raises. Betty Travis reported that they are trying to implement evaluation of administrators, including the president.

5. Chancellor William H. Cunningham

The Chancellor commented on the following issues:

  • Developing high quality strategic plans. Some campuses have good plans and some do not. The presidents have been asked to tell the 8-10 top priority issues on their campuses.
  • Telecommunication and information technology continues to be an important priority.
  • Diversity in the post-Hopwood world is an important priority. This is being led by the medical schools. The Baylor/Pan Am model has given some important information.
  • Enrollment decreases are a concern on a number of campuses including: UT Tyler, UT Arlington and UT Permian Basis.
  • Private support is very important to us.
  • Government relations, particularly on the Federal side is important. We may need to look at a new or revised procedure. We want to take advantage of things available to us and make sure we receive timely information. We want to take a more active role.
  • Strong candidate pools for presidents.
  • Maintaining good investments is important. UTEMPCO has been successful.
  • We need to do better in retention and graduation and we will look closely at this issue.
  • Cost control and revenue attainment continue to be important to us.
  • Architectural integrity on our campuses is important to this Board.
  • Competitive funding for higher education - Working on Back to Basics II. We will do better if we continue to speak with one voice.

    Q - Is any of the tobacco money going to come to UT?

    A- Yes, it should come down the way it was in the original settlement.

    Q - What is the Baylor/Pan Am agreement?

    A - Students who attend Pan Am and take specific courses are pre-approved to go to Baylor College of Medicine.

    Q - What access do faculty have to OGC?

    A - You should talk to Ray Farabee and discuss how this can be resolved.

    Q - Should the FAC have input into the selection of the new Vice Chancellor?

    A- This position will now be a staff job and Ed Sharpe is someone I know and feel that I can work with. The presidents will report directly to the Chancellor, not to the Vice Chancellor. The System was able to save a lot of money by eliminating the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs’ position.

    Q - When should be searches be required?

    A - That is an issue I would have to think about.

    Q - A report from the Executive Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs states that tenure and compensation are not connected, what is your opinion?

    A - No one has ever raised the issue of trying to use this to punish faculty, but you could look into this if you wish.

    Q - Why was a hiring cap put on our institutions and what impact will it have?

    A - We don’t know what the impact will be and we have requested that the caps go away. The reason may have been just to keep employee counts down.

    Q - Are the presidents free to share the campus priority documents with the faculty?

    A- Yes, they can share them.

    Q - Will salary increases for faculty and staff be a priority in Back to Basics II?

    A - Yes, it will be a top priority.

    Q - Will a new committee be formed that represents minority and gender issues on the campuses?

    A - A new committee could be formed, but the committee that was formed was made up of people who could solve some of the problems, not just identify the problems.

    Q - What is the purpose of the model grievance policy?

    A- It is just there to be used if you want to use it.

    Q - Can we look for another 5% raise over the biennium?

    A - Yes, probably something at that level.

6. Randy Wallace, Budget Office - FTE Caps

This cap was added as a rider at the last minute. It states that we must get approval from the Governor and LBB to exceed the employee caps. A request must be justified. Six academic institutions and four health institutions currently exceed the cap. Additional information has been requested by the LBB on the academic institutions. They have not yet made a decision and may not for two or three months. Most of these requests involve sponsored research grants. The Governor is very conservative about approving an increase in FTE’s.

Q - How did this issue get focused on FTE’s?

A - Originally it came from the Comptroller and did not focus on FTE’s.

Q - Can an institution get around this by out sourcing?

A - We still have to report contract employees.

7. Campus Reports Continued

UT Dallas - James Bartlett distributed a report for his campus that included: selecting faculty for PPE (Periodic Performance Review); applying PPE to administrators; appointment of PPE review committees; changing the grading system from an 8 point system to a 12 point system (students are concerned that this will lower their GPA); lack of clarity regarding funding of libraries; SACS visit went well; 100 hour limit (phantom course scandal); dropping GRE/GMAT requirements; becoming serious about faculty oversight of appointments of lecturers.

8. Committee Meetings

(Health Affairs - OHH1; Faculty Quality - ASH5 - Dr. Charles Mullins and Mr. J.B. Pace invited to meet with Health Affairs about Medicare Billing; Georgia Harper to invited to meet with Faculty Quality Committee to discuss Distance Education and also the role of Intellectual Property Committees; Priscilla Lozano invited to meet with the Governance Committee to discuss the Handbook Disclaimer issue)

The FAC adjourned to committee meetings at 2:30 pm.

Friday, March 27

9. Campus Reports Continued

UTHSC Houston - James Berry reported for his campus including: development of a policy to make it easier for employees to obtain information from the university; evaluation of the EVPRAA continues; centralizing local complaints about health insurance; faculty representatives on HSC committees; SACS accreditation starting; Dental Branch recently accredited with 20 commendations; work on non-reappointment issue continues.

UT Pan American - Gerald Brazier reported for his campus including: progress on searches for administrators; PTR assignments to the 6 year cycle (8 to be reviewed the first year); grievance policy is in question by local administration.

UT Southwestern - Tim Wolff distributed a report for his campus that included: PTR has already taken place on his campus with mixed results (47 reviewed, 30 favorable, 3 marginal, 2 unfavorable, 5 pending, and 7 opted to retire instead o f proceeding with the review).

Q - Why did you start so soon?

A - Our administrator understood that we should proceed.

Q - Who did the review?

A - The chair sat down with the faculty member, with a peer review occurring only if requested by the faculty member.

Q- Could faculty request further review after they received their results?

A - Yes. Tim also reported: a recent court case against a former faculty member who withheld money from MSRDP; searching for a dean of the medical school; animal rights activists have become more active against individual faculty members.

C - Those groups have been invited to tour facilities on some campuses to help defuse this problem.

Q - Where do the confrontations occur?

A - At home.

C - Some of the abortion groups are considering filing antiracketeering suits against antiabortion groups.

C- Some campuses have made research projects top secret in order to prevent these problems.

C - The guidelines for animal care are very strict to protect the animals.

C - Other states have had this occur and have put plans in place to protect the individuals and some have had to decrease the use of animals. Tim continued with: SACS accreditation completed; Allied Health Sciences faculty asked to evaluate department chairs; Masters in Public Health program as a satellite of UT Houston has been approved.

10. Distance Learning - Dr. Darcy Hardy

Dr. Hardy presented a demonstration of the UT Tele Campus which is currently under construction. This campus won’t offer courses. The UT campuses are currently offering a variety of telecourses. The Tele Campus is meant to be a support campus. Anyone can come to the Tele Campus and will be asked to sign up the first time. The URL has not been released yet. The campus includes 7 "buildings". The goal is to make sure that our students receive the services they need. There are several departments within each "building". Information listed on each page provides both information about the various UT campuses and a link to those campus pages. It will tell students how to register for courses and take the student directly to the local registration. Academic calendars are also available for each campus. TASP test information is provided. Some "personal interest" courses, not given for credit, will be identified. Shared student data between campuses will be available within 5-10 years. There will be a "courseware offering tool kit" provided to faculty and a two day training session will be held April 20 & 21 for two people from each campus. There will be links to MCI Symposium and Web CT. This program is being developed by UOL Publishing out of Virginia. The program can be modified as needed. The classroom "building" contains information on exams, grades, a windows on the Web course and tutorials. It may provide remedial information. The information "building" contains a variety of information about each UT campus, Tele Campus staff, the master plan, a distance education primer, a UT System link and links to other important resources. The library "building" contains about 4000 books in digital format. There are also links to other library information on each campus as well as other places. The commons "building" has such things as a reading room, games, entertainment, conference rooms and gallery.

Q - How does this compare to the Western Governors University?

A - We really aren’t competing with the WGU.

Q - What is the difference between distance education and distance learning?

A - For most they are considered the same thing, but I view distance education as everything that goes into creating a course whereas distance learning is what happens when the course is in progress. Dr. Hardy can be contacted at <dhardy@utsystem.edu>.

11. Privacy Issues - Helen Bright

Open Records Act - Anything you create is open to the public (with certain exceptions such as medical information and student information). Your personnel file is an open record with the exception of financial information such as ORP and insurance, medical information, highly intimate information, etc. Each exception must be approved by the AG’s office. Which file is provided in an Open Records request depends on how the request is stated and if files contain privileged information.

Q - If a student transcript is in an employee file, should it be released?

A - No, the transcript does not have to be released. However, just because you call something "confidential" doesn’t protect it from the Open Records Act. Student information isn’t protected until the person actually becomes a student. Promotion and tenure files are not protected.

Q - Are you notified when someone requests information about you?

A - There is no requirement for notification, but it depends on what the individual component decides to do. Some will notify you and some may not.

Q - Who decides whether there is an exception?

A - The OGC only gets involved if requested, so the local person may make that decision. An individual has a right to all the information the university has on you.

Q - Electronic information is accessible, does it depend who owns the computer?

A - Not necessarily, if you are using a computer for University business, even if that computer is in your home, then that information is accessible.

Q - Can you remove information from your file. ANSWER - No, you can modify it but not remove it.

Q - What about identification numbers?

A - Those numbers can be withheld if your know about it or if the person releasing the information knows to withhold them.

Q - Who gives guidance to people who are accumulating these files? ANSWER - A lot of institutions have policies.

Q - If someone requests a copy of my e-mail, who decides what messages are released?

A - They must request specific information. If there is expectation of litigation, then the information is not released.

Q - Do some institutions not have adequate policies? ANSWER - All have been given the proper practices to use.

Q- Can we have a uniform policy about what is and is not released and about notification?

A - The Open Records Act takes precedence over the Regents Rules.

Q - Should all annonymous letters and communications be kept and are they subject to the Open Records Act?

A - Yes, those are state documents.

C - It might depend on the content of the annonymous communications.

C- - The System needs to do a better job of communicating this information to both faculty and staff.

R - We need to do a better job.

Q - Information has been requested about certain presidents with little success, does that mean there wasn’t any information?

A - If information is requested that doesn’t exist, you aren’t required to create a document.

C - You have no privacy on your computer.

Q - Are your deleted e-mail messages accessible?

A - They may be, but it depends how easy it is to provide it. There are a lot of exceptions, such as drafts, etc.

12. Year 2000 Issues - Mr. Lewis Watkins, Office of Infromation Resources

Mr. Watkins distributed a report that was prepared for the Regents concerning how we are preparing for the year 2000. We thought that the year 2000 problems just concerned mainframes, but we found out that our servers, pc’s, and facilities also have problems. There are also legal problems that we may face. We want to make sure that our operations on each campus continue and no one is harmed in any way. We are focusing on providing student loans, patient care, etc. The administrative areas are probably in the best shape because they have been working on the problem for some time. The departments are the ones facing more problems with data bases and spreadsheets. The two digits are the problem. Old systems only used two digits for the date and new systems, in order to be compatible, may only use two digits as well. Desktop software does not all handle the date in the same way. The student record system is one of our larger problems, but they have been working on that problem. Payroll issues have also been addressed for some time, and we will get paid. Air conditioning systems can be affected by this problem which can impact research. Elevators can also be affected. All campuses have people looking into this problem. They are the year 2000 coordinators (names available on the Web <http://www.utsystem.edu/oir-year2000/>. Outside vendors and other people we interact with can also affect us. There are two spectrums. There are those who say there is no problem and then there are others who say that there will be global problems with our supply chains. The reality is, in some departments there will be little or no problems if dates are not an issue, and in others where dates are very important this will be a problem. We are concerned about the facilities, because we have only recently realized that this is a problem so we are getting the engineers involved. The lawyers are also looking into such things as contracts. We are having a hard time holding on to the computer people because they are in great demand. Imbedded systems may give us the biggest problems and its difficult to determine the actual components in any given item (such as an airplane).

Q- Was any money set aside to solve this problem?

A - The legislature set aside $225,000,000, but universities are excluded. Funding had to be absorbed by the institutions.

Q - What is the current estimate to solve this problem.

A - 21-30 million initially, but that didn’t include embedded systems and legal issues.

Q - Is it hard to find people who still know Cobalt and Fortran?

A - Yes.

Q - How can we find out which software is the most susceptible?

A - You can find links on the Web site, but you can’t trust what the vendors tell you. There are programs available for PC’s that will solve the problems.

Q - Why haven’t we put spec requirements on PC purchases?

A - We have, but you still have to test it.

13. Committee Meetings (Health Affairs - OHH1; Academic Affairs - ASH5)

The Council recessed to committee meetings.

14. Committee Reports

Health Affairs - Joel Dunnington reported for his committee. Members of the Committee included: Joel Dunnington and Tim Wolff, co-chairs, and Alan Cline, James Berry, George Knight, Jerry McClarty and Ted Pate, members. The Committee met with Dr. Mullins and Mr. J.B. Pace to discuss healthcare fraud. The government is auditing the medical schools to determine fraud. Some medical schools in other states have already been audited and large settlements reached. UTHSC San Antonio has been audited (with the aid of a whistleblower who will receive a percentage of the settlement), and the other Texas schools will be audited in the future. Compliance mechanisms are being set up on each campus to try to remedy this situation.

The Committee also met with Mr. Bob Molloy to discuss the health insurance plan. The triple option will not be available next year (similar to the Houston/Galveston area this year) and premiums may go up (everything is still out on bid at the present time). The Texas Universities Health Plan (TUHP) is bidding to provide care in some of the areas. Dr. Guckian reported that the malpractice insurance plan has been doing well, with a low level of claims. At Senator Ratliff’s request, they are looking at an equitable way to use formula funding for the health institutions.

Q - Can individual faculty be held liable?

A - Yes, and faculty will be required to do a lot more documentation in order to alleviate the fraud situation.

C- The quality of patient care has not been an issue, but rather the billing procedures.

Q - Would university attorneys defend a faculty member who is indicted for healthcare fraud?

A - The System might provide support, but you might need a specialist.

Academic Affairs - Corbett Gaulden reported for his committee. Members of the Committee include: Corbett Gaulden and Fernando Rodriguez (not present), co-chairs, and member Lucy Willis. The Committee had no action items, but discussed the Core Curriculum which will be voted on by the Coordinating Board in the near future. There is concern about transferring D’s from other institutions. The other item discussed was access to faculty files and the Committee plans to survey the campuses about this issue.

Q- Who gives permission to search a faculty member’s office, computer, etc., or to set up surveilance of a faculty member? This should be included on the survey.

A - The Information Resource personnel seem to have authority to do some of these things that others cannot.

C - Each campus needs to decide these things.

Q - Is the next step after Core to look at fields of study?

Ivor Page made a motion that the Chancellor be asked to submit members of the FAC to the Coordinating Board for influential positions on the Fields of Study Committee. The motion was seconded. It was suggested that all the members of the Fields of Study Committees should be made up of faculty members. The motion passed. In the letter to the Chancellor, he will be asked to encourage the presidents to appoint full time faculty members to serve on these committees.

Governance - Jack Gilbert reported for the Committee. Members of the Committee included: Jack Gilbert and Betty Travis, co-chairs, and Mo Mahmood, Mike Siciliano, Harold Poelzer, Roger Conaway, Linda Smith, and Terese Verklan, members. The Committee discussed the issue of adding a disclaimer to each Handbook of Operating Procedures. The reason this was written was to help the OGC demonstrate in court that the HOP is not a contract. Alternative language was discussed, but the representative from the OGC has indicated that we should withdraw this issue. Jack Gilbert made a motion that the FAC support the OGC’s position to withdraw the disclaimer from the handbooks. The motion was seconded.

Q- Is the Regents Rules the only thing that is really a contract?

A- Maybe, but the answer isn’t clear. The motion passed.

The Committee also discussed the model grievance policy. The Committee makes a motion that the model policy have a disclaimer stating that it has not been approved by the FAC. The motion passed. The Committee recommends that each FGO submit the model policy to the appropriate committee for review and to simply use it as a resource.

C - OGC seems to be very accommodating on this issue.

C - The Committee doesn’t want anyone to think that the FAC has approved this policy (thus the disclaimer).

C - A grievance policy should be available to each faculty member on each campus.

C - The law gives faculty that right. If you try to get too specific, you may leave something out.

C - There is great benefit for the FAC to advise campuses to pay attention to this. Jack Gilbert put the recommendation in the form of a motion. The motion was seconded.

C - Tyler’s difficulty in receiving approval speaks to the need for this model.

C - The model seems to be very adversarial and may not be ready to go out to the components.

C - Francie Frederick indicated that this model document does not have to go out to the campus presidents.

C - If we take this model to our faculty, some may like it and some may not, but we could then solicit these varying views.

C - This model give us some indication as to how OGC will interpret our current policies.

C - We are only asking the FGO’s to look at this, not support it. A friendly amendment was made to indicate that the FAC did not review or endorse this policy in any way. The amendment passed.

C - Can we simply send this out if it is requested.

C - Francie Frederick indicated that she could transmit the FAC’s sentiment to the OGC.

C - Perhaps it doesn’t need to go to the FGO’s.

C - This document can give constructive feedback even if the document is negative. The motion passed.

The Committee also discussed the proposed Regents Rules change regarding the meeting of the FAC with the Board. The Committee made a motion that this change be endorsed by the FAC. The Committee felt that it would be much easier for the Executive Committee of the FAC to meet with the Board (as proposed). The motion passed.

The Committee also discussed searches for an in-line position (this could be either a faculty or staff position). The Committee will determine the protocols for filling these positions at each campus, particularly the amount of faculty participation.

C - This could pertain to other general hiring procedures and would be very helpful to us.

The Committee also discussed Non-Reappointment and whether faculty should be entitled to a reason. The other aspect of Non-Reappointment is the basis on which a faculty member could grieve this decision. The Committee will continue to discuss these issues and try to educate the Regents.

C - The upward evaluation of administrators is not an adequate check on possible abuse of non-reappointment.

C - This rule is preventing people from submitting a grievance. Faculty should have the capability to grieve this decision and the administrator should be required to give a reason for their action.

Faculty Quality - Gerald Brazier reported for the Committee. The Committee discussed the distance learning policy. Following review of the policy by members of the FAC, Dr. Gonzalez has indicated that he will start over with the policy. The Committee will present two principles to Dr. Gonzalez. First that faculty must have control over the curriculum. And second, that faculty should receive recognition and support for teaching these types of courses. Members of the Committee will meet with Dr. Gonzalez and the Strategic Leadership Council. The main goal is to show that the same Regents’ Rules should apply to distance learning as in traditional formats. Faculty should have veto power over the critical aspects of the courses presented. The Committee will prepare proposed language to include in a revised policy.

C - Committees must communicate with each other between meetings, because we can’t accomplish all our work during these meetings.

C - The current Regents’Rules do not say much about the faculty’s role in the curriculum.

15. Old/New Business

  • Student Discipline Guide

C - In the proposed student guide on academic dishonesty, there is very little concern given to faculty rights and faculty are not included in the process. Students have rights of appeal, but faculty have no rights of appeal. Faculty need to have a role in this process.

C - Faculty tend to avoid formal confrontation in cases of student dishonesty and will just informally reduce a grade. They do this because of the processes that have been set up. QUESTION - Are there formal procedures?

A - Yes. The procedures may vary and some things can be done by the faculty and some cannot.

Q - Does everyone include an academic dishonesty policy in their syllabus? ANSWER - Some do and some do not.

C - If you don’t warn the students about what is academic dishonesty, they may or may not know what is included.

C - Letters concerning academic dishonesty should go to the dean of student affairs. The FAC is asked to review the proposed student discipline guide and provide input at the June meeting. The Academic Affairs Committee will handle this review.

  • The Teaching Effectiveness Report is in its final preparation.
  • Suggested items to discuss with the Board of Regents
  • Cost of dealing with the year 2000 problem and where the money will come from (Lois Hale)
  • Regents’ Rule 6.35 (Mo Mahmood)
  • Faculty participation on search committees (Jack Gilbert)
  • Vision for UT System (Jack Gilbert)
  • Flagship institutions (Ivor Page)
  • Distance learning (Mike Siciliano)
  • Enrollment, Retention and graduation (Herold Poelzer)
  • Inflation of administrative salaries (Ivor Page)
  • Faculty salary comparisons with other states (Ivor Page)
  • Health benefits (Alan Cline)
  • Term tenure (Jack Gilbert)
  • Audit of EGI (Joel Dunnington)
  • HICFA reviews (Tim Wolff)

We want this meeting to be very positive, not a whining session. We’re not looking for immediate approval, but a willingness to consider these issues with FAC input. The Chancellor and Vice Chancellors will be present at the meeting. The meeting is scheduled to start around 2pm and is currently scheduled as a closed briefing session. Francie Frederick will look into making the meeting an open meeting.

Additional suggestions should be e-mailed to Dr. Siciliano.

Dr. Ed Sharpe was welcomed as the incoming Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and the liaison to the FAC. He indicated that he wanted his office to be of service to the university and be an advocate for the institutions. He also encouraged the FAC to keep Francie Frederick in the loop in her new position with the Board. Dr. Cline expressed high praises for Dr. Sharpe based on his past experiences with him.

16. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 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