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: June 25- 26, 1998

<back to Index>

Attendance

UT Arlington
Brooks Ellwood - present;
Rod Hissong - present

UT Austin
Alan Cline (ex officio) - present
Jack Gilbert - absent
Shelley Payne - present
Martha Hilley (alternate) - present

UT Brownsville
Farhat Iftekharruddin - absent
Charles Lackey (alternate) - present
Lucy Willis - present;

UT Dallas
;James Bartlett - present
Ivor Page - present
Robert Nelsen - present

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

UT Pan American
Gerald Brazier - present
Sue Mottinger - presen

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

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

UT Tyler
Roger Conaway - absent
Steve Rainwater (alternate) - 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 -absent
Michael Siciliano (ex officio) - present

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

UT HC - Tyler
Robert Klein - present

Jerry McLarty - present

UT System Administration
Francie Frederick - present
Pam Johnson - present
Ed Sharpe - present

Thursday March 26

1. Call to Order

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

2. Minutes Approval

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

3. Introduction of Members

The new members, alternate members and existing members of the FAC introduced themselves.

4. Comments from the Chair and Executive Committee Report

  • A meeting between the Chancellor, FAC Chair and FAC Chair Elect is being set up for July.
  • The meeting of the FAC Executive Committee with the Board of Regents was delayed due to the Hopwood issue. It is supposed to be rescheduled for the August 13th meeting.
  • A number of issues such as distance learning and the University of Phoenix are being addressed.
  • The president of UT San Antonio is resigning and returning to a teaching role.
  • Term tenure continues to be a problem at UT MD Anderson and will be addressed by the Governance Committee.
  • A uniform Grievance Policy has been sent out to each campus (the president’s office) by the UT System. The FAC needs feedback on the results of that distribution. The model policy contains some very disturbing language.
  • The suggested disclaimer to be added to the HOOP has been removed.
  • The medical and dental premiums were presented at the May Regents’ meeting. The FAC is trying to determine why UT health providers are excluded from some of our plans and why premiums vary so much between campuses.
  • The FAC needs an update on Upward Evaluation of Administrators and on many campuses the president is excluded from this evaluation. Presidents and chancellors are supposed to be included in PTR. The Governance Committee will address this issue and determine how it can be handled in a delicate manner. Accountability may be the key issue.
  • Alan Cline brought up a number of issues that included:
  • Student Advisory group trying to weaken the Academic Dishonesty policy
  • Decreased class attendance and requests to repeat lectures, put them on the Web, etc. With e-mail, students can make these requests without looking you in the face.
  • Grade disputes, with students wanting to bargain for grades.
  • These issues will be addressed by Academic Affairs.

5. Distance Learning

Ivor Page discussed the current status of the Distance Learning Policy and his discussions with Dr. Mario Gonzalez. He also discussed the situation with the University of Phoenix. Joe Stafford was supposed to provide us with information on this issue, but has not done so to date. The University of Phoenix has 48,000 degree seeking students. There is a concern that this is a degree granting process rather than a learning process. Others are also jumping on board this band wagon. We have to have data in order to evaluate whether this is a real or perceived threat to traditional higher education institutions. Alan Cline raised the question of whether we should be looking at this issue from an academic standpoint or from the view of getting our share of the market. This type of university does not have the same type of relationship with faculty or face the same faculty issues as traditional universities. Tenure would not be an issue in this type of university.

C - We should take the high ground and consider that this type of university is no different than other types of correspondence courses.

C- There are statements from the University of Washington that echo these concerns.

C- All the states and universities are turning to this type of education and we are in the catch up mode here in Texas.

Allen Martin reported giving two presentations at the recent AAUP meeting. He provided a summary of activity within the UT System. He reiterated that we have a huge amount of catching up to do.

C - We shouldn’t dismiss distance learning as just an alternative form of education since it crosses the boundaries and can work in traditional universities as well.

Q- Where are the graduates of the University of Phoenix going and what are they doing after graduation?

A- We don’t know.

C- There is a concern from a medical perspective, since every job is being down graded to the next lower level. It looks like the same thing is happening with education. Is it attractive simply because we can save a lot of money?

C - The University of Phoenix is located right outside of El Paso, Texas (in New Mexico) and they do provide face to face learning.

C - We should not be in the "market share" business, we should be in the business of providing a good sound education.

C - We shouldn’t automatically dismiss distance learning, but we should make the most of the tools that it provides. We just have to make sure we maintain quality.

C - In west Texas, distance learning can be a real benefit to the students and save them a great deal of driving time. We need to consider the needs of the students, including transfer opportunities, etc.

6. Campus Reports

UT El Paso - Mo Mahmood distributed a report from his campus and summarized the report. His report included: 1) Faculty Grievance Procedure (which did not use the model policy) has been approved by the faculty and awaits approval by the president; 2) Conflict of Interest Policy has been developed and will soon come before the senate; and 3) Meeting with Regent Donald Evans occurred during commencement exercises and indicated that the Regents will meet with the FAC.

C - At UT MD Anderson a grievance doesn’t go forward unless approved by the chair of the Grievance Committee.

UT Southwestern - Tim Wolff distributed a report from his campus and summarized the report. His report included: 1) New Dean, who is a nephrologist, has been chosen for the medical school (the outgoing dean will continue as VPAA); 2) New Track has been approved for clinical faculty; and 3) New Program in Public Health has been implemented.

UT Houston HSC - Terese Verklan reported for her campus. Her report included: 1)Policy addition to the HOOP regarding providing information to UT employees; 2) Search committee has been appointed for a dean of the graduate school; 3) Statement to promote multiyear contracts has been developed; 4) Non-Reappointment is still an issue; 5) Academy of Teaching Excellence is still being explored; 6) Grievance policy has been reviewed and the model policy has not been used; and 7) Benefits continue to be reviewed.

UT Tyler HC - Jerry Mclarty reported for his campus. His report included: 1) Results of evaluation of administrators, with a high response rate; 2) Grievance policies from research and clinical faculty was rejected by the OGC in preference to a single policy from the campus; and 3) Incentive plan may not be legal and is being revisited ( there are ways around this, but NIH may start taking even closer looks). Robert Cline reported for the clinical faculty which included: 1) Salary designations for state vs. clinical income are coupled to an incentive plan (all but 6 faculty heavily involved in teaching reached their basic goal for generating income); and 2) Interim director has made some administrative changes.

UT San Antonio HSC - George Knight reported for his campus. His report included: 1) Settlement of the Medicare fraud allegations, which include returning 17.2 million dollars but no admission of wrong doing (the money will come from the MSRDP reserve fund) (Joel Dunnington explained the purpose of these reserve funds).

UT Austin - Shelley Payne reported for her campus. Her report included: 1) Search for a new executive vice president and provost; 2) Staff salaries continue to be an issue; 3) Admissions data indicate that enrollment figures for first year enrollees will reach nearly 6,000; and 4) the "Stadium" Club is expected to provide modest income to academic programs and will provide some free memberships to certain individuals such as the chair of the Faculty Council. Martha Hilley reported that the evaluation of administrators is still underway, but is moving slowly.

UT Arlington - Rod Hissong report for his campus. His report included: 1) Policies and procedures (AP&T, Grievance, PTR, Academic Program Review, and Review of Academic Administrators) approved and have or will be implemented (some need to be reviewed again because promotion and tenure decisions are made by administrators instead of faculty, the Faculty Quality Committee will look at this issue); 2) Athletics to be financed by mandatory student fees (other schools are looking at this as a way to finance their athletics); 3) two New Deans have been appointed and still searching for two more; and 4) Student who failed a Ph.D. candidacy exam wants to appeal.

UT San Antonio - Walt Richardson reported for his campus. His report included: 1) Equity issues haven’t been resolved; 2) Evaluation of administrators is still an issue; 3) Grievance policy is still needed; 4) Chancellor Cunningham visited the campus shortly after the resignation of the Provost ( the whole office of Academic Affairs had been dismantled); and 5) the President has resigned effective next year, which prompted another visit by the Chancellor (many concerns were raised to the Chancellor about the one year lag time). Betty Travis added that the Chancellor admitted to knowing about the problems at UTSA for several years, but was getting conflicting messages from the president and faculty. Information coming out of the FAC may have helped validate these problems. Political pressure may have also contributed to the outcome. The former provost has been named to a UT System position.

UT Pan American - Gerald Brazier reported for his campus. His report included: 1) Grievance policy approved; 2) New Provost who started June 1; 3) the six deans on campus have all been there for a short time and may provide opportunities for change; 4) Nursing students who get a D appeal their grade because otherwise they would be dismissed, yet the appeal process tends to delay inevitable dismissals; and 5) Department chairs are elected and there is a question about whether lecturers should play a role in the election process (How many campuses elect chairs? Only a few campuses elect chairs and it may vary by college. Faculty Quality will look into this issue.). Sue Mottinger reported that the new Provost plans to evaluate each dean twice a year.

UT Dallas - Robert Nelsen distributed a report from his campus. His report included: 1) Graduate and undergraduate catalogues approved; 2) Undergraduate grades will be based on a 12 point system, partly in response to student concerns (a table was provided that summarized grading policies at the top 50 U.S. universities); 3) Public events policy has been developed in response to a situation involving a play with public nudity; 4) SACS accreditation recommended syllabi be developed for every course; and 5) PTR is moving along with duly elected peer review committees.

UT Tyler - Allen Martin reported for his campus. His report included: 1) Upward evaluation of administrators still hasn’t been implemented (along with several other policies); 2) about 70 first year students will be selected this year; and 3) President Hamm will head up the development board and a new president will take office. Allen also made some further

Comments about his meeting with the AAUP.

UT MB Galveston - Adrian Perachio reported for his campus. His report included: 1) Faculty Governance now exists on his campus; 2) New VP for research has been named; 3) Information Technology is being upgraded and faculty have been involved in the decision process; 4) Town Meetings have been initiated to give faculty an open forum to ask questions; 5) Upward evaluation will begin with the deans, VPs and the president; and 6) PBL is being implemented which will place a large demand on the faculty (other schools are trying this with varying success).

UT Permian Basin - Corbett Gaulden distributed a report from his campus. His report included: 1) Upward Evaluation of administrators is in place; 2) PTR is being implemented; 3) Senate Summary of activities; and 4) SACS accreditation is in preparation. Lois Hale noted that their president doesn’t know when he will come up for PTR and asked if that was the case at other campuses.

UT Brownsville - Charles Lackey reported for his campus. His report included: 1) Instituting a new enrollment management and advising system titled "Colleague."; 2) New Administrators being sought, including a dean for graduate studies and VPAA; and 3) Board of Governors Conference is meeting at Brownsville today and tomorrow.

UT MD Anderson - Joel Dunnington reported for his campus. His report included: 1) Salary data has been obtained on paper and a disk should be received shortly; 2) Question of whether department chairs should be included in the senate; 3) Upward evaluation still incomplete; 4) New representative to the FAC ; 5) Faculty who are heavily involved in teaching don’t get the big salary increases because increases are based on clinic productivity.

7. Comments from the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs - Dr. Edwin Sharpe

Dr. Sharpe apologized for not being able to meet with the FAC this morning. He reported a reorganization in the office of Academic Affairs based on decisions that were made last year. The Office will not be as involved in closely monitoring the campuses. Joe Stafford’s staff will be increased in order to improve that area. The Office will not be a funnel for the academic campuses who will now deal directly with OGC, etc.

Q - How will the FAC interact?

A - The Office of Academic Affairs will continue to provide interaction as needed, but the FAC can deal directly with various System components.

Q - Will you plan to attend FAC meetings or will that be delegated?

A - I intend to work as closely with the FAC as possible and we will keep Francie Frederick as involved as much as possible.

C - It would be nice if we also had some presence from the Health Affairs side.

Q - The Chancellor has charged the FAC with looking into the issue of the University of Phoenix, but we haven’t received any information from Joe Stafford. How can this be resolved?

Q - Should it be as difficult as it was in San Antonio to replace a president when needed?

A - I wasn’t involved in that matter before, but we are trying to move forward with a search in a timely manner. A new provost will also have to be found. Ray Garza, the former provost, will serve as Senior Advisor to the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs. Things are moving forward at UT San Antonio and there now needs to be healing on that campus.

C - The problems at UTSA were pretty evident and should have been picked up on sooner by System administration.

Q - How can direct input be given to the System about a president who is not functioning appropriately?

A - That is something to look into.

C - If campuses are given more autonomy and authority, then the System needs to make sure that campuses are visited and faculty listened to.

A - The System will continue to closely monitor the campuses and only intends to give autonomy with the more routine issue.

Q - Has the Regents Rules been changed to reflect an annual meeting between the Regents and the FAC Executive Committee?

A - Yes, I believe that has taken place.

C- The faculty at UTSA is very appreciative of the System’s help in resolving the problem at UTSA.

Q - Have the members of the search committee been selected?

A - No, not yet, but we hope to have an organizational meeting in August. Dr. Sharpe announced that there is a position open for an Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs if anyone is interested.

8. Nominations for Chair-Elect

Three nominations have been received for the Chair-Elect position, James Berry (UT Houston HSC), Joel Dunnington (UT MD Anderson) and Terese Verklan (UT Houston HSC). There were no further nominations from the floor so the nominations were closed. Each of the candidates gave a short presentation of their backgrounds and expectations for the FAC.

9. Nominations for Secretary

Two nominations have been received for Secretary, Alan Cline (UT Austin) and Jack Gilbert (UT Austin). Nominations will remain open until after the election for Chair-Elect. Shelley Payne read a letter from Jack Gilbert who could not be present. Alan Cline made some remarks on his own behalf.

10. Committee Meeting - The Council adjourned to committee meetings at 3:05 pm.

Friday June 26

11. Call to Order - The meeting was reconvened by Chair Siciliano at 9:00am who reminded the standing committees that, in addition to preparing a committee report, they need to identify co-chairs for next year and major issues to be addressed at the meeting with the Regents.

12. Recognition of Pam Johnson - Ivor Page presented a gift to Pam Johnson in appreciation of her efforts on behalf of the FAC over the past several years. Pam will be moving to a position with the Board of Regents along with Francie Frederick.

13. Elections - A secret ballot election was conducted for the position of chair-elect between candidates James Berry, Joel Dunnington and Terese Verklan. Joel Dunnington was elected by a majority vote. There being no further nominations for the position of secretary, a secret ballot election was conducted between candidates Alan Cline and Jack Gilbert. Alan Cline was elected by a majority vote.

14. Variance of Insurance Premiums Across Components - Ms. Teresa Burroff

Ms. Burroff distributed two documents to the FAC, "Three Year Experience In Loss Order" and Cost For Medical and Dental Coverage in Plan Year 98-99". She explained how insurance rates are set based on previous years experience at the various components. With the PPO, the risk is shared across components, but with the HMO, the risk must be analyzed by individual components.

Q - Why aren’t we sharing the risk of all our insurance offerings so that everyone benefits from being a part of a large group?

A - For the PPO (UT Select) we have been able to share the risk and lower the premiums, but components have been allowed to maintain some "carve out" plans for local areas.

Q - We still don’t know why certain campuses have large losses, are we going to know that information from the consultants?

A - We haven’t had the data in the past even though we have withheld payments from Nylcare, but we are trying to gather the data that we need to make those determinations. Anthem provided us with some data, but not enough.

Q - For the losses that are shown, how much was paid in or how many people were covered?

A - I don’t have the total amount paid in, but about 13,000 people are paying into the plan to cover about 30,000 people in Galveston, which shows the biggest loss. We don’t know exactly what population (age, sex, etc.) are causing the majority of losses, but we are trying to get that information for the future.

Qn - Other than the UT Select, do costs for the other plans vary based on usage?

A - Yes, we try to find the lowest cost plans in each area that offer the most benefits to our employees.

Q - How do our premiums compare to other state or school employees?

Ar - We have looked at what the A&M System and ERS (Employee Retirement System) are offering and they aren’t offering anything better than we are.

C - It is frustrating that just when you think you have figured out the plan and who to go to, it changes or goes away.

A - We are aware of that and we have tried to minimize the impact on the employee as we make the changes that we must make.

Q - Is the HMO option going away in Tyler for next year?

A - Yes, but some HMO features have been added to the UT Select plan.

Q - Does Prudential offer similar features?

A - No, they have their own HMO requirements.

Q - Cigna is the plan for our area, but what if my physician isn’t part of Cigna?

A - Cigna is just the administrator, Texas True Choice is the network the physician must belong to.

Q - If you offer more choices of physicians in the plan, does that increase cost?

Ar - Yes, as we try to broaden the plan and give people more choices the cost increases.

C - We need more information in a timely and simpler fashion if we are going to attract and retain good people.

A - We recognize the need for better communication and we are striving to meet that goal.

C - If HMO’s are going to change from year to year, then their is no incentive for the HMO’s to provide prevention and maintenance over the long term. Are there any plans to deal with this problem?

A - Bob Molloy would have to address that issue, but we are interested in addressing that issue and it is to the benefit of the UT System to keep people healthy. We expect TUHP to be more active in providing long term care in the future.

Q - What can be done about plan information coming out too late to make informed choices?

A - We are trying to get the information out as early as possible, but you should also look closely for additional information provided by the local HR offices (particularly in Houston/Galveston). You should also look at the Web site.

Q - Will the prescription service be remain the same as last year?

A - Yes, unless you choose an HMO that has its own drug plan.

Q - Are there changes that will materially affect retirees?

A - Most of the changes will benefit the retirees and they will experience a decreased cost.

Q - Are we going to have these types of changes each year and why can’t we truly spread the costs across campuses?

A- The basic plan is the same across campuses, its just the options that differ. Healthcare is changing every year, but we try to put a plan in place that could remain in place for more than one year, while trying to get the best costs each year.

C - We appreciate your taking the time to meet with us. It seems like July is the worst time to try to communicate important information to the faculty.

A - We have looked at rolling back the enrollment period.

15. Committee Meetings - The Council recessed to committee meetings at 10:18 am.

16. Committee Reports

Academic Affairs Committee - Corbett Gaulden reported that Corbett Gaulden and Fernando Rodriguez will remain as co-chairs. Major issues include core curriculum guidelines and the student discipline guide. The committee will explore these two issue and may broaden the student discipline issue to student accountability.

Q - What is the student discipline guide?

A - It is a document that came out of the Student Advisory Group that guides the treatment of students who are accused of academic dishonesty.

C - It seems as though this policy takes away faculty rights and responsibility in dealing with student dishonesty.

Q - Aren’t there already standard procedures in place?

A - The Committee wants to determine what is in place and how this new guide would change the procedures.

The Committee has some concerns about the Core Curriculum. Students are supposed to be able to transfer 42 hours of core material to any other institution within the state. Different institutions have different goals and missions and courses may not be the same. The Committee is concerned that transferability may overshadow quality and that we may be inserting a 42 hour program between high school and the university. The Committee will gather the facts and take a closer look at this issue.

C - This has been mandated by Senate Bill 148.

C - We initially thought that each institution could build upon the basic 42 hours, but now the document reads 42-45 hours which put a limit on institutions. This limits the creativity to build a core.

Q - If I go to one institution and take course "x" and then go to another institution that doesn’t have course "x" but has course "y" which is a prerequisite for course "z", am I eligible to take course "z"?

A - You may have to take an additional prerequisite, but it shouldn’t expand the overall number of courses you are required to take.

Q - Can you take the 42 hours at the University of Phoenix?

A- It only applies to Texas public schools.

C - No one is asking us to accept grades at this point, but that may be down the road and the administration shouldn’t have let this slip through.

C - A "core curriculum" should be a group of common courses that are spread throughout the curriculum, not just the first 42 hours.

C - The advantage of that type of core curriculum is the ability to spread your major over four years instead of just the last two years. It’s a shame that we don’t have the clout to stop this and we need to seek out the Regents’ help.

C - This is the sort of problem one has when the Legislature oversteps their role in designing curriculum.

Faculty Quality Committee - Jim Bartlett reported that Jim Bartlett and Lois Hale will co-chair the Committee next year. The Committee discussed distance learning and prepared a policy statement they would like to submit to the Chancellor. A motion was made and seconded to send this policy statement to the Chancellor. It was decided to add "and compensation" to the very end of the statement (end of second paragraph). The motion passed. The statement will read:

Distance Education Guidelines

The University of Texas System upholds the tradition of endowing its faculty with the responsibility of designing the curriculum. "Curriculum" means not only the details of the subject matter presented to students, but also teaching methodologies, forms of assessment, and modes of delivery of that subject matter. Faculty are accountable to each other and to their administrators for upholding the highest standards of excellence in the educational experiences of students. As new educational technologies extend the learning environment beyond campus boundaries, and as multiple sources of educational materials proliferate, it is vital that policies be enacted to establish the roles of administrators and faculty critically reviewing proposed course offerings. The content, quality of presentation, assessment criteria, and the clarity and suitability of the educational objectives must be deemed acceptable by appropriate faculty and administrators.

Distance education courses (especially the first-time offerings of such courses) may require commitments of time, effort, skill, and resources beyond those required for traditionally structured courses. The nature of courses, appropriate teaching methodologies, course content, and faculty expertise should be taken into consideration in course development, implementation, and faculty workload assessment and compensation.

The Committee would like to work on a model distance learning policy proposal that could be used by individual campuses and would focus on the main issues of interest to faculty. Faculty should be overseeing all courses offered to students, including distance learning courses. This is an area that many faculty do not want to jump into, but there are a lot of good things that can come from it. We need to have structure in place that insures faculty input in the process of setting up distance learning courses or agreements.

Q - Should we show our forward thinking on the distance learning issue to the Regents in August?

A - Yes.

A motion was made and seconded to charge the Committee to proceed in this area. The motion passed.

The Committee also discussed the matter of the lecturers role within the university and will continue with these discussions. The Committee is also discussing the issue of promotion and tenure decisions being overturned by administration. Members of the FAC will try to get data on this issue from our individual campuses.

Q - How will we break down the different types of decisions that may have occurred?

A - If the final committee makes a decision that is overturned.

C - Some committee decisions may not be public knowledge and not discoverable.

C - We may not be able to ask this question System wide.

A motion was made and seconded that the FAC members would gather as much data as possible about promotion and tenure decisions that have been overturned and break it down in the appropriate manner for each institution.

Faculty Governance - Betty Travis reported that Betty Travis and Jim Klostergaard will be the co-chairs for next year. The Committee proposed a resolution regarding the interaction of the FGO’s at the individual campuses with the OGC to read:

In order to carry on their responsibilities to initiate, craft, and monitor procedures and policies on individual campuses within the University of Texas System, faculty governance organizations at institution and system levels have the right to contact directly the Office of General Council for information and advice and should in turn receive the requested information and advice in a timely and expeditious manner.

The motion passed. The FAC discussed possible ways to implement this resolution and whether it should be sent to Mr. Farabee or to the Chancellor or both. Comment - One of the advantages of going to Mr. Farabee first is to establish our ability to help write these policies. It was decided to send it to Mr. Farabee.

The Committee also discussed the issue of Non-Reappointment and the provision of reasons for such actions. The Committee will gather information from other systems on this issue.

C - Francie Frederick has indicated a willingness to help try to change this language in the Regents’ Rules.

C - The current language makes it impossible to grieve a non-reappointment decision.

C - If we change the language we will automatically set up appeals.

C - OGC may have changed their interpretation of this language.

The Committee is also concerned about the lack of faculty input in problems such as those that occurred at UTSA. The Committee would like to develop a better vehicle for faculty input.

C- Maybe the meeting with the Regents should include short distilled campus reports to give them a feel for the health of our campuses.

C - The Regents conducted retreats with the campus presidents, maybe they could include some time for faculty.

C- The former Executive Vice Chancellor was opposed to formal evaluation of the presidents, maybe these campus reports could provide some formal or informal evaluation.

Q - Which Regents’ sessions are closed?

A - Briefing sessions can be closed.

C - The faculty senate chair should be part of the team that is invited to meet with the Regents.

The Committee is also concerned about pressure being applied to adopt the System’s model Grievance Policy, particularly for those campuses that don’t have their own policy. The Committee asked the Executive Committee for guidance in this matter.

Jim Klostergaard distributed a proposed change in the Regents’ Rules 6.2 that would make tenure uniform across the System and also link tenure with compensation. Added language would include: "and at each institution procedures shall be established for the granting of tenure. 6.2.1 Tenure shall imply an award of a position with linked compensation. Each component institution shall develop its own compensation policies."

C - The Chancellor made a point that PTR would not be term tenure and this has been used with the current term tenure system at M.D. Anderson to enable the removal of valued faculty.

C - The FAC representatives from M.D. Anderson would like the sense or support of the FAC on this issue.

C - The faculty fought to change from term tenure at UT Permian Basin.

C - Faculty at other institutions have been effectively dismissed by continuing their appointment without compensation.

Q - Would the faculty at UT HC Tyler support this change?

Ar - We would have to ask them, but they currently go through all the downsides of tenure without receiving tenure

C - In developing the compensation plan for UTMB it was helpful to actually separate compensation from tenure.

Q - Is the Committee against the concept of a base salary?

A - Incentive plans may utilize a base salary, but incentive plans vary between campuses.

C - The Committee would like the Executive Committee to take this to the Regents to let them know it is coming and then take it to the Chancellor. A motion to table this issue died for lack of a second.

A motion was made to present this issue to the Regents (unless there is significant opposition by M.D. Anderson and HC Tyler faculty). The motion passed.

Health Affairs Committee - Joel Dunnington reported that he is the interim chair of the committee until new members arrive. The Committee discussed the 17.2 million dollar penalty that UT San Antonio HSC will have to pay to the federal government. As a result of this action, campus presidents will be the head of all practice plans and compliance procedures must be put into place.

The Committee also discussed the new practice plan contracts that require faculty to turn over their tax returns if requested. The Committee will write a letter to Dr. Mullins opposing this requirement.

The Committee discussed with Mr. Glascock from the OGC the malpractice coverage during pro bono work by physicians or dentists. A decision will be sought to allow such coverage. The Committee was informed that 25 million dollars is being refunded to the practice plans due to savings on malpractice.

The Committee reviewed the new insurance coverage for UT employees and would like enrollment information to be provided in a more timely manner. The Committee would also like to see data, including demographics, for the campuses with large losses in the insurance plan. Other FAC members should provide the Committee with any information regarding problems with the insurance program.

The Committee will request that one of the co-chairs of the Committee be allowed to attend meetings of the Council of Health Institutions. The Committee suggested the following items to discuss with the Regents: 1) problems with EGI; 2) restrictions on physicians regarding outside income; and 3) the impact on academic programs of increased clinical loads.

The next meeting of the FAC will probably be Oct. 1 & 2, 1998, pending confirmation by the hotel. The next Executive meeting will be Sept. 18, 1998.

17. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 3:00pm.

18. Executive Committee Meeting

The meeting was called to order at 3:05pm.

The members of the Executive Committee need to prepare material for the August 13th meeting with the Regents. We need to present things in a positive manner. We will probably have an hour and a half to meet with the Regents. It would be much better if we could have some type of an interactive meeting rather than us just standing at the podium and talking to them. We want them to know that we are deeply concerned about the issues that they are concerned about. It would be nice if Regents contact us after the meeting individually. Legislative issues are probably at the top of their list right now so we should fashion our remarks appropriately. We need to conduct ourselves in a professional manner and due to the time limit, we really need to prioritize the issues. It would be nice if our remarks stir some discussion between the Regents and the Chancellor. We should definitely provide adequate handouts, even if we don’t have time to address all of them. We want to know how we can work with the Regents and help them and we will provide a list of FAC members and meeting dates.

We need to decide on three main issues that we want to get across. Maybe two should be general issues and only one should deal with faculty.

The Executive Committee will be called on to make decisions that can’t wait until the next FAC meeting and will play an important role in the operation of the FAC.

We will ask for a legislative update at the next FAC meeting and may ask a Legislator and a Regent as well.

Georgia Harper has agreed to be the legal advisor to the FAC. This needs to be approved by Dr. Sharpe (who will , of course, seek permission from the Chancellor).

The meeting was adjourned at 3:30pm.
 
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