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: December 3 - 4, 1998

<back to Index>

  1. The meeting was called to order on Thursday, December 3, 1998 at 10:00 by UT Faculty Advisor Council Chair Ivor Page (U.T Dallas).
  2. Minutes: Approval of the minutes of the October 8-9, 1998 meeting was postponed to allow members to study the draft minutes being circulated (see item 8).
  3. Report by Chair:

    1. Our letter to Commissioner Don Brown of the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board regarding Dr. Bill Sanford’s actions at the October 9, 1998 Faculty Advisory Council meeting was received by him. A response from Commissioner Brown included his regrets.

    2. Our letter to Vice Chancellor Mario Gonzales regarding proposed Distance Learning policy was received. Included in the letter was the following resolution passed electronically on November 5, 1998:

      Resolution:

      Universities have an interest in, and must exercise oversight over, the quality of all educational materials developed by their faculties or presented to their students. This principle applies equally to traditional, distance-education, and all other formats of instruction:

      • All courses, course-sequences, and programs of study developed by faculty of a particular academic unit, or presented to students of that unit, must gain the approval of, and be monitored by, the appropriate faculty curriculum committee(s) following the procedures which are standard at the university.
      • Further, all courses, course-sequences, and programs of study developed by faculty from two or more universities must be approved and monitored by the appropriate curriculum committee(s) on each contributing campus.
      • Similarly, externally developed courses, course-sequences, and programs of study adopted by a University of Texas System component must be approved and monitored by the appropriate faculty curriculum committee(s).
      • Finally, courses, course-sequences and programs of study made available through the University of Texas Telecampus may be used for credit toward academic degrees offered by a particular component institution only if they have been approved by the appropriate faculty curriculum committee(s) at that component. All such courses will be subject to monitoring as described above.

3. Informal discussion with the vice chancellor indicated a favorable response. Further comments are expected from him.

4.
Our letter to Chancellor William Cunningham and to the Board of Regents regarding Senate Bill 148 has received no formal response.

5. Our letter to Chancellor Cunningham regarding receiving draft copies of intended changes to UT System policies and having 90 days to offer responses has received no written answer.


6.
Our letter to Chancellor William Cunningham and to the Board of Regents regarding FAC participation on Board committees has received a negative response.

7.
Robert Nelson (U.T. Dallas) offered advice to the chair that when messages do not receive response they should be resent. Page indicated this action would be considered.

8.
Rep. Irma Rangel (Chair of Texas House Committee on Higher Education) is ill and will not be able to attend our meeting.

9.
Regarding action in response to SB 148, Page reported that he took a day off to travel to Austin and to visit with Sen. Teel Bivens (Chair of the Texas Senate Committee on Education). Also present at the meeting were Marshall Hill and Terry Flack of the Coordinating Board. Sen. Bivens registered an objection that press coverage of our comments regarding SB 148 had preceded informing him of those complaints. He also added that many legislators will not discuss legislation with state employees. Nevertheless, he did carry on this discussion. Page addressed the different missions and curricula of the various state-supported higher educational institutions. Sen. Bivens asked what could be done to "fix" SB 148. Such "fixes" as changing "shall"s to "may"s and excluding research universities were discussed.

10.
Also regarding SB 148, Page reported on the meeting the previous day with Coordinating Board staff. Present at the meeting from the FAC were Betty Travis (U.T. San Antonio), Jim Bartlett (U.T. Dallas), Shelley Payne (U.T. Austin), and Alan Cline (U.T. Austin). At that meeting, Marshall Hill was pessimistic regarding efforts to "fix" SB 148.

    • Payne added that the committees formed by the Coordinating Board will have few representatives of larger and more research oriented universities.
    • Corbett Gaulden (U.T. Permian Basin) suggested that we speak to campus presidents regarding appointments to the committees.
    • Payne added that there the time frame is brief.
    • Nelson inquired about the specific fields in the "fields of study". Payne did not know but said she expected transfer activity.
    • Joel Dunnington (U.T. M. D. Anderson Cancer Center) asked about the required degrees for teaching in community colleges. He was told that faculty are required to have masters degrees with at least 18 graduate credit hours in a subject to teach it. Dunnington suggested that we work with the Texas Faculty Association (TFA).
    • Gerald Brazier (U.T. Pan American) said that committees cannot guarantee that their efforts will be approved by the Coordinating Board.
    • Payne wondered how we had gotten into this predicament and why we had not been informed.
    • Nelson recommended following the electronic "Larry Judd Report" of legislative activity.
    • Page responded that Gwen Grigsby was to have done this and asked if Vice Chancellor Sharpe should do it in the future.
    • Dunnington added that even the regents seemed unaware of the ramifications of SB 148. Nelson agreed, recalling the meeting the FAC Executive Committee had had with the regents.
    • Cline said that, according to Marshall Hill, Cunningham testified on SB 148 and asked how we could get a copy of his testimony.
    • Nelson asked if the Coordinating Board wanted the FAC to become more political.
    • Page said that at the upcoming legislative session there may be more money for education and that the administrators may ignore SB 148 in an effort to get greater funding.
    • Michael Siciliano (U.T. M. D. Anderson Cancer Center) asked "what are we going to do about this?".
    • Brazier answered that we should meet with campus presidents and ask them if they are fighting it.
    • Page said that the presidents may not be happy with the FAC and not inclined to work on SB 148. This caused the general question of FAC relations with campus presidents to arise.

4. Questions of Vice Chancellor Sharpe:

At this point Sharpe was asked to address the question of FAC standing with the System and with the presidents. He began by saying he had been on the job only six months but has a general sense from the presidents and from his own attendance at FAC meetings that there is ambiguity about the role of the FAC. He said it would be useful to talk about how the FAC is perceived by presidents, administrators, and regents.

  • Question from Travis: Should there be a joint meeting with the presidents?

    Sharpe responded that he should meet with the FAC Executive Committee. Does the FAC see itself as a faculty governance organization? If so, there is nothing about that in the Regents’ Rules. But if not, what is the FAC role. Two key players in this will be the chair of the board of regents and the chancellor.


  • Siciliano said that he thought it would not be too unwieldy to have this discussion with the entire FAC. He added that the System administrative structure was too top-heavy. As the FAC has matured, the administration is hearing of it for the first time. He believes the presidents should "lighten up".

  • Travis asked the group what should be done about SB 148. Should a committee dealing with that be named?
  • Anthony Knopp (U.T. Brownsville) said that he was not uncomfortable with the executive committee’s role.
  • Sharpe (returning to the SB 148 issue) said he would find out the administration’s attitude toward SB 148.
  • Arturo Vega (U.T. San Antonio) said that the chancellor should support the FAC on this issue.
  • Martha Hilley (U.T. Austin) asked if Vice Chancellor Sharpe had concerns with respect to SB 148.
  • Sharpe responded by asking, "Is there going to be a proposal to change 148? Is it feasible to modify it?’. If not, he said we should deal with the Coordinating Board.
  • Nelson asked Sharpe "At the Presidential Retreat, was there discussion of SB 148?".
  • Sharpe responded "My sense is that the presidents are concerned. They discussed it but not at this retreat."
  • Travis said that the Coordinating Board’s interpretation of "core curriculum" was determined by chats with the staff of Sen. Bivins.
  • Gaulden said that Sanford had told us that the Coordinating Board staff had removed the "venom" from the SB 148 language and, therefore, might be able to help now.
  • Travis asked if minutes were taken at the Presidential Retreats.

5. Campus Reports:

U.T. Health Center – Tyler:

The "Director" of the Center now will have the title "President". Other administrative titles may change as well.

There will be a special committee to seek a new president, although the only present candidate is the interim president.

The Center’s faculty want to pursue the consideration of a tenure policy.

The grievance policy is undergoing study.

Student Health Center is being set up with U.T. Tyler.

U.T. M. D. Anderson Cancer Center:

The center is enjoying some fiscal health: a building program, more beds, and a 17% greater budget than FY 98.

The President convened a Committee on Faculty Peer and Grievance Review to study the fairness of reviews, credentialing, promotion and tenure review, appointment review and Regents’ Rule 6.35, and appeal and grievance procedures.

The Committee made recommendations including that "the institution implement a more balanced approach in keeping with our values and culture" with respect to Rule 6.35.

Jim Klostergaard (U.T. M. D. Anderson Cancer Center) commended the administration for pursuing these issues and Siciliano added that none of this would have happened without the action of the UT System FAC.

U.T. Heath Science Center – San Antonio:

Various new building projects are underway including a new research facility.

The loss of income (i.e. $17.2M) caused by the settlement of the Medicare fraud allegations is having its affects on the campus.

Various South Texas health activities are being initiated. The number of medical students from South Texas has increased 300-400% since 1997 to 1998.

The implementation of a "fully integrated electronic curriculum" for the Dental School has been postponed.

U.T. Heath Science Center – Houston:

A faculty satisfaction survey is being analyzed. One aspect to be studied is the attitude toward post-tenure review (PTR).

An ad hoc committee addressing teaching effectiveness, evaluation, and reward continues to meet.

The impact of SB 148 on this campus is being examined. Perhaps only the School of Nursing is affected.

The campus is satisfied with their grievance policy.

A search is underway for a new dean of Biomedical Sciences.

Dr. Ferid Murad was a recipient of the 1998 Nobel Prize in Medicine.

U.T. Medical Branch – Galveston:

The Faculty Senate at UTMB now exists. The officers will attend the March 1999 UT System FAC meeting.

Post-tenure review has begun on the campus. Each school is determining its own review process.

U.T. Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas:

The Faculty Senate will be considering a resolution on SB 148 similar to that passed at UT Austin.

The second round of PTR will occur in January and February 1999. It is expected that fewer faculty than last year will surrender their tenure rather than undergo review.

A policy has changed so that UTSW faculty may receive honoraria when they speak at university-wide seminars.

U.T. Tyler:

The Board of Regents has approved facilities for U.T. Tyler at Longview.

A Campus Health Clinic has been established with the cooperation of the U.T. Health Center – Tyler.

The Faculty Senate passed a resolution in support of the Texas Council of Faculty Senates Resolution to amend SB 148.

U.T. San Antonio:

An announcement will be made soon of the short list of presidential candidates.

The Faculty Senate has passed a resolution in opposition to the "model" grievance policy.

A forum was held to discuss a possible restructuring of the academic units; in particular, the replacement of divisions with departments.

An ad-hoc Committee on Evaluation of Administrators is working with the interim provost in expectation of an evaluation by faculty to be held in the upcoming spring semester.

An ad-hoc Committee on Women Faculty Issues has been formed to study family leave, teaching evaluation, and salaries.

Page addressed the System-wide Committee on the Advancement of Women which has recommended that women’s issues committees be established on each campus. The question was asked "Why is this System level committee dominated by administrators?". The Chancellor has responded that these individuals have the power to act. Page suggested FAC members determine who are their own campus representatives on the System committee and to see if these should be replaced by more active representatives. Page also said that the environment may be improving at U.T. San Antonio.

Siciliano said he found the grievance structure at UT San Antonio appalling. Consistency with the Regents’ Rules is all that is to be considered when the Office of General Counsel (OGC) evaluates these policies. If the OGC role is greater, then we should be told what it is.

Vega said his president wants a side-by-side comparison of the UT San Antonio grievance policy with those at the other campuses.

Nelson said that Susan Bright had contradicted herself on the matter of the role of OGC.

U.T. of the Permian Basin:

The first phase of PTR has been completed. An "administrative" phase is underway. Some administrators were included in the group undergoing review.

Major problems with the 42 hour core curriculum are nor foreseen at this time. A resolution regarding the amendment of SB 148 has not been addressed.

U.T. Pan American:

An internal study of faculty salaries is underway.

The faculty workload (without research release time) is to stay at 12 hours per semester.

A resolution pertaining to the "Fields of Study" portion of SB 148 was passed the Faculty Senate.

There have been difficulties with the implementation of PTR.

The policy of evaluation of administrators is no longer simply informal – it now has been placed into the Handbook of Operating Procedures.

U.T. El Paso:

A grievance policy approved by the Faculty Senate was reviewed by OGC and returned with objections. The matter is now being studied.

The core curriculum is being reexamined in light of SB 148.

A Faculty Senate resolution opposing SB 48 is to be considered at the December meeting.

A concern in the Senate is the large number of administrative posts filled without faculty input.

Results of the faculty evaluation of administrators are expected to be ready by February.

U.T. Dallas:

An experiment of sending revisions of policy to OGC for comment but without "the weight of mandate" has been so far unsuccessful because no response from OGC has been received.

The Faculty Senate’s authority with respect to revisions in the Handbook of Operating Procedures has been incorporated into the handbook itself.

A resolution dealing with the Fields of Study provisions of SB 148 was passed by the Academic Senate and is being circulated. An attempt will be made to get positions on the Coordinating Board’s committees.

A new set of course evaluation form from the University of Washington are to be used.

U.T. Brownsville:

The university has expanded by enrolling lower division students.

A new partnership with local school districts will allow high school students to be enrolled concurrently at U.T. Brownesville and to college credit for some courses taken at high schools.

All administrators are to undergo PTR in the sixth year.

U.T. Austin:

PTR appears to be proceeding without major problems.

Problems (specifically greater than anticipated unreimbursed expenses) have been reported regarding the new health insurance plans.

A resolution in opposition to SB 148 was approved by the Faculty Council.

A campus Committee on the Advancement of Women has formed three subcommittees and has begun to make recommendations. A similar campus Committee on the Advancement of Minorities has had an organizational meeting

U.T. Arlington:

The Faculty Senate passed a resolution reminding the administration of the important role of faculty governance.

To be considered at the December Faculty Senate meeting is the discussion of the administrations identification of instructors of certain "gate-keeping" courses for "special attention" on the sole basis of grades in those courses.

A resolution in opposition to SB 148 was approved by the Faculty Senate.

The Faculty Senate has approved a revised policy on the evaluation of administrators.

6. Adjournment: At 2:00, the general meeting was adjourned and the council met in committees.

7. The Friday, December 4, 1998 session was called to order at 9:00 AM.

8. Minutes: After corrections from Nelson and Dunnington the minutes of the October 8-9, 1998 meeting were approved.

9. Discussion with Mr. Tom Scott, U.T System Office of Governmental Relations: Scott indicated his focus was on the appropriations process. He pointed to two limits on spending: a "pay-as-you-go" policy of the comptroller and a "rate of growth" limitation that specifies that spending should not exceed the rate of growth of the Texas economy. The rate of growth limitation has not been a factor previously but may be now.

The Office of Governmental Relations has been planning for the upcoming legislative session since the 1997 session ended. There is a plan to join with other institutions in search of the common goal of increased funding for higher education. There were some major changes in the funding formulas in 1997 including greater weights for student retention and for using tenure track faculty in undergraduate instruction. It appears that there will be no growth in the total number of U.T. System component semester hours (possibly a 2% loss) but the System’s share of the statewide number of semester hours is constant.

The Coordinating Board has recommended that greater weight be given to the preparation of teachers and that there be an allowance for more indirect costs to be retained by the institutions.

With respect to health institutions, Scott said they have requested a funding formula for them. He added that some money from the tobacco settlement might be used for "general excellence" endowments for the health schools.

Lastly, he said the System had requested $634M for the academic institutions and $200M for health. The council then turned to questions of Scott.

Scott was asked how the formula will be applied to the health components. He responded that every major function of the schools has been examined and per student values were computed and weighted by areas. In addition, some small supplements have been included for applied health and for nursing.

Siciliano asked if there was any talk of imposing a tax on managed care organizations. Scott said he was not aware of any such discussion.

Payne asked if the legislature was addressing shortages in certain professions. Scott said that there would be extra funding for engineering, computer science, and information science.

Brazier said that when the funding formulas have changed, some institutions (e.g. UT Pan American) have fared worse and then asked if there were an effort to ameliorate this. Scott said yes.

Gaulden commented that there is a contradiction in legislative goals if they want more senior faculty to teach undergraduates but, via SB 148, divert more students to community colleges.

Scott was asked about salaries and responded that they had requested a 5% increase for faculty and staff salaries but doubted this will be successful.

Nelson said a 5% increase for staff salaries will not make them competitive and asked if "we will be outbid by Pennys?". Scott responded that the legislature has been asked for greater flexibility with respect to staff salaries but desires uniform rates.

At this point, questions were addressed to Vice Chancellor Sharpe.

Hilley asked what would be happening with tuition. Sharpe said some in the higher education coalition do not favor total institutional tuition control and it is hard to say what will happen. Tuition control will likely not be a part of the coalition plan but possibly U.T. Austin and Texas A&M will be allowed greater tuition control. This may be a major hurdle to get through the Texas House, however.

Knopp asked if the System was indicating its priorities to the legislature and will the 5% salary increase be a priority. Sharpe said there is enthusiasm for this.

Payne wondered what happens if there is a mandate for a 5% increase for state employees. Are our increases independent of such mandates? Sharpe said that sometimes the mandates do not apply to faculty.

Cline asked what the System was doing about non-appropriations type issues such as SB 148. Sharpe said the administration needs to keep us informed about this.

Page said there needs to be a network to keep us alerted and Sharpe agreed.

Siciliano said he does not see a plan that reflects interest in salaries and that the salaries at some schools are appalling. He asked why can't this problem be sold to the legislature and to the public. Sharpe said that the higher education coalition has made a commitment to use private money for public relations purposes for senior colleges.

Payne added that this may be our fault - that possibly we, the faculty, do not sell ourselves to the public.

Nelson said Texas A&M has produced a document describing why teachers teach the number of hours they do per week and that this document explains a great deal. This is something the System could circulate. Addressing Sharpe, he said that yesterday Sharpe had said we need to do an analysis of the effects of SB 148. Nelson asked if Sharpe could have this done for us.

Travis, also addressing Sharpe, said that he had indicated that the legislature was concerned with salary equity yet the faculty had been excluded from the $100 bonus in 1997. She asked why can't there be a push for salaries independent of the equity thinking. Sharpe said that typically the legislature has not gotten into this sort of detail.

Brazier said that previously Gwen Grigsby came to the FAC with lists of bills relevant to higher education but wondered if we must now do that for ourselves. Travis added that possibly the FAC should have a governmental relations committee.

Page said the state itself does some of this but wondered if it were possible for the FAC to keep track of all of the relevant bills.

Travis said we must be pro active.

Vega asked if faculty salary increases are not somewhat set by the institutions. Sharpe responded that the coalition may help with the salary problem but has not been asked.

Nelson, returning to the question of the need for a governmental relations committee said possibly a committee is needed. We need to understand what the System is doing as well as TFA and TACT. The "Larry Judd Report" gives some of this information

Brazier wondered how the FAC could influence priorities.

Siciliano said that we must do this and a committee might be able to have this as its responsibility.

Nelson said a standing committee could also monitor the coordinating board. He made the following motion, seconded by Hilley:

Resolution: The FAC Chair should establish an ad hoc committee for governmental relations and charge the Governance Committee with investigating whether this should become a standing committee of the FAC.

Discussion:

Gaulden said that the Academic Affairs Committee had already been moving in this direction.

Vega wondered why we were going to overextend ourselves by taking on this task since the System administration and TFA already do the same thing. We should improve relations with TFA.

Travis said the committee could do that.

Barry Peterson (U.T. Health Center – Tyler) said effectiveness will depend upon relations with the System administration and asked if those in the System's Office of Governmental Relations would have time for us.

Cline said we needed buddies in that office.

Vega said we don't need buddies - it should be a professional relationship.

Page said we are small and are defining our role. The FAC took on a new activity in 1997 with respect to post tenure review. We will be speaking to Sharpe about what the FAC's mission will be.

The motion passed.

10. Discussion with Mario Gonzales, Vice Chancellor for Telecommunications and Information Technology: Gonzales indicated that he would respond to our resolution of November 5, 1998. He prefaced this with the statement "If the meaning of the resolution is that the curriculum is the responsibility of the faculty, we agree with that.". Page requested that Gonzales respond to each of the four points of the resolution separately. (For clarity, those points are reproduced below.)

"1 All courses, course-sequences, and programs of study developed by faculty of a particular academic unit, or presented to students of that unit, must gain the approval of, and be monitored by, the appropriate faculty curriculum committee(s) following the procedures which are standard at the university."

Gonzales said "that's great".

"2 Further, all courses, course-sequences, and programs of study developed by faculty from two or more universities must be approved and monitored by the appropriate curriculum committee(s) on each contributing campus."

Gonzales said "This normally is no problem". Knopp asked what had happened regarding the on-line MBA program and Gonzales responded that the courses still have to go through the regular committees for approval.

"3 Similarly, externally developed courses, course-sequences, and programs of study adopted by a University of Texas System component must be approved and monitored by the appropriate faculty curriculum committee(s)."

Gonzales said "we have no opposition to that".

"4 Finally, courses, course-sequences and programs of study made available through the University of Texas Telecampus may be used for credit toward academic degrees offered by a particular component institution only if they have been approved by the appropriate faculty curriculum committee(s) at that component. All such courses will be subject to monitoring as described above."

Gonzales said that as long as the phrase "for academic degrees" were present he saw no problem with this. He indicated that occasionally teachers might construct courses that would not be used for degrees.

Ralph Liguori (U. T.- El Paso) asked about currently existing courses covering the same material as those available from the Telecampus and will courses taken from the Telecampus be transferable? Gonzales said that academic advisors will be involved in this - that students should not take these courses without prior approval from advisors. He said that if institutions do not approve of courses being transferable, they should inform his office.

Page asked how long it would be until the 16th campus (i.e., a totally electronic system component) were established. Gonzales said that someone will be hired for a phase 2 study of this and that there are many additional questions to be answered such as should there be a virtual university, how would a student visit such a school, and how much would it cost. He ended by saying there would be some answers to these questions within the first three months of 1999.

11. Temporary Adjournment: At 11:00, the general meeting was adjourned and the council met in committees. At the noon the general meeting reconvened.

12. Special Item: Page recognized the imminent wedding of Travis. Comments were made regarding the benefits of finding a spouse at a nursing home.

13. Committee Reports:

  1. Governance Committee:

  • The committee is trying to determine what the grade changing policies are on the campuses and asks the FAC representatives to bring policy statements to the next meeting.
  • The FAC bylaws would have to be changed if a new committee on Governmental Relations was established. In fact, the bylaws need to be altered to allow amendments.
  • The following resolution was submitted by the committee.

Resolution:

The University of Texas Board of Regents has recognized and endorsed in Regents Rules Chapter III Section 37.3 the necessity of academic freedom for faculty that tenure provides in order to fulfill the missions of each University of Texas System component. At the October 1998 meeting of the University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council (UTSFAC), the representatives from two University of Texas components, Tyler Health Center and MD Anderson Cancer Center, pointed out that academic freedom for the faculty at those institutions was not protected by tenure, in contrast to the lifetime tenure in force at all other UT components. The UTSFAC therefore unanimously passed a resolution asking that procedures be initiated for establishing lifetime tenure at Tyler Health Center and MD Anderson Cancer Center.

Now that post-tenure review has been legislated and has become System policy, the rationale for term appointments at MD Anderson Cancer Center and one-year contracts at Tyler Health Center is obviated; therefore, we request timely modification of Regents Rules in order to establish a uniform lifetime tenure policy throughout the UT System.

Discussion:

  • Page wondered if the word "immediate" was appropriate.
  • Klostergaard said this would inspire greater awareness from administrators.
  • Gaulden moved to amend by striking "immediate". The motion passed.
  • Cheryl Silver (U.T. Southwestern Medical Center - Dallas) moved to amend by inserting "timely" where "immediate" had been. The motion passed.
  • The resolution was approved as amended.
  • The committee also offered the following proposal for the disposition of FAC resolutions:

Policy Modifications

The UTSFAC Governance Committee recommends that the following procedures be adopted as part of a policy for sending resolutions that require action forward to the Chancellor and the Board of Regents:

  • All resolutions be categorized by the UTSFAC as either institutional resolutions (i.e., resolutions that need to be considered and handled on the local university level) or systemic resolutions (i.e., broader resolutions that require actions by the System, OGC, etc.).
  • The resolutions be forwarded to the Chancellor in the form of a letter (copied to the Vice Chancellor and to the members of the UTSFAC) asking for a response, if possible by the next general UTSFAC meeting.
  • Regular status reports on all out-standing resolutions be given by the Chancellor or Vice Chancellor at each FAC Executive Committee meeting.
  • The responses come either in the form of a written letter or as part of a discussion at the next general FAC meeting.
  • In the case that a response does not come forward, a subsequent letter be sent to both the Chancellor and the Board of Regents.
  • The proposals are to be considered at the March 1999 FAC meeting.

b. Faculty Quality:

  • The following resolution on distance learning, slightly altered from the one approved Nov 4, 1998, was offered by the committee.

Resolution:

Universities have an interest in, and must exercise oversight over, the quality of all educational materials developed by their faculties or presented to their students. This principle applies equally to traditional, distance-education, and all other formats of instruction.

  1. All courses, course-sequences, and programs of study developed by faculty of a particular academic unit, or presented to students of that unit, must gain the approval of, and be monitored by, the appropriate faculty curriculum committee(s) following the procedures which are standard at the university.
  2. Further, all courses, course-sequences, and programs of study developed by faculty from two or more universities must be approved and monitored by the appropriate faculty curriculum committee(s) on each contributing campus.
  3. Similarly, externally developed courses, course-sequences, and programs of study adopted by a University of Texas System Component must be approved and monitored by the appropriate faculty curriculum committee(s).
  4. Finally, only courses, course-sequences, and programs of study that have undergone the approval and monitoring processes described above can be made available for academic credit by the University of Texas Telecampus.

Discussion:

  • The new version of the resolution has the phrase "made available for academic credit" in the fourth point. This phrase is to mean, "cannot be announced until approved" as well.
  • It was asked if there is something new in this policy. The answer was that the resolution is consistent with current institutional practice but is not formal policy. It is the intent that the resolution be forwarded through Vice Chancellor Gonzales to Chancellor Cunningham and the Board of Regents recommended as regental policy.
  • The resolution was approved.
  • A second resolution was offered in draft form for the Council's information.

Resolution:

Although tenure is not linked to any particular level of financial compensation, it entails a financial commitment from the institution to the tenured faculty member. The institution will provide the tenured faculty member with an appropriate base salary that will not be subject to reduction except in cases of financial exigency or disciplinary action as defined in Regents’ Rules.

  • It was suggested that the resolution should receive further consideration prior to the March 1999 meeting.

    c. Academic Affairs:

  • The Committee's discussion focused on posture/response of the FAC to various aspects of SB 148 . The law is very tightly worded and probably not easily subject to suggestions for modification at this time.
  • The Committee recommends that the Faculty Advisory Council charge its Executive Committee with taking several items into its consideration. Furthermore, it asks the FAC to permit the Executive Committee to decide on the proper disposition of the following items.

1. Can we suggest a rewrite of Section 5.401c of Subchapter S of the Education code to read: "This subchapter applies specifically to academic courses and degree programs, and does not apply to courses or degree programs of a technical or professional nature."

2. Get clarification to the following question:

"In situations where an upper division course is currently included as a major requirement and a course with a similar basic description is included as a lower division course in a Field of Study, will the senior institution be required to redefine the course as a lower division course with an attached TCCNS assignment?"

3. Is the legislature prepared to discuss funding of outside advice on the components of Fields of Study?

4. Are lawmakers willing to discuss postponement of development of Fields of Study until we are able to work out some of the kinks in the General Education Core?

  1. Seek advice from Vice Chancellor Sharpe on the suggested addition of the following language to line 3-12 of SB 148. "... that offers degrees in the Field of Study."

14. The committee recommends that a formal study of transfer problems be funded and undertaken with the registrars within the UT System.

  • The following resolution was offered by the committee.

Resolution:

The UTSFAC requests that the System office undertakes a formal study of the "transfer problem" by, for example, contacting all registrar requesting specific answers regarding numbers, retention rates, complaints, grievances, non-transferable credit hours, repeated courses, etc. by students transferring between state institutions.

Discussion:

  • Linda Cooley (U.T. Health Science Center - Houston) said the problem needs to be investigated in order to address the problem.
  • Siciliano said the resolution implies that the registrars have these data.
  • Mellick Sykes (U.T. Health Science Center - San Antonio) asked if we shouldn't do the data gathering ourselves first.
  • Brazier said we need to know how many transfer students have these troubles.
  • Fernando Rodriguez (U.T. El Paso) asked if there were any similar data at the legislature.
  • The resolution was approved.

  1. Health Affairs:

  • Teressa Buroff met with the committee to discuss health insurance. Possibly there will be a new health plan next year. The health insurance cards should have had telephone numbers on them - they did not. A new CIGNA booklet has not been produced but should be by February, 1999.
  • After five years of state employment (and 90 days of UT System employment) and at age 55, employees may get health insurance benefits. Many people are unaware of this. The legislature will consider changing this to 10 years state employment or 3 years within the U.T. System.
  • The committee also met with Vice Chancelor Mullins and Mr. J. B. Pace. Among the issues discussed was whether the academic or corporate model of administration structure was being used at the health components. Also discussed was the conflict of interest of employees at health components as both providers and consumers He said the roles must be separated.

15. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 PM. A short meeting of the executive committee was held immediately afterward.

<back to top>

 
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