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








Travel for FAC

Academic Affairs

Advisory Council

Advisory Council



The  University  of  Texas  System
Faculty  Advisory Council  Meeting

Meeting Minutes: October  7 - 8, 1999

<back to Index>

An orientation meeting was held by Joel Dunnington (FAC Chair, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center) for all new members to the FAC. This included a welcome to the FAC, review of the Council’s purpose and role in faculty governance, description of the various committees and reviewed items that were currently in review by the various committees.

1.  The meeting was called to order at 10:15 by Dunnington.

Each FAC member introduced themselves to the group. Ed Sharpe (Executive Vice Chancellor) introduced Felipe Alanis, the Assistant Vice-Chancellor. He has been the Deputy Commissioner for the Texas Education Agency for approximately the last 5 years. He will head up the K-16 initiative.

2. The minutes were approved.

3. Dunnington presented his report to the FAC using the FAC Executive Committee meeting September 17, 1999 minutes.

4. Dunnington reported on his meeting with Ed Sharpe September 17, 1999. 

Discussion occurred related to distance learning, ie. What exactly will occur related to its development? There are several options for development: a) need to have a faculty committee that can oversee development and evaluation of courses/curriculum; (b) courses/curriculum developed by faculty by two or more universities/components must be monitored by both universities; (c) any external courses must be monitored by the appropriate internal faculty; and, (d) courses distributed for credit must be monitored by that component. Faculty therefore have final approval over course content. After approval by Mario Gonzales (Vice Chancellor for Information Technology and Distance Learning) the options were distributed to the Board of Regents. One of the Board of Regents felt very strongly that faculty approval re course development was not necessary. Dunnington related that he has not yet seen the minutes of the August Board of Regents meeting so we don’t know what action they took. Vega (Past Chair, UTSA) asked what information should be presented to the faculty senates. Dunnington responded that this information has been approved already by UT System. Each component will have to follow its own respective procedures for placing the information in their Handbook of Operating Procedures. Page (Past Chair, FAC, UT Dallas) reiterated that Mario Gonzales approved the notion that faculty control the curriculum, and that this has been accepted as a fundamental principal. Vega noted that Regents Rules 2.4 also supports this view.

5. Dunnington reported on the August Board of Regents meeting at UTMB August 12, 1999.


David Farquhar (Past Chair, MDACC) noted that with respect to RR 6.35, no changes have really been made, although the state laws have changed. However there is now a mechanism for grievance. General discussion ensued over the changes in the law as it affects State employees. Page noted that under the new Regents Rules a faculty member could go to the President with a grievance, but as you go up the chain, no administrator is required to respond re the grievance to the faculty member. Farquhar said that the use of an ombudsman on the campus is not precluded in the Regents Rules. Governance will discuss in committee today. Dunnington cautioned all to closely observe their respective Handbook of Operating Procedures to be aware of the wording of any grievance policy that may be inserted.

Sharpe reported that he is working closely with community colleges to address the issue of transfer problems before they end up in the legislature. He said that the community colleges have considerable influence, and in addition, are well organized as the Texas Association of Community Colleges they have 51 community college districts, each having its own Board of Trustees. Sharpe reported that he has met with the current president of the association, who is currently the president of Temple Community College. It was agreed that discussions would occur between the Texas Assoc of Community Colleges and Sharpe.  Their first meeting (September 1999) focused on: (a) examining the issues with a state wide perspective; what is in the best interest of higher education?; and (b) finding consensus on the issues.  Lois Hale (Past Chair,UTPB) asked if they discussed issues related to fields of study. Sharpe acknowledged that this was important and is hopeful hat positive things will develop from this relationship.

Dunnington discussed issues related to transfer of credit to give a sense of history for the incoming members. Gaulden(UTPB) emphasized that we were clarifying exactly what all the issues are to determine what data need to be collected. All we have is perceptions without evidence of difficulties. Stocks (Chair, Clinical Faculty, UT Tyler) commented that the individual core curriculum has to be negotiated separately with each school, thus the perception that it is difficult to transfer. Dunnington: We have not heard about the performance of the community college student after transferare they better or worse prepared? Do they fail and don’t come back? Alan Martin (UTSA) noted that there is national data that community college students do not perform as well. There is a statewide requirement for what can be transferred. Hale (UTPB): community colleges saw the fields of study as being more restrictive than the individual agreements they had made with local institutions. Page: Getting back to the data problemidentifying every transfer student who had to retake a course may not tell us what we needmaybe we need to survey the transfer students to get at the real data.

Discussion re search for new chancellor. Sharpe: Regent Wentworth will chair the subcommittee. There is a website listing information, including the schedule of meetings posted on the UT System page.

6. Alan Martin  (UTB) gave a short presentation re the Texas Association of College Teachers.

7. Sharpe reports on Gov. Perry's committee

Sharpe reported that Perry’s committee were yet to meet, however the agenda is not speculated to contain issues related to higher education. Opperman, the chief staff person on the committee, will attend the next UT System leadership council meeting to brief the council. Sharpe agreed that he would keep the FAC appraised of the issues/items brought to the the leadership council’s attention.

8. U.T. System Leadership Council

Sharpe  also noted that Page is our representative to the UT System leadership council in addition to the senior officials from 9 academic campuses and 3 deans. The council is to decide what actions need to be taken at the System level to advance higher education, and public education reform and sustain it.

9. Student Advisory Council

Dunnington met with the Student Advisory Council. They discussed common problems such as health insurance, identified areas where faculty and students could work together (coordination of faculty teaching surveys) and identified student’s key issues (increased bandwidth computer use; minority recruitment, advisor accountability, not enough sections, budget allocation, parking, and online registration.

10. Campus Reports

University of Texas at Arlington - Michael Moore, Chair

Thereis a general positive feeling on campus as we start the new academic year.  This can primary be attributed to new construction and news that student enrollments have increased.  Specific items worth noting on our campus:

Construction of new bookstore and dormitory have started.  The bookstore is expected to be open in January 2000 and the dormitory in August 2000.  The dormitory represents the first on campus residence hall construction since UTA joined the UT System

Fall enrollment figures are up 2.6 % over last fall.  This is the first time in 7 years that we have witnessed an enrollment increase.  Much of the credit goes to efforts to recruit and retain students and to expand course offerings through distance education programs.

The new director for the Center for Mexican American Studies is in place.  After a couple of years uncertainly, new leadership is in place and efforts are being made to improve the Center’s visibility both on campus and in the community.

During the upcoming AY, our Faculty Senate will be reviewing the Family Leave Policy, completing the Upward Evaluation of Administrators, making minor revisions to our post tenure review policy, working with the administration to refine our campus master plan, and working with students to release faculty grade distributions.

Post Tenure Review.  During AY 98/99, 57 faculty were subject to review.  Three faculty members, all very senior members, opted to retire instead of being reviewed.  Of the 57 reviewed, 56 reviews were completed satisfactorily.  One faculty member was found to be deficient in the areas of teaching, research, and service and agreed to a remedial course of action.  During the next year the faculty member will be mentored by a distinguished teacher, will attend graduate seminars to hone research skills, and will increase his/her service duties.

For the AY 99/00 56 faculty members were identified.  Two faculty members are on leave and two members resigned, thus 52 faculty will be reviewed.

Upward Evaluation of Administrators. Currently, the only official review is of Deans and Department Chairs (or their equivalent).  Our Senate, in conjunction with the President Witt, is in the final stages of approving a document that will include most administrators. We are currently waiting on comments from the Office of General Counsel. We hope to have this policy in place in the next few months. The proposed policy would require that administrators be evaluated annually by their immediate supervisor with consultation of the faculty when appropriate.  Periodic reviews would extend to the Provost, Vice Presidents (6 year intervals), Deans and Directors (5 year intervals), Department chairs and Assistant/Associate Deans (4 year intervals), and Assistant and Associate Chairs (4 year intervals). Administrators would be reviewed by committees ranging in size from 7 - 12 members and containing at least 50 percent faculty. Opinions from faculty in the appropriate units would be gathered by surveys and a final report issued. Summaries of the final report may be shared with the faculty.

Grade Changes.  Students may appeal their grades through a formal grievance procedure.  In the case of undergraduates, the final decision rests with the Provost.  For graduate students the final decision rests with the Dean.  This is an inconsistency that should probably be addressed.

Institutional Compliance. Although not represented on every subcommittee.  Faculty representation does not appear to be a problem.

University of Texas at Austin - Martha F. Hilley, Chair

The fall semester has started in spite of all efforts by faculty, staff and students to delay.  Our campus celebrated its 116th birthday in September. A significant part of that celebration was the reopening of the Observation Deck of the UT Tower. Also in the month of September, UT Austin dedicated a statue of Dr. Martin Luther King.

Our Faculty Council has had one meeting this fall three more are scheduled in as many months. The Standing Committees of the Council have been convened, charges have been given and hopefully, work has begun. Questions to the President at the September meeting showed that UT Austin is no different from other components of the UT System one question on parking problems and one question which I have included as an attachment (#1), evaluation procedures for administrators. You will also find attached the response to the latter (#2). These attachments seemed appropriate given the requests of the SYSFAC Chair.

In response to other queries from our Chair:

1. Out of 199 faculty reviewed under PTR guidelines, four faculty received unfavorable reviews.  To quote Alan Cline, possibly 20-30 faculty resigned in the face of PTR.  That gave the administration pause. Professor Cline also said the second set of numbers came from responses from each of the Deans saying around ‘2 or 3’ chose to go ahead and activate the resignation/ retirement process.  Alan chose to use the word resignation exclusively.  The inclusion of retirement is my own editorial gesture based on the Deans I spoke with personally. 

2. As stated above, I have attached our latest communiqué regarding Evaluation of Administrators (2).  From my past experiences with both Chair of academic unit and Dean of college evaluations I can say that the results of the Chair review are available to the faculty of the academic unit, the dean of the college and upper administration.  Results of Dean’s evaluations are distributed only to the ad hoc evaluation committee and the upper administration.  I am not aware of specific action taken in recent years as a direct result of a formal review.  The Council is not given reports of administrative reviews.

3. We believe our campus has made it through the ID’s (Patrick Davis and John Durbin being two examples).  I have found nothing further.  I have not been able to find instances of UT Austin people being told they were not in the plan.  On our campus we all feel we are in great need of a ‘health-issues advocate.’

4. I have attached the only formal statement available regarding change of grades (#3).  In speaking with our Registrar’s Office I was surprised to find that we no longer require that change of grade forms signed by a Chair of an academic unit (in the absence of the faculty member) be signed off by the office of our Chief Academic Officer (Provost).  Such forms now go no further than the student’s Dean.  A copy of the Change of Grade form is also attached (#4).

5. We do not currently have a faculty member on the Compliance Committee.  In talking with Patti Ohlendorf we have found that she would like to have such representation but has hesitated to ask faculty to commit to yet one more task.  Shelley Payne has agreed to work with Patti in the revision of our Code of Conduct.  I have attached the pay envelope stuffer received by all UT Austin employees this month (#5).

University of Texas at Brownsville
Charles Lackey, Past-Chair

A resolution was passed in the Senate deploring the ‘short-sighted and ill-advised’ institutional commitment to a salary increase of only 3 percent in the first year of the biennium. There is no provision for an increase in the second year. The administration argues that the legislated budget simply did not provide funds for salary increases. The faculty’s interpretation of the situation reflects concern that the administration is emphasizing bricks and mortar over people as the campus expands. Three former and the current Academic Senate Presidents presented the case to the Texas Southmost College Board. At a minimum, the Senate asks that the administration find funds for an increase for the second year of the biennium.

Enrollment at UTB/TSC increased 11.7 percent over Fall 1998 enrollment. Aggressive recruiting and retention efforts through the Spring and Summer, plus reinstatement of arena registration, are sited as reasons for the growth. It is noted that state enrollments are up similar amounts.  The increase in enrollment follows a hiring shortfall in anticipation of the current academic year. The University sought to add 32 positions, however, only 14 new faculty were hired. Considering the increase in enrollment, the shortfall has contributed to larger classes than normal and numerous faculty overloads in some Colleges and Departments. At the same time, despite the additional funds coming to the University as a result of this increase, the administration current position is to hold the line on hiring and faculty salary increases.

Discussion: Deans and chairs believe that the real problems on the campus are not operational, they are related to not having enough people to do the job.  32 positions came out of strategic planning process and searches were madewere unable to fill the positions.

Fourteen faculty did post tenure review for 1998-1999. One faculty member scheduled for post tenure review retired and did not go through the process. 9 got thru PTR without problems, 3 had difficultieswere instructed to make improvements.

HOOP policy does provide for evaluation of administrators. Vice Presidents, Deans and Directors are evaluated in the Spring. A policy is being considered which would add Chairs to this list. This information has not been shared or reported to the faculty or Senate. (A copy of HOOP is attached.)

Faculty have complained that the UT Insurance policy relating to dental coverage unfairly provided that the choice default position resulted in reduced coverage.

Campus policy on changing student grades is attached.

One faculty member, from the School of Business, constitutes the faculty presence on the Institutional Compliance Committee.

University of Texas at Dallas – Robert Nelsen, Speaker of the Faculty

Summer was more productive UTD/Faculty-wise than I thought it would be.  Believe it or not, we actually enacted some serious changes and have begun others.

The administrative review process (what the UT System calls "upward evaluation") has been executed only twice since it was passed years ago (Dean Moore and [then] Provost Wildenthal are the only ones who have been reviewed).  And what we've learned in that time is that Deans and most administrators "die" before their 5th year reviews ever happen.  During the summer, the senate rewrote the policy.  The reviews will now be done in a manner closer to the tenure process: the first review will be a third year review, and then another review every five years thereafter.  We also broadened those administrators under consideration to include the Graduate and Undergraduate Deans, Department Chairs, Associate Deans, College Masters, Director of Library, and Director of Sponsored Projects.  The policy now rests on the President's desk, awaiting his final approval (he was involved in all aspects of the rewriting process).

The membership of the Committee on Qualifications was increased so that there were two representatives from each school (except General Studies, whose 2 faculty members will be put in the pool for the school their own areas have most in common).  In the past, three schools on a rotating basis often only had one member; the rotation wasn't working; and if a member recused herself or was absent, schools were sometimes not represented.

The Senate passed a resolution that requires student involvement in the hiring process of new faculty.  Each school is being asked to devise its own way to assure such involvement.

A self study of the NCAA program at UTD was undertaken by the Vice President for Student Life, and faculty have been appointed to the committee that deals with NCAA matters, procedures, etc.  Kurt Beron, a member of the Senate, has been appointed as the Faculty Athletic Representative.

The approval program (a program that brings new books to the Library, which faculty members used to approve or disapprove [they no longer have to do that--all books will be kept in accordance with the guidelines the Library Committee has established]) is back in place.  $200,000 was spent last year to make up for the "dead times" in the past; and the Library Committee is currently asking for over $300,000 this year (it is my understanding that $200,000 has already been appropriated this year). 

What then is the Senate working on for this year?

The catalogue, of course.

The actual language for and procedures for minors (we've had some difficulty here, especially with charges of double dipping--these matters seem to be working out).

The Code of Conduct.  This one, I need to comment on.  You will remember me ranting and raving about the idiocy of the first generation "CODE OF CONDUCT."  Fortunately, with the cooperation of the Compliance Committee, the Code has been changed to the "Guide," and all the silly admonitions have been stricken.  Plus faculty members no longer have to sign saying they've read/received/understood/whatever the Code.  The document is now basically innocuous. And the training modules (tests on the web required of all faculty and staff) have also been improved.  One major sentence remains in contention:  "Ethical conduct and compliance are personal responsibilities, and each employee will be held accountable for his or her personal conduct."  I personally feel that this vindicates my charge that the whole policy is to blame the faculty, make them the ones who will be sued, put on trial, etc. and to protect the UT System from law suits--but no matter.  If we can get that sentence changed (and we will), the tests while stupid will be equally innocuous. (Still, I continue to worry about the precedent being established here and the principle of system and administrative accountability that is being discounted.)  The matter will be discussed in Senate during the next meeting.

The Senate has established a committee (including 3 administrators and 3 faculty members) to review the hiring system (especially of administrators).  The committee's task is to look at standardizing and codifying the procedure(s).  The committee will also review the current position of the EEO and Affirmative Action Officer.  (Right now, this responsibility lies with the Executive Vice President who also in many areas oversees the hiring process.) 

Clarifying the times allowed for completing incomplete. 

Establishing another 3 +3 committee to review (salvage?) our grievance policy in light of the changes to Regents' Rules. Faculty can now grieve tenure decisions, but the procedures are messy, if not sloppy. The right to review tenure decisions directly impacts on our grievance policy.

A review of the future status of Senior Lecturers as mandated by various accrediting agencies. I have been meeting with the SL's on a regular basis; the Senate's Committee on Faculty Standing and Conduct is outlining the faculty's position on this matter.  By late fall a faculty, senior lecturer, and administrator committee will be established to  investigate matters and (probably) to write appropriate policies and procedures (e.g., for contracts, for reviews, for representation [the Senate now has two members--ex officio--who are Senior Lecturers]).

Now to answer Joel's questions:

1. 22 members reviewed under PTR, no fires, three are being helped-No real complaints

2. Upward evaluation goes up to the Executive Vice Pres. It remains within the academic units but as explained above now involves directors, etc.  There have only been 2 in about 6 yrs.  Nothing negative.  No distribution of info to anyone in any form other than brief report by Pres. to Senate.  Faculty do not receive reports and there are no written summaries.

3. Insurance is better than last year.  Main problem (after first week of confusion) has been with Explanation of Benefits Forms-not being received so no way to chart reimbursement claims.

4. Done

5. Me, Me, Me, only little old Me.

University of Texas at El Paso  - Ralph Liguori (President, Faculty Senate)

There are two Deans positions that will be vacant during the next 18 months. We are in the process of forming search committees to fill the position of Dean of the College of Business Administration. The position of the Dean of the College of Health Sciences will become vacant in the next 18 months and initial planning for filling that position is taking place now. As UTEP tries to determine the role of the new Border Health Institute in the larger picture of the University, we are trying to search for a leader who will be able to broadly advance the College in this larger picture.

The issue of greatest controversy on the campus has to do with the Dept of Communications. The Dean of the college of Liberal Arts announced a restructuring of that department in late June to the members of the department and other affected individuals and department. The degrees offered by the department are to be continued but the faculty are to be distributed among other existing departments such as Drama. The affected faculty have raised concern about the issue and seem to be reluctant to proceed with the proposed plan. The Dean set up a committee to recommend implementation of the reorganization. The Faculty Senate voted to set up an ad-hoc committee to investigate the method by which the reorganization was conducted and the ramifications for all concerned. The latter committee was selected by me and is currently trying to do its business. We expect a report by that committee either in November or December. Time is important because we have been told that the restructuring will be implemented in January.

University of Texas at Pan American -Sue G. Mottinger (Chair, Faculty Senate)

1. Faculty Workload Policy: A revised faculty workload policy was forwarded to the President in May 1999.  After suggestions from the President a final policy was agreed to with a formal vote to be taken at the October 1999 Faculty Senate meeting.  The major new point is the minimum teaching load in the 9-month academic year for graduate faculty or other faculty who provide other multiple services to the university which may be applied for.  A three-hour teaching load release may be granted for research endeavors upon approval of a specific research plan.

2. Construction: The new student union building is under construction and groundbreaking occurred for the new faculty-classroom building.  New residence facilities are scheduled to begin in the spring, 2000.

3. The Provost/VPAA initiated the Faculty Research and Teaching Colloquia during spring, 1999.  A number of faculty participated and received an honorarium.

4. Twelve faculty participated in Post Tenure Review (PTR).  One is known to have appealed and one received suggested further development.

5. Employment memorandum i.e., contracts were issued during the first official week of the fall semester.

6.The Institutional Compliance Committee has no faculty member at this time.  The Faculty Senate will pursue this.

7. Not all faculty have received insurance cards at this time.

8. Upward evaluations: Procedures are established in the H.O.P.  The President is responsible for the Provost/VPAA evaluation.  The Provost/VPAA is responsible for the Deans who are then are responsible for their assistants, directors, and chairs.  The Provost-VPAA is to present the schedule for evaluations to the Faculty Senate and Council of Deans each fall.  This has not occurred at this time.

9.As stated in the UTPA catalogue 1998-2000 concerning grade change:

"If an error in computation, evaluation or recording warrants a grade change, only the instructor may process a grade change form through the Office of the Dean of his or her college.  If the grade change is made after graduation for a course taken prior to graduation, the change request from must have written justification by the instructor, the recommendation of the College Dean and approval by the Council of Deans.  Change of Grade Forms may not be released to students, and must be sent directly from the appropriate academic department."

10.   Faculty Senate issues and concerns are: summer school salary; Overload - adjunct salary; Administration search committee procedures; Evaluation of administrators; H.O.P. violations particularly concerning Dean searches; Tenure and promotion procedures.

University of Texas at Permian Basin – Corbett Gaulden ( President, Faculty Senate)

P.T.R.:The second round is now underway.  Elections are currently being held to determine the composition of this year’s committee due to some unexpected faculty absences.  Because of our small size, a university-wide committee is elected by all faculty. Actual evaluation activities should commence this month.

SACS: Campus visit scheduled for Spring of 2000.  The first full draft of our self-study is finished and under review and revision at this time.

CORE CURRICULUM: The revision of core curriculum for purposes of statewide core transfer has been completed and accepted by the Coordinating Board.  We landed at a 44 semester hour core.

ADMINISTRATOR EVALUATION: This past spring the university faculty evaluated the Vice President for Academic Affairs. The senate conducted the process. The President of the University prepared a summary of those evaluations and provided them to the senate and to the faculty-at-large in written form.

INSTIUTIONAL COMPLIANCE: At this time, the compliance committee does not contain a faculty representative.  The Vice President for Business Affairs, who has been responsible for compliance, has stated that she will appoint a faculty representative and some faculty names have been suggested to her.

INSURANCE CARDS: We are a campus that has no plan choices.  According to our HR office, our existing cards for Texas True Choice are still the appropriate cards.  Generally, there have been only minor hitches this year and things seem to be running rather smoothly.

GRADE CHANGE POLICY: We have no specific grade change policy.  The student appeal/grievance policy “up the chain of command” is used for grade disputes.  Students may have appointed for them a faculty representative in such procedures, regardless of the nature of the appeal.  There is no history of pressure to change grades.  In contrast, the administration has been quite steadfast in requiring that faculty members carefully document and request to change grades to prevent all but real and significant requests.

NEW DEAN: The university hired a new dean for the School of Business.  Dr. Geralyn Franklin is the first woman dean in the university's history.  She assumed her duties in late July 1999.

University of Texas San Antonio -James Schneider (Chair, Faculty Senate)

POST TENURE REVIEW: Eighteen cases were considered during the 1998-1999 academic year. Each faculty member was found to be satisfactory and no additional action was taken. The Provost’s office reports receiving no formal information about anyone resigning because of PTR. Unofficial word suggests that PTR may have figured in a very few retirement decisions. One Division (the basic academic unit at UTSA) submitted a letter indicating its opposition to the concept of PTR. There have been no formal considerations of PTR issues by the Faculty Senate as a result of last year’s experience.

EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATORS: Continues to be an issue.  The Faculty Senate in recent years pressed to have Deans and Division Directors, as well as senior administrators, evaluated more regularly, and to have their faculty ratings made public.  In 1998 the Interim Provost agreed to a pilot project in which a Dean and a Division Director would be evaluated by faculty. The committee did not receive the evaluations of the Division Director before the end of the spring semester, so only the Dean’s evaluations were analyzed. Summary results and analysis (based on descriptive statistics) were assembled in a report and the Dean was invited to comment upon the evaluations, which he declined to do. The Senate distributed the report to the college faculty over the summer. How the report and the evaluations were used in the Dean’s formal evaluation is not known.  In September the Senate received a report from the Ad Hoc Committee directing its attention to issues arising out of this pilot project, and will certainly be dealing with this question further.

UPWARD EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATORS: Campus policies call for the regular, if infrequent, evaluation of all administrators, except for the president

INSURANCE: Various problems did surface as the semester began. Prudential Insurance sent out cards to employees who had switched coverage away from the company.  This created confusion, but seems to have been corrected.  Some dependents were inadvertently dropped from the rolls reported to insurance companies, but this problem as well seems to have been resolved.  There is some continuing confusion over the new procedure by which those insured with Prudential use their main card, rather than a separate specific card, for prescriptions.

GRADE CHANGE POLICIES: A copy of the UTSA policy on GRADE CHANGES is appended to this report.

INSTITUTIONAL COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE: The Committee has no faculty representation. However, another element of the structure, the Compliance Team, contains two faculty members out of a total membership of twenty.  These faculty chair University Standing Committees (Animal Care and Utilization, and Human Subjects.)  This Team’s responsibilities, as described by the Office of Institutional Compliance, include assisting in the development of the [Compliance] program, advising and monitoring the program, and assisting in the development of training to support the program.

ON-CAMPUS ISSUES: Owing to a variety of factors, some of which grew out of the transition between presidential administrations, a number of major issues involving faculty remained unresolved as the semester began. Then the campus learned that the Division of Mathematics and Statistics had been placed into “receivership.”

The Senate proposed revisions to the Grievance Policy in 1997, and the matter still has not been concluded.  Late last spring, the Office of General Counsel returned comments on the Senate’s proposals and recommended a number of changes. Compromises were negotiated on all matters but one, the Senate’s inclusion of a stipulation that “contractual rights” could be grieved before a hearing panel.  Last week, the Senate voted to affirm its commitment to that language, and the revised Grievance Policy now awaits a response by the new President, Dr. Ricardo Romo.

·         The proposed new By-Laws have implications for wider university governance.  Two years ago, then-President Kirkpatrick appointed an Ad Hoc Committee on By-Laws and Shared Governance.  That group met and deliberated extensively, but prepared no formal report.  At the final Assembly meeting of last year,  President Kirkpatrick had delivered a sweeping proposal to restructure the University’s governance apparatus.  This proposal reflected some of the Ad Hoc Committee’s deliberations, but it also contained features they had not endorsed, even informally.  The Assembly referred the document to the Senate for consideration.  This semester, the Senate has asked President Romo to reconstitute the Ad Hoc Committee, perhaps augmented, to prepare formal proposals on governance issues.  It is our understanding that he intends to do so.

i    Related directly to the governance issue is the question of University structure, built as it is on divisions rather than traditional departments.  A number of faculty groups have expressed interest in revising our structure.  Last year the Senate’s Committee on Academic Policy and Requirements, led by Dr. Patricia Harris, who is now chair-elect of the Senate, prepared a report outlining a detailed process to guide restructuring efforts.  The Provost has received that report favorably, though the Assembly has not formally adopted these recommendations as University policy.  Meanwhile, the President is creating a committee to make recommendations about specific changes in structure.  Two Senate members, including Dr. Harris, will serve on that committee.

i    A variety of issues of particular concern to female faculty – including a parental leave policy and the advancement of women – resulted in the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee on Women Faculty Issues.  They requested information from Dr. Kirkpatrick last spring but received no reply.  The Senate has renewed that request, and President Romo has indicated that he will respond soon. Adding to these matters the ongoing concerns over faculty performance evaluations and rewards, salary compression, insurance matters and the like, and our agenda was indeed full even before the news of last August.

i    As the semester began Senate members received a binder of information from the Provost pertaining to his simultaneous announcement about the Division of Mathematics and Statistics. The Division was to have its Director replaced by an outside Interim, its by-laws suspended, all standing committees except its FRAC disbanded, and an expert on conflict resolution supplied to help attend to the Division’s internal problems.  The Provost’s office assumed direct responsibility for dealing with the Division’s problems (the Dean of the college had resigned to take a position elsewhere.)  The Provost’s memo to the Division faculty implied quite clearly that the unit’s future was in jeopardy if its internal problems remain unresolved two years hence.

The information supplied to the Senate and to the division’s faculty took various forms.  The binder consisted of: 1) memoranda from the Provost to the Math faculty and to the President; 2) e-mails and memoranda from Math faculty; 3) faculty accounts of interviews the Associate Provost conducted with the Math faculty (who were not identified by name); and 4) memoranda from the Associate Provost to the Provost regarding the situation in Math.  The e-mails and faculty memoranda were included without their prior knowledge or approval.  In one case, a faculty member had specifically requested that the memo be kept confidential.  The internal material from the Division described an extraordinary situation, with an atmosphere of suspicion, antagonism, intimidation, and even fear.  It is impossible to verify the veracity of any specific item.

Also extraordinary has been the muted nature of faculty reaction to this unprecedented action by the administration.  The meaning of this restraint is unclear, as it is always difficult to base conclusions on a lack of data, but there has been no widespread outpouring of opinion. The Senate held a special meeting last week at which the Math situation was discussed.  Some senators voiced concern over immediate issues of substance, including the procedure used to deal with the Math situation and the fairness and accuracy of the material sent to faculty.  Some senators spoke to wider concerns about unresolved problems in other units. Others indicated their belief that the situation in Math required decisive action.  There is a widely shared hope that the problems of the Division can be resolved with completeness and dispatch.

Discussion: Related information had been made public on the Web for 4 days. Administration chose parts of a 75 page report to be released rather than release partial documents. Being released in this manner gave the report credibility as it was on an official page of the University. No allegations were verified, and letters of apology have been sent out. Under orders from OGC the Associate Provost has destroyed all of these documents. There will be legal ramifications of this report. The Provost accepted responsibility for this unintentional act. Travis: Receivership was not what the UTSA administration wanted, however, they were mandated by OGC to do so.

UT Tyler-Steven Rainwater (Chair)

Senate Items:

1.  The Faculty Senate website is now fully operational: http://www.uttyler.edu/facsenate/index.html.  The Faculty Senate Bulletin Board on the campus network continues to provide faculty with information on the work of the senate.

2.                  Charges for 1999-2000 Faculty Senate committees include:

a.         Review the SACS Institutional Report and UT-Tyler’s Millenium Vision strategic plan.

b.         Assist in the implementation of an Instructional Effectiveness Center.

c.         Continue monitoring the implementation of the post-tenure review process.

d.            Continue the longitudinal study of faculty salaries at U.T. Tyler with inclusion of data obtained from the Coordinating Board and external sources.

3. An ad hoc committee has been appointed to consider the reorganization of university and faculty senate committees.

4. The grievance procedure has (finally) been approved by UT System.

5.The faculty senate will review newly proposed policy and procedure guidelines for tenure, promotion, and evaluation. (all faculty were evaluated positively)

6. President Mabry has on several occasions assembled the past presidents of the Faculty Senate for their input and advice.

7. The administration donated a laptop PC for senate use; with funds remaining from last year’s senate account, the PC was upgraded with more memory, a zip drive, an extra battery, a network interface card, and a carrying case.


University Items:

1. The SACS Institutional Report is nearing completion with the visiting team scheduled for March 6-9, 2000.

2.  Construction continues on the Longview Higher Education Center with completion scheduled for the summer of 2000.

3.   President Mabry is proposing the nine-goal Millenium Vision: a blueprint for the future based on initiatives set forth in recent strategic planning endeavors and a commission of political, community, and business leaders.

4.  A new Dean of Enrollment Management reported for duty in late summer.

5.  Interviews are now being conducted for a new Dean of Students.

6. Renovations in the University Center have been completed with a new on-campus food service (the “Campus Café”) and larger operating space for the bookstore.

7.  Student services (student activities, student government, counseling, career services, etc.) are currently being relocated to the first floor of University Center for better access to students.

8. Numerous other construction projects are being conducted on campus: office suites for some departments, lab renovations, new faculty offices, etc.

9.  All parking lots and campus streets are being repaved; additional faculty parking is included in this project.

10. Architectural specifications for a proposed Health and Kineseology building have been developed with future construction dependent on possible PUF funds, legislative appropriations, and gifts.

11. No faculty on institutional compliance committee

12. Upward evaluation: to the level of the Deans. Administrators above this level have not been evaluated.

13. PTR: all faculty (18) were successful.  Discussion: Dunnington: according to the numbers released from UT-System, 6 needed assistance. Rainwater: I don’t have this information.

14. Grade change policy in place, no issues

15.Received letter of appointment before the year

Health Science Centres

UT Southwestern Medical Center - Kevin C. Oeffinger (President, Faculty Senate) and Cheryl Silver (Past-President, Faculty Senate)

1. The curriculum/coursework for the first two years of medical school is now online in a web-based format and is accessible to UT Southwestern medical students.

Oeffinger: This has been about a 2 year effort by faculty to make the syllabi obsolete.  It was developed to be very interactive and to decrease redundancy. The cost was approximately a million dollar endeavor with good support from administration. It is not a distance education endeavor; the format supports current on campus courses. In addition, no external access permittedis for med students only.

2. UT Southwestern has purchased approximately 45 acres of land for further expansion.

3. As a result of the healthy economy and increased job opportunities, the Allied Health Sciences School is experiencing a downturn in admissions. The admissions committee has been involved in serious introspection regarding programmatic requirements and admissions criteria and the impact they have upon students who may be considering a career in one of the allied health disciplines.

Hale: Is this a national trend? Silver: Yes.  Sykes (UT-SA HSC): Few grads actually have jobsno new jobs being created due to managed care environment.

Post-Tenure Review: 39 faculty have been reviewed successfully. Three retired and 1 moved to another institution prior to review.

Upward evaluation: Chairs evaluate deans, however, the Senate not received outcomes of this. Don’t know about other administrators.

Grading policy:  Student grades not an issue.

Compliance committee:  has 4 faculty as members

UTMB GALVESTON - Linda Phillips (Chair, Faculty Senate)

This past academic year was the beginning of the Faculty Senate. We organized the Senate and multiply revised the by-laws to make them more workable.  We developed three committees and gave them assignments. 

The Governance Committee under the guidance of our parliamentarian MaryLou Shannon provided the multiple by-law revisions. The Faculty Quality Committee, working with the Core Committee on Women and with the assistance of the University of Texas Houston, has developed a survey to assess faculty satisfaction. That will be issued this fall. The faculty Academic and Administrative Affairs Committee was charged with examining a development program designed by the dean of the School of the Allied Health Sciences Dr. Charles Christiansen.  Having suggested some modifications which he incorporated in this report, the senate had approved the program. We continue to monitor the adoption of the various components of this proposal.

The next task assigned to this committee was the evaluation of the Gift Policy.  They have collected comments on the draft proposal and forwarded this to the Institutional Compliance Committee. We have not yet received a response from that committee.

This year, with the institutional budget activity and the adoption of Mission Based Management, we will have several faculty meetings where we receive updates from either the Steering Committee itself, or several of the different task forces to evaluate faculty activity (Education, Research, Administration, and Clinical Affairs). The institution is also restructuring and those task forces are scheduled to make a report to the Senate on Monday October 11.  Our tasks for this year will include tracking of the post tenure review. This should occur in the springtime. We will continue to monitor the changes occurring on our campus.

Post-Tenure Review: no outcome data

Insurance cards: have not received cards, benefits office not helpful,

Upward evaluation: stops at level of Vice President. Chairs voluntarily undergo review process.

Compliance committee: there is faculty representation

Grade Policy: have policy in place that involves 3 committees, with one responsible for making the final determination in times of dispute.

UT Houston HSC - Linda Cooley (Past Chair, InterFaculty Council)

Post-Tenure Review: 60 tenured faculty (22%) were reviewed. Of these 3 received a category 2. A number of faculty retired rather than undergo review (don’t have these numbers).

Upward evaluation: Everyone but the President is reviewed. Vice-Presidents and Deans are evaluated every 5 years and Chairs every year. The evaluations are kept in the President’s office (for EVPs and Deans) and in the schools (Chairs, etc.). The InterFaculty Council has a member who serves on the review. This IFC representative shares information with the IFC membership. The final review is not widely available, ie publicized. Significant actions and changes have and do occur as a result of the reviews (Policies and information included in the report).

Insurance cards: Faculty received their insurance plan cards the first part of September. The biggest problem so far has been the lack of inclusion of Texas Children’s Hospital in the TUHP. Individuals changed to Prudential to be able to have their TCH physicians available to them. .

Grading policy: There is no campus policy on changing student grades.

Compliance committee: There are several faculty on the committee, however, most hold administrative positions.

·  We are working on our recommendations to the Executive Council from the Faculty Satisfaction Survey results.

·  The report and recommendations from the Ad hoc Committee on Teaching will be presented to the Executive Council in November.

· Have a new Dean of the Graduate School of Biological Sciencesselected jointly by MDACC and UT-Houston.

· Preparations for the SACS visit continues (projected to be January 2000).

UTHSC – San Antonio - Mellick Sykes (Chair, Faculty Senate)

I. Faculty  Organization: Discussion continues on the relative merits of a system wide faculty senate vs continuing the current five Faculty Assemblies with a subcommittee of the various Executive Committees to meet regarding the occasional CampusWide issues.

II. Parking garages have provided new space and controversial democratization of parking.

III. Funding of medical training continues to be problematic, with tendency for phasing out of cross-subsidization of research, education, and patient care. Additional stress is placed locally by payments to US government as part of Justice Department settlement, difficulties with collection from MSRDP, and difficulties compartmentalizing education dollars and faculty.

IV. Searches continue for the Dean of the Medical School and Nursing Dean of Doctoral Studies.

Post Tenure Review: is proceeding. Don’t have outcome data.

Insurance cards: delays with new faculty

UT MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTRE - David Farquhar (Past Chair)

·        We are very pleased to report that things are going well in general! Administrators all have open door policy.

·        Have sent a revised grievance policy to OGC. It is in the form of conflict resolution with 3 components: (1) Ombudsman officehere the faculty have access to all documents that may be obtained under Open Records. If this fails to solve the conflictà (2) mediationhave hired a former Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals in Houston. If this fails à (3) faculty appeals panel (?name change to advisory panel?). Three peers selected at random from a list selected by their departments.

· Upward evaluation: Has resulted in changes being made at the chair level.

· Insurance card: Only those faculty who made changes in their plan received new cards.

· Grading policy:  no policy on changing student grades

UT HSC Tyler - James Stocks (Chair, Clinical Faculty Assembly)

Will email

Separate grievance policies for clinical and academic. Having to develop 1 to encompass both.

Faculty not included in raises. No merit raises for faculty.

Incentive program: clinical fac to have salary augmentation for research monies, etc.

Upward eval: president submitted voluntarilydone last marchreport given to senate without details.

Insurance: are ut select only option

Compliance cte: no fac members, there are 2 administratrators  

Discussion;  the mandated 1200 raise for staff and administrators---how much of this was funded by the System? Question has been asked previously and are waiting for a response from Sharpe. The BOR report is on the webcan look for specific numbers related to your campus.

11. Committee Reports  


Members: Martha Hilley (UT Austin) –  Co-chair; Corbett Gaulden (UTPB) –  Co-chair; Charles Lackey (UTB); Sue Mottinger (UTPA); Linda Phillips (UTMB); Ralph Liguori (UTEP)


Conversations with UT Austin on what happens to transfer students led to a request from them to reformulate our questions from March 1999.

1. What percentage of transfer work is lost in the transfer process?  How does that compare  to the loss of credit by in-resident students throughout their career?

2. How many transfer hours apply to the transfer student’s degree program?  How many do not?

3. How many students (transfer and native) bring more than 60 credit hours into their third year?

4. What percentage of transfer students with an Associate Degree are given junior standing?

a.       Associate Degree in General Studies

b.      Associate Degree in Applied Sciences

c.       Associate Degree in Applied Arts

Gaulden to acquire recent data from THECB on minority participation and gaps.

Questions for THECB:

What is the status of core curriculum approval process?

Can the databases at THECB yield the data necessary to answer the four questions?

Status of the committees for transfer fields of study?

What is WECM, and what is its impact?

Feasibility study of transfer fields of study?

(Catherine Parsoneault and her CC counterpart, David Gardner on data)


Received minutes from Board of Regents (11-14-96) on the minorities status study.

Committee wishes to discover what was done in the past on the status of women study to inform recommendations on any new initiatives.

Sue Mottinger reported on status study activities at UTPA – seems to have come to a halt.

Martha Hilley reported that the activities at UT Austin have resulted in little progress as well.

Can we get the results of the salary studies mentioned in the regents’ minutes of 11-14-96?  Can we get a copy of the report by the then Vice Provost Ohlendorf (BOR meeting 11/14/96--p.263)


The first step is to request that our colleagues obtain from appropriate campus level authorities any and all policies that relate to student dishonesty and any mechanisms for dealing with incidents of dishonesty.


Some form of data from the academic institutions related to the questions listed in the “transfer problem” area.

What are the transfer policies at each component?

Counting in GPA?

Can we get the results of the salary studies mentioned in the regents’ minutes of 11-14-96?  Can we get a copy of the report by the then Vice Provost Ohlendorf (p.263)

Discussion: What is the perceived source of trouble (ie. bad advice, specific policies, etc.) that may penalize transfer students. There is a need to develop improved self-monitoring so that discrepancies, gaps, issues can be quicker and more easily identified.

Health Affairs Committee Report

I. Attendees: Marvin H. Chasen (UTMDA), Richard R. Rohr (UTMB), Linda Cooley (UTHSC Houston), Kevin Oeffinger (UTSW), Mac Sykes (UTHSC-SA), Bob Molloy (UT-EGI), later Joel Dunnington (UTMDA), and on Friday morning, J.B. Pace.

II. The ramifications of the Freedom of Information Act for federally sponsored research in the UT System. The specific item is OMB Circular A-110, which has been revised by the ORB in response to comments and outcry from the scientific community. The AAMC, besides coordinating much of the original response, has crafted a cogent response to the revised version. The Health Affairs Committee proposes the following resolution to the FAC:

“The University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council joins the protests of the AAMC that P.L. 105-277 as manifest by OMB Circular A-110 and its revisions, risks loss of critical patient privacy in research projects supported by federal research. In addition, we express concern that the language of P.L. 105-277 applies only to research at non-profit institutions, and excludes for inexplicable reasons federally funded research at for-profit institutions.”

Discussion: Dunnington: Where do we need to send this resolution?  Sykes: to the AAMC and OGC.  Dunnington:: We will invite a speaker to the next FAC meeting to address this issue.

Vote: passed unanimously

III.   Employee Group Insurance

A long conversation with Bob Molloy, Interim Director of EGI, covered the yearly calendar of the EGI process concerning the provision of health care insurance. Search for a new director of EGI is ongoing, with a relatively tight labor market described; this position should be filled in the next several months.

At almost every campus, there is some delay in the employee receiving health care cards, particularly during September. The Employees must select coverage by August 11, at which time the Campus sends the information to EGI, who then sends the information to the Plan, who then must print cards and send them to the employees, as well as provide the patient demographic and insurance information to their providers locally, which may or may not be the same as the list of physicians which were submitted by the Plans to EGI during the application process in the spring of the year. UTMB and UT Southwestern have only last week gotten their information into EGI.

Contracts must be changed every 6 years, which requires rebidding of the Delta Dental Plans. Study is undergoing for the Prescription Drug program, which may be restructured to the employee benefit.

The continuing conflict of interest of the UT System regarding health care plans as it is both a consumer of health care and a provider of health care, was noted, with proponents of each point of view represented. The current philosophy of EGI is to focus on optimal local choices for the employee, rather than the forced assignment of UT Employees into health care plans operated by UT Medical Faculty.

Information of the backs of health care cards has improved. Efforts are underway to being sure that there is actual help available at the receiving end of a 1-800 number before simply casting out the number. Being considered is a 24-hour hot line staffed by Nurses with access to employee plan data, who could help in emergency situations. In addition, as essentially all UT employees have internet access, it is felt that a web site with FAQ’s and lists of physicians and providers would serve the employee well, and allow for immediate updating as provider mix changes during the year.

Discussion: there needs to be a person on the 800 number. Cooley: have numbers for the local institution but is more important to have someone available that is knowledgeable to answer questions. Dunnington: there is no 800 number to call EGI to voice complaints, no web site for EGI, no phone number for the local Human Resources. Cooley: a member could call their local benefits office. Dunnington: they are only available 8-5 Monday through Friday. Sykes: write him with any suggestions and he will include this in the request.

Cooley and Sykes met with Mr. Molloy Friday morning to review the current retirement policy. Currently the policy is favorable to employees, and it is not felt that benefit would be gained by asking for clarification from legal counsel. A question rose as to whether the ORP individual accounts had to be kept in toto or rolled out in toto, and that this possibly needed to be decided when you first enrolled as an employee. Marvin and Linda will try to find out if ORP can be partially moved out at retirement and still be eligible for retirement benefits. Fortaine, attorney at MDA Houston has been speaking with Joel re these issues.

IV.  Financial problems at UTMB Galveston were discussed. The initiative to break down faculty effort for salary purposes was met with much curiosity and interest, and will need follow-up. Galveston seems to have lost private patients with Medicare etc.; staff have been reduced. Payments from communities have been solicited. A $40 million lottery one-time payment, budgeted over several years, was given to balance the books.

V.   Friday AM: JB Pace

A.     PTR Reports and Council of Health Institutions report will be provided by Mr. Pace.

B.     Air ambulance service: Details of the merits of this proposal will be developed by MD Anderson faculty, and presented to the HA committee if this seems to be an issue of  system interest.

VI.   Election of Chairs: Mellick T. Sykes will serve as co-chair. Richard Rohr of Galveston, or, if he is unable, Linda Cooley of Houston, will be co-chairs of the health affairs committee.

Governance Committee Report

1) Upward  Evaluation of Administrators

The committee decided to review the Upward Evaluation of Administrators’ policies from all the campuses and develop a set of recommended guidelines which include the minimal set of features that should be in an upward evaluation policy.  We will also report on the extremes regarding breadth, depth, and reporting procedures in the various policies.  We need policies from each campus before we can make progress.

Discussion: Verklan (UT-H HSC)to get policies from everyone.

2)      Grade Changes made by someone other than the professor,

It was decided that this is not a pressing issue at this time and that, for most campuses, it appears that current policies and practices have sufficient safeguards.  Addressed below.

3)      Changes to Regents Rule 6.35

A summary evaluation of the revised rule was prepared.  The committee decided to invite a representative from OGC to meet with the committee Friday morning to clarify several issues.

Our meeting with Mr. Schultz was very productive.  In brief:  He feels that there was no need for the legislation, and he reminded us that persons who are not renewed are not entitled to due process.  He also pointed out that the changes in 6.3 do not impact in any way our general grievance policy6.35 is only about non-renewal.

In his opinion, there are two separate parts to the new rules.  6.531, the part about faculty filing grievances, not necessarily involving questions of law, applies only to the Provost. The issues and subjects may be more than just legal questionsi.e., people can present publication records, teaching evaluations, etc. 6.532, the part about the tribunal is concerned only with violation of law (ethnicity, sexual harassment, etc.). The tribunal is not a peer review committee and cannot rule on or take into consideration the reasons for the non-renewal.  

Discussion ensued. Farquhar: will provide copy of MDACC’s grievance policy once it is returned from OGC.  It was noted that OGC has to make a distinction between non-renewal and termination.

In addition, we learned in the conversation with WO Schultz that “good cause” is not based on moral turpitude, dereliction of duties, or felonies.  Rather good cause can be any good reason (which could include need for extra space).  And we were told that anyone in any job can be fired without a reason.

Stocks: good cause is anything that you can convince a faculty panel ofthis invokes open records. Page: OGC says, could a reasonable person follow the logic and come to the same conclusion. Travis: we have the onus to demonstrate that there was no rationale basis to their conclusion.  Nelsen: Local Campuses may want to write a policy for non-renewal. Kellner: Would this include contract faculty who are told they aren’t needed for this semester? Liguori: Do we need to address the issue of senior lectures and contract employees? Travis: We have discussed this both in governance committee and in the FAC. Governance will bring back related resolutions for review while we wait to see the new 6.35 document.  The new legislation has not really changed things.  Stocks: there is a problem with how 6.35 defines fulltime faculty. Year to year (contract) faculty do not have an expectation of employmentthey don’t even receive a letter unless they are getting another year.

4)      Annual contracts and memos of reappointment

The committee decided to research these issues.  We need sample letters from each campus so that we can begin to discover what the letters represent (contract? agreement? notification? etc.). We would also like a sample letter from each campus to determine what the letters contain, ie specific rules and procedures, any attachments, are there differences in the contracts between clinicians. The committee would also like to know who is the person responsible for sending them out (ie. Provost’s office?)please email the name to Nelsen (UT-Dallas).

Discussion: Cooley: why? Nelsen: To determine if the process can be standardized. We don’t know what all the issues are.  Payne: UT Austin tenured people don’t get any letters once they are tenured. Schneider:  Is there variation from year to year, just getting this year’s version might not provide the info we want.  Travis: Are the letters of appointment contracts or not? Dunnington: Nelsen and I can’t find anything in Regent’s Rules about contracts.

5)      Problems related to the Receivership of the Mathematics and Statistics Division at U.T. San Antonio.

We are postponing this issue until we can get information from Regent Rules and from OGC regarding confidentiality, faculty on faculty disputes, and receivership.

6)      Auditor’s Report.

Mr. Chaffin, audited the Vice Chancellor’s office regarding money. Three findings were connected to the FAC. They are all minor, and have been dealt withthat’s why you have to do your own hotel reservations, etc. Only one item was negative:  the auditors suggested that the FAC should only meet two times a year. VC Sharpe said that doing so would harm our effectiveness and he strongly backed our current meeting schedule.

Faculty Quality Committee Meeting

Committee Members:  Jim Bartlett (UT Dallas); Lois Hale (UT Permian Basin); Michael Moore            (UT Arlington); Shelly Payne (UT Austin); Steve Rainwater (UT Tyler); Cheryl Silver (UT Southwestern Medical Center)

Privacy Issues

For next meeting, will the FAC reps please check with your individual campus administration regarding the answers to the following questions.

1. What are the privacy policies with regard to?

Posted mail

Campus mail


Telephone and voice mail


Office Files

Private vehicles parked on campus

2. How are the faculty (and staff) informed of these policies?

3. If monitoring or confiscation of property is authorized, who authorizes it on the local campus?  And who is responsible for implementing the monitoring/confiscation, etc.

Discussion:  Nelsen: the Code of Conduct is where you are informed of the above.

Lois Hale will talk with Helen Bright (OGC) regarding the answers to these questions from a UT Systems perspective. Please forward any information to Lois Hale (Hale_L@utpb.edu). The committee will work to craft a policy addressing the issue of authorization. Another item to consider: How might the Freedom of Information Act influence the length of time that “trashed” e-mail messages are kept on the institution’s back-up tapes?

Grade Change Policy

Resolution:  The UT FAC recommendations that each component institution have a policy that specifies who has authority to change a student’s grade and the circumstances under which the grade may be changed.

Discussion:  Liguori (UT-EP): What would be the most effective way to do thiswe  would like to be flexible.  Our unwritten policy works well. Written policy opens up more issues.  Hale: As a faculty I can say that someone other than myself changing the grade is in violation and can invoke the process.  Dunnington: if there is no policy then how do you know the grade changes are occurring. Nelsen: Governance committee has also worked on thisno need for FAC to become further involved. The case that was originally sited was with 1 student and 1 gradedoesn’t seem to be as problematic as originally thought.  Hale: wanted to separate out how a student grieves a grade and the issue of who is permitted to change the student’s grade. Stockes: The 3rd issue is, is the faculty notified when the grade is actually changed? Hale: this may be reflected in the student grievance policy.  In addition, there needs to be clarification for the circumstances under which the grade may be changed.

Vote: Yea: 10; Nay: 10; Chair votes yea.

Resolution passes.

Faculty Exit Survey

Steve Rainwater (UT-Tyler) checked with Gerald E. Schroeder, Director of the UT System Office of Human Resources.  Mr. Schroeder volunteered to contact each component institution to see if they provide an exit survey for faculty.  If they do, he will ask that a copy be sent to him.  He will forward this information to Hale. Moore will then review this information, along with the UT FAC Exit Survey previously developed by the Faculty Quality Committee and suggest changes to the committee.  The Faculty Quality Committee will present a refined Exit Survey to the FAC at the December meeting.   

Faculty Satisfaction Survey

Resolution: The committee recommends that the FAC give permission to the Faculty Quality Committee to develop a Request for Proposals (RFP) to survey the satisfaction of the UT System faculty (e.g., full-time faculty, part-time faculty, adjuncts). 

Discussion:  Sharpe has discussed a FSS with the ChancellorChancellor would like information related to the cost of doing another FSS.   Lackey: We are in violation of the policy created by J. Polinard  that recommends how often FSS are done. Dunnington: could we look at costs from last time to present and provide the information to the Chancellor before the December meeting. Moore: There is also an issue of the quality of the person(s) evaluating the surveythere are issues related to level of statistical analysis from the previous FSS. Chasen: What would be the purpose of this survey? How did the last survey alter behavior that was of benefit to faculty? Travis: One example is that the results were used to form committees on women and minorities. Outcomes and recommendations from these committees have had great impact on campuses, in that they addressed specific issues and have positively resolved situations. Page: The major criticism of the last survey was that it took far too long. One of the significant findings was that faculty were more concerned with equity rather than with individual salaries.  The FSS also determined that the most influential person affecting the work of the faculty is the Chair of the Departmenta position that is sometimes rotating. Issues related to the availability of child care along with the importance of research were other significant outcomes of the FSS. Now it is time to see if all these changes have had an impact on satisfaction. Hale: Another issue is , is this a precedence that we want to setshould we not open the work to other faculty on a competitive basis. We did not make a commitment to Jerry last year

Vote: Yea. Resolution pass unanimously.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Rules Relating to Access to Research Data

The committee requests that Dunnington invite an UT System, or other, authority to attend the next FAC meeting to explain the implications to faculty of the use of the Freedom of Information Act to obtain Federally funded research data.

UT TeleCampus Course Evaluation

It is our understanding that the UT TeleCampus intends to be on the agenda at our next FAC meeting to discuss a standardized  student UT TeleCampus Course Evaluation.  Hale  will check with Darcy Hardy regarding the nature of her visit.

Discussion: other distance education issues: faculty involvement with distance education course content.

Oversight Committee – Joel Dunnington

The committee continues to monitor issues.

Meeting adjourned at 2.57 pm.

Executive Cte Mtg was held after the FAC meeting.

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