University of Texas System
Faculty Advisory Council Meeting
Minutes: December 6 - 7, 1999
1. Meeting called to order at 1001 by Joel Dunnington (FAC Chair, UT
MD Anderson Cancer Center).
Tom Scott (Assistant Vice Chancellor
for Governmental Relations)Amendment to the PUF funds usage
was adopted November 2, 1999. The fundamental change involved how the
PUF monies would be managedinstead of only being able to use the
dividends, fund managers will now be able to grow the monies by looking
at the totality of the fund. The maximum allocation rate is 7%. Also,
distributions cannot be increased if the purchasing power of the fund
has not been maintained over the last 10 years. Last month the Board of
Regents determined the distribution rate of 4.5%, which is greater than
last year, but is less than in prior years. There is an increase
of 33M dollars to AUF1/3 goes to Texas A&M and 2/3 to the UT
System. The 2000 column (Table was provided) illustrates
what is budgeted at the moment. The immediate beneficiary of the monies
is UT Austin. During their January meeting, the Board of Regents will
consider how to approach the CIProgram with the additional money that
will be available from the AUF (approximately $14M). This may mean that
we may be looking at $285M more dollars in bondable projects over the
next 6 year planning horizon.
Lackey (UT-Brownsville): Why did the debt service go down?
Scott In 99 had more income than was forecastthese
monies were applied to outstanding debt.
Dunnington (MDACC): Does PUF go up when gas prices go up?
Scott: The fund is a function of our stock portfolio. The fund has grown
significantly as the value of stocks have grown.
Nelsen (UT-Dallas): What happened with the confidential
information that was put out on the Web?
Sharpe: The administration put together a lengthy document
that included the results of the interviews, emails, etc., and thought
that providing the information would be better the allowing the information
to trickle out. The thought was that they would have an email daily update
(Update)and make the information available through this mechanism.
Unfortunately Administration did not know that the information automatically
went out on the Web. As soon as they discovered this, the information
was officially removed the next day. However, it was also archived, so
it took a few more days to remove it totally from the Web.
Nelsen: All of the information should have been confidential.
Everything falls under the Open Records Actanyone
in the state could request the records.
James Schneider (UT-San Antonio): The information contained the summary
from the interviews and as such the faculty were anonymous. However, one
faculty was interviewed via email and thus was identified. The information
also went out to all members of the faculty senate as the decision was
being announced. There was concern regarding the confidentiality issue
with the information posted on the Web. The information was available
for 4 days. There have been no developments since the last special senate
meeting that dealt with this issue. There is no organized survey of University
opinion on thisbut it was recognized by the faculty that the math
situation was serious and something needed to be done. It was also expressed
that there were other units on the campus that had problems too. People
are hopeful that mediation will work. Nelson:
A group of people chose what information to put out. The Open Records
Act is not really involved since no request for information was made.
This appears to be a violation of confidentiality.
Sharpe: Relating to the confidentiality
issuefrom a legal standpoint the Open Record request is broad in
Texas. You are saying the Administration decided what to include, and
it was voluminous. They made a good faith effort to account for the events.
It was a judgement call by reasonable people. In hindsight it was a reasonable
job that caused problems for some of the people in the department.
Dunnington: We were concerned with the term Receivership
as it was used on the campuses. Is this something new that we may be seeing
more of in the future, or is it a symptom?
Sharpe: Receivership is not the proper term. In each case there were
problems that needed to be addressed. It may be a signal to other units
that are struggling to get better organized. You can often see examples
of this in the Chronicle of Higher Education, as for example the
History Department from California. Allowing the departments to drift
is not a prudent or responsible action on the part of the university.
What is the proper term that describes the situation?
Sharpe: I dont know one. Receivership has some legal definition.
The most significant thing in the situation is placing someone else as
Chair of the Department.
Hale: Are there resources available from System to an institution
to address these issues or is this a local problem?
The respective President needs to monitor changes at each institution.
In every department there are a whole range of things that go on that
we dont know about unless we are in that department. The hope is
that everyone is taking their responsibilities seriously and are staying
attuned to developments. Ivor
Page (UT-Dallas, Past-Chair, FAC): Passions can get intense in the
departments at times. This doesnt necessarily mean any ill will.
Factions do develop as part of the human condition. How do you manage
people like thatis a difficult job and may involve things like the
Provost talking with people and making notes. If I thought the Provost
were putting my notes in a public forum I would never talk to him again
in that format. This type of situation makes you cautious about talking.
Schneider: Need to also remember that the content of any email is
subject to Open Records.
Sharpe: Anything that you do
in your professional capacity is subject to review.
Having your conversation transcribed and then put out for review is very
different from having an email made public. There really is no record
except for the notes the administrator made.
You have to put things in context. You dont have to talk to anyone
unless you are subpoenaed. These are difficult complex issues where action
needs to be taken. In the case of San Antonio, everything really is still
in the hands of the division. If they cant solve things in the next
year or so, then another solution will have to be taken. They will have
to come to some kinds of mutual terms that will permit them to get their
Sue Mottinger (UT-Pan Am): Does that mean the Dean of the College/Provosts
Sharpe: The Division Director now reports to the Provost. The Division
Director is keeping things going. The facilitator is meeting with the
faculty in the department. There is no one from the Provosts Office
Martha Hilley (UT-Austin): the
existing faculty in the departmentwhat happens to them?
Ralph Liguori (UT-El Paso): This is not
clear yetthings go into effect in January. There is still a lot
of controversy. There is an ad hoc committee investigating the situation
that has not yet reported to the Senate. They have spoken to the Dean,
Provost, Chair, and faculty. They will present their report to the Senate
at the February meeting. The committee is not a mediator, they were to
just investigate the impact on curriculum. There are certain procedures
in the Handbook of Operating Procedures to follow if you eliminate a department.
Administration says we are not eliminating a department, we are
creating a centre. We dont know yet where the affected faculty
are going to be placed. The President hasnt made any public announcements.
The faculty are not yet happythings are still being played out.
Hilley: What do the students register for?
Liguori: The program is not being eliminated,
the students will register for the courses as they normally would.
There has been a long term problem with that department, but no
one wants to call it a restructuring of a department because of the procedures
that would need to be followed. This may end up in court if faculty are
dealt with badly. Mottinger: What is the role of the faculty
senates in these situations with respect to a departments internal
Sharpe: San Antonio had a meeting with
the Provost as things were happening.
Schneider: was an airing of views. We received
no requests to do anything other than to serve as a forum for airing the
Liguori: In El Paso, shortly after the
announcement to the faculty of the proposed change, the senate passed
unanimously that we set up the ad hoc committee to investigate the situation.
This was considered under curriculum issuesthis is not mediation
Page: The question is more about what could
be done. At UT-Dallas the president decided to delete a department with
one years notice. Could that be done. There was almost a vote of
confidence concerning the President. And then he agreed to talk with us.
This was approximately in 1990. It was made clear that the faculty should
be given the option of applying for another job within the University,
and the time was extended to give two years notice. The result is
that tenured people are tenured to the university and not their department.
The Court suggested the main error in the Presidents decision was
that the faculty should have been given the option of applying for jobs.
This lead to the rewriting of RR 6.11 and 6.12.
Hale: are the courses going to be taught
by the faculty now teaching them at El Paso?
Liguori : As far as I know no one is out
of a job. It is not clear what is really happening by changing from a
department to a center.
Stocks (UT-Tyler): Should we recommend
that major changes/dissolution of a department should have faculty input
in the process before the decision is made?
Liguori: The Provost has had discussions over the years,
but the faculty has never had the perception that administration has fully
supported the department in resolving the problem.
Hilley: The situation is different from the other two. 90% of
UT-Austin faculty dont know anything about thisis not an
Hale: It appears that the investment the
institution makes in the department chairs has diminished over the years.
Searches are now internal and no money is invested into external candidates,
although they have expensive searches for levels above that. If there
is a split in the department over any issue you have an internal candidate
that is in one camp or the another.
There have been other examples of restructuring at El Paso. This
is the one in which the faculty have not participated in a satisfactory
waythis is where the rub is.
Schneider: In UT-San Antonio everyone agrees
that the precipitating factor in the Mathematics and Statistics Division
was the new Division Directorthis person was controversial from
the start and exacerbated the internal differences. This was a large
portion of the problem.
Dunnington: If we allow the dissemination
of faculty interviews on the web under the Freedom of Information Act,
then I expect Administration will as freely acquiesce to our request
- Michael Moore
Academic Deans have resigned this year (Architecture, Business, and
Engineering). Internal replacement
for Architecture and Engineering are on board and an appointment in
the College of Business is expected in the next two weeks.
We have also appointed a new VP (the former Dean of Engineering)
to oversee our Riverbend Campus.
* The Upward
Review of Academic Administrators has been returned from OGC with suggestions
for minor modifications that we hope to tackle (and finish) are our
meeting next week.
next spring our President plans to appoint a committee to begin work
on plans for our new library.
* The President
has also indicated that we will start to develop more formal policies
related to distance education (e.g., workload, compensation, development
in the Fall 2000 students will have access to the grade distributions
for individual courses. They
have also expressed a desire to obtain access to course evaluations
and this is creating some concern among the faculty.
- Martha F. Hilley
the interest of brevity, as discussed at our last meeting, our report
will deal with two issues brought before the Faculty Council at our November
meeting one in the form of legislation, the other as a final report
from an ad hoc committee.
from the Committee on Educational Policy and Curriculum:
1.That the University of Texas at Austin continue to award credit
by examination either with letter grades or with the symbol CR but that
letter grades for credit by examination not be counted in a student's
UT Austin grade point average.
2.That the catalog and other official publications of UT Austin
be amended to reflect this change in policies.
Report from the Faculty Council ad
hoc Committee on Course Instructor Surveys: Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness
Three originals goals 1) increase the efficiency and quality
of teaching evaluation methods; 2) improve the quality of information
gathered; and 3) improve the administrative uses of resulting information.
The first set of recommendations addresses revision and consolidation
of the current CIS forms. The
second set of recommendations discusses alternative methods available
for assessing teaching excellence and effectiveness.
The third group of recommendations reconsiders administrative use
of information gathered privacy issues are also discussed in this
Dunnington: Why hasnt the
President passed the grade policy?
There is a possibility of having multiple GPAs on the transcript
that would satisfy everyone. For example, you could have transfer creditsat
this point they dont count in the GPA. There is information on the
website related to credits.
University of Texas at BrownsvilleTerry Jay Phillips
The Provost has delivered a charge to the University Personnel
Committee to develop a new merit pay system to replace our current, anomalous,
two-tiered merit system. The Provost/VPAA would like to replace this system
with something that is more in line with the merit process at other UT
System components. This will be the main item on the agenda of the Meeting
of the Faculty at the beginning of the spring semester.
A new position for Director of Distance Education has been created
and a search is underway to fill that position.
Ground has been broken on two of the four buildings that have been
scheduled to begin construction in the current academic year.
A timetable has been established for the development/revision of
courses to be included in the new 48 hour general education core. These revisions should be to the College/School
Curriculum Committees in early December and to the University Curriculum
Committee at its first meeting of the Spring Semester.
At the request of the President our campus is participating in
a Survey of Organizational Excellence conducted by the School of Social
Work at UT Austin. The faculty and staff have been strongly encouraged
to participate, however some of the faculty have expressed concerns about
maintaining anonymity of responses as each survey form has a code number
imprinted on the bottom.
The Director of Human Resources spoke to the Faculty Welfare Committee
of the Academic Senate at a meeting on November 19. In this meeting she answered several questions
brought up by the faculty about changes in insurance coverage and the
timing of the open enrollment period.
She indicated that most of the H.R. people in the system were in
favor of a November open enrollment period. This would make things much
more convenient for the faculties of the academic institutions, but there
are administrative hurdles to this change in the timing of the open enrollment
At the Academic Senate meeting of November 19, 1999, the following
data were presented to the Senate for consideration. The data are taken from a pamphlet published
by the U.T. System called "Fast Facts Fall 1999".
data show that UTB has the fewest resources of any academic institution
in the system. However there is one important comparison to
be made from these data that was pointed out to our Senate (which includes
the Provost). Comparing the three
institutions that fall significantly below the system average in the dollar
per student category, we find: UT San Antonio manages to have a 78% higher
faculty to student ratio and a 104% higher employee to student ratio with
only a 12.8% higher dollar per student ratio than UTB, and UT Pan American
manages to have a 115% higher faculty to student ratio and a 125% employee
to student ratio while only having a 13.5% higher dollar per student ratio
than UT Brownsville. Most of the Faculty considers our institution
to be seriously understaffed and these figures would support that position.
Lackey: Have any other campuses
done the survey of organizational excellence.
Mottinger: We did it in the first part of October. Dont have
The data for San Antonio are not correct.
Phillips: The information was taken from the brochure.
Page: This is probably the
picture the Board of Regents has.
Texas at DallasRobert Nelsen
President of the University delivered his State of the University address
to the faculty yesterday. 89/257 faculty showed up. In conjunction with
the Senate, the President restructured the presentation so that he spoke
for only 30 minutes (actually, he spoke for 45 minutes) so that the faculty
had 2 hours to ask questions. Nice idea, no?, to have the President and
his Senior Staff fielding questions from the faculty. As Madonna would
say, Not. 5 faculty members asked questions. The Speaker of
the Faculty asked 12 questions (counting subquestions) to get down to
the nitty gritty (or was it to use up the time?).
Frankly, I was shocked by the silence. Must mean that UTD is nirvana.
Or that everyone is scared to death. Or more likely that people are satisfied
enough to want to maintain the status quo.
What the faculty did achieve from the meeting? Well look at UTDs
home page. Youll see, if you go to the strategic planning page,
what the average salaries are in each school/college/department for all
ranks and how those salaries compare with the other institutions in the
State and the nation. We also got the figures regarding the money the
President has raised over that last five years.
What greatly depressed us was that we were told that the only money
that would be available to raise the TAs stipend would be money
from faculty, staff, or M&O. Faculty salaries may be comparable with
other institutions; however, our TAs stipends are not. Students
and faculty remain very concerned about the future of graduate education.
As you know, UTD is currently reviewing the situation of the Senior
Lecturers. At the meeting, we were told that the only new money that could
be afforded them was moneyfrom where?you got itfrom
the current faculty, staff and M&O budgets. The commitment from the
administration is to keep the numbers (ratio) of lecturers to staff at
its current level. Given our mandate from that group of southern accreditors,
we are going to have to find other ways to resolve the situation.
The biggest controversy on campus is the status of the Faculty
ClubI received 57 responses today from a survey I sent out. What the Faculty
Clubs future will be I cannot tell you. But I do know that it can
no longer run a deficit.
And, oh yea, the students were given permission by OGC to set up their
own web page (as part of the Student Government web page) where they can
post comments about individual professors. Troubling? Maybe, maybe not.
At least, the Senate would have appreciated knowing about OGCs decision
before reading about it in the student newspaper.
Page: Faculty evaluations are being placed there using the raw data.
Dunnington: do the students have
to sign their name?
Nelsen: We dont know
for sure yet. Students will be keeping a record of their names. The
students are liable for the information they place there. Faculty are
not sure what exactly OGC has approved for them to put in. This information
can be placed into faculty folders for consideration of promotion and
Nelsen: There is no controversy related to this. No written comments
are being placed on the web from the evaluations.
Dunnington: What is a senior lecturer?
Nelsen: They are fulltime adjunct employees teaching full loads each
semester. SACS felt we were in an unhealthy situation and needed to
address this before the next review. The possibility of opening up tenure
slots for them based on their salaries has been discussed.
University of Texas
at El Paso - Ralph Liguori
Page: The Senator discovered
a research project is funded by one of the bodies that will be researched,
and thinks that the project will be tainted. Is he saying Im
watching! or Dont do it!. Senators dont
have power of veto in this.
Liguori: We are not sure yethe could be saying either. This
senator has influence over the budget so that is worrisome.
Dunnington: Is there a refusal of publication if they dont like
the outcomes of the research? If you have that, youre in trouble.
Liguori: We dont knowis not imputed in the letter.
of Texas at Pan American - Sue G. Mottinger
has initiated a web-HOP-tracking program that includes measures of reviewing,
amending, or initiating new policy. The
President of UTPA has appointed an individual to monitor all web-based
HOP transactions. The web HOP
is the official version for the university.
Chair of the Faculty Senate appointed an ad hoc committee to study the
present summer school salary for faculty, adjunct faculty, and overload
course salary and make recommendations.
The committee reviewed UTPA comparable institutions as well as
other UT System institutions. The
ad hoc committee is to file its completed report at the December 1999
Faculty Senate meeting.
Chair of the Faculty Senate appointed an ad hoc committee to study the
present department chair summer school compensation.
The committee will review UTPA comparable institutions as well
as other UT System institutions. A
completed report will be presented at the March 2000 Faculty Senate meeting.
roundtable of faculty currently teaching or creating web-based courses
has been formed at UTPA. Discussions
concern a variety of distance-learning issues including whether a policy
pertaining to online courses should be created or not.
UTPA Curriculum Committee has proposed a university wide 51 hr advanced
requirement for completion of a baccalaureate degree at the university. A faculty referendum will decide acceptance
or rejection of the proposal.
"writing across the curriculum" emphasis has been recommended
by the UTPA Curriculum Committee. Currently,
a number of classes emphasize major writing assignments but these are
not university wide, yet.
Core Oversight Committee has been created in cooperation with the Office
of Academic Affairs and the Curriculum Committee to track the effectiveness
of the newly created 48-hr core curriculum at UTPA.
oral presentation by the Faculty Senate was made in November at the Chancellor
Search Forum held in the Valley. Suggestions
concerning the criteria for the new Chancellor as well as recommendations
for potential applicants were shared and subsequently submitted in writing
to the search committee representatives.
continues to be a challenge at UTPA and are somewhat solved by good communication
between campus police and the Faculty Senate.
Dunnington: With respect to the
HOP, what kind of tracking procedures are you putting in it?
Mottinger: The policy will show the date approved, last reviewed and
when next to be reviewed. There is no date as to when the policy is
posted on the HOP because the printed version has always been in existence.
We are seeing inconsistencies since the Web is now the official site.
Dunnington: Ours (UT-MDACC) is on the web. We havent had a whole
handbook in a long time. Is there a mechanism for how new things get
put into the HOP and how the faculty are advised of the additions/deletions?
Mottinger: No. Our President created a new position this past Septemberthe
Web HOP keeper! This is her sole responsibility. She doesnt write
policy. When the policy comes back from System it isnt always
correct. Some one needs to stay on top of it.
Dunnington: There needs to be a policy in place that will notify faculty
that there is a change or something is added into the HOP.
Phillips: There is a real problem in that there is conflicting information
between what is on the Web and whats in the paper copy.
Page: If the senate was involved in the negotiation then they should
be aware of the changes. But seems to be impractical to email everyone
with every change.
Dunnington: Would seem to be easier to be notified of what changes
were made and when they were made. We are held to the HOP by contract.
Verklan: Helen Bright said last year that we would be notified of
any changes that System would place into the HOP.
of Texas at Permian BasinCorbett Gaulden
second round of Post Tenure Review is now underway. Some procedural delays
have been encountered, but the process is now in the works. Only two persons
university-wide will be evaluated this year. Our small size, and two promotion
attempts are the reasons for the very small pool of evaluatees this year.
It may be that we will not finish until early in the spring semester.
campus visit is scheduled for February, 2000. The first full draft of
our self-study is finished and under review and revision at this time.
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. The appointment has
not yet happened, but will soon.
university community is not experiencing any significant problems at this
time. A general preoccupation
with SACS and building projects seems to be part of the reason for the
lack of current controversy.
With respect to the Fields of StudyCorbett is on the committee
for the business fields of study. They are supposed to have the work
done by February. The School of Business at UT-PB has started the process
of business school accreditation.
Hilley: Michael Granoff from UT Austin is also on the business fields
of study committee. In contrast, there are 8 community college people
on the committee.
of Texas at San Antonio - James C. Schneider
is the major campus-wide issue at the moment.
President Romo charged a committee, consisting largely of faculty,
to examine the question of academic restructuring at UTSA. They composed a brief survey asking for opinion
about the general subject of restructuring, as well as inviting more specific
comments. This was posted on the
Web and generated a large number of responses. When the committee determined that opinion overwhelmingly favored
further pursuit of the issue, it requested specific proposals from faculty.
The committee received proposals to form new colleges from faculty
in Engineering and in Education, in addition to numerous proposals that
individual disciplines separate from existing divisions to form their
own units. It may be that the
committee will recommend that the University abandon its divisional structure
in favor of traditional departments. Their report is due within two weeks.
THE APPOINTMENT OF A PERMANENT PROVOST was the other major event on campus
since our last SYSFAC meeting. The
President charged a committee, again mainly composed of faculty, to advise
him on whether to engage in a national search for a permanent provost
or to offer the post to the Interim Provost, Dr. Guy Bailey.
The committee examined the advantages and disadvantages to a national
search in the context of the existing situation at UTSA.
It examined Dr. Baileys qualifications with reference to
the job description and Dr. Romos preferred qualities in a Provost. While reluctant in principle to dispense with a national search,
the committee judged that the large number of senior administrative searches
pending at the University and the presence of a new President without
experience at UTSA justified an alternative course of action. The vote in favor of Dr. Bailey was unanimous.
Unfortunately, from the perspective of many faculty and staff, there has
been no movement on GOVERNANCE issues to parallel that in the area of
restructuring. No mechanism exists at present to address various
proposals to alter the current structure. The President is not unsympathetic to governance reform and it is
quite possible that he wished to await the findings of the Restructuring
Committee. However, there is definite
impatience in many quarters because a number of proposals have been in limbo for a very long time. Among these are the Faculty Senates BY-LAWS
and a GRIEVANCE POLICY.
The situation involving the Division of MATHEMEATICS AND STATISITICS,
which was placed in receivership at the beginning of the Fall semester,
has unfolded no further in public. Faculty
members have met as a group each week with a conflict resolution consultant.
Activity in preparation for the SACS visit to determine REAFFIRMATION
of ACCREDITATION continues to be intense.
The Site Visit will take place next April.
The visit by representatives of the SEARCH COMMITTEE
to find a new CHANCELLOR for the UT SYSTEM was well enough attended
for Regent Tom Loeffler, admittedly a San Antonian, to boast publicly
of how we surpassed totals at all other communities around the State. The Committee has heard from many members of
the audience. Among those commenting was the Chair of the UTSA Faculty
Senate, who emphasized the need to select a Chancellor with sound academic
credentials and for greater inclusiveness in the selection process.
letter of appointment is attached.
the Faculty Senate voted to change the minimum criteria students must
meet to earn summa cum laude
laurels, lowering our standards to those at UT-Austin.
Tyler - Steve Rainwater
1. Attached to this report is a copy of UT-Tylers
policy for the evaluation of academic administrators...the policy indicates
that every year an evaluation of each academic administrator is conducted
under the responsibility of the individual's immediate supervisor.
Additionally, every four years there will be a more extensive evaluation
conducted by the supervisor which provides an opportunity for input by
all faculty members in the unit(s) reporting to or directly affected by
2. Provided separately to the UT-FACs Academic Affairs
committee are sample Memoranda of Appointment for fiscal year 1999-2000. These were provided to faculty on September
1, 1999 for acceptance and submission to the Office of Human Resources.
3. There is one faculty representative on the
universitys Institutional Compliance committee.
4. Regarding grade change policy, the 1998-2000
catalog specifies a one-year time limit for grade changes and ONLY the
instructor of the course may change a grade.
However, the catalog, Student
Guide, and Handbook of Operating
Procedures all specify that a student can appeal a course grade in
writing through the normal channel of department chair, dean, VPAA, and
president with no designation as to who may then change a grade if the
students appeal is successful at one of those levels.
5. Insofar as can be determined, the university
Regarding the report on the periodic review of tenured faculty
for the 1998-1999 year at UT-Tyler, there seems to be some confusion over
the report that six of the eighteen reviewed faculty were found to be
unsatisfactory with specified areas for further development. According to our VPAA, only one faculty member
was deemed unsatisfactory with an approved development plan. Reports from the deans to the VPAA of the other
five faculty indicated satisfactory ratings but also included
SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT in one or more areas as is typical in any
proposed revision of evaluation/tenure/promotion policies and procedures,
which were developed by the Deans Council and submitted to the senate,
is currently under review by the Faculty Affairs committee and is available
campus-wide on the Lotus Notes Faculty Senate Bulletin Board.
3. Senate committees reviewed assigned sections of
the SACS Institutional Report appropriate to their oversight. Committee review of the universitys Millennium Vision strategic plan is on
hold pending release of the plan by the President.
4. The ad hoc senate committee appointed to consider
the reorganization of university and faculty senate committees is near
completion of its charge. A preliminary
design of the reorganization proposes the incorporation of many university
committees as subcommittees under the current senate committee structure.
Each senate committee would then be composed of a chair (senior
senator), a vice-chair (junior senator), and committee members with dual
service as chairs of each of the university subcommittees.
5. The Faculty Senate has hosted guest presentations
at each of the senate meetings this year. These presentations have included: representatives
from the bookstore, the SACS steering committee chair, and the interim
director of the Longview University Center. Additional presentations being planned include enrollment management,
strategic planning, and the university budget process.
6. On December 9th the senate will host
the annual Alpha Omega luncheon which recognizes new faculty, recently
tenured and/or promoted faculty, and recently retired faculty.
SACS Institutional Report is complete!!!
survey was conducted to obtain information to help determine course and
degree program interests for the Longview University Center. The survey revealed that interest was highest
for degree programs in nursing, education, business, and computer science.
President Mabry is proposing an ambitious initiative to offer
scholarships for all community transfer students with a 3.5 GPA...scholarships
could be continued for these students if they further sought a graduate
Fall 1999 enrollment: up slightly in total number of students,
but down slightly in semester credit hours. 5.
Implementation of the new Poise student records system is continuing
with full automation of degree plans/audits projected by the fall of 2000.
Southwestern Medical Center at DallasCheryl
The Donald W. Reynolds Foundation has awarded a $24 million grant
for cardiovascular clinical research to UT Southwestern, the largest peer‑reviewed
grant ever made to the institution. The award, to be distributed equally
over a four‑year period, will establish the Donald W. Reynolds Cardiovascular
Clinical Research Center. The nationally‑competitive grant will
advance research into the prevention and treatment of heart disease caused
Plans are being completed for a new 43,000‑sq. ft. student
center to be called the Bryan Williams, M.D. Student Center.
Faculty Senate has sent out the initial version of the Faculty Satisfaction
Survey. The pilot date will be compiled with modifications as necessary
of the survey itself.
As the University continues to restructure, the Senate has requested
discussion from campus administrators regarding Mission Based Management
and campus wide service restructuring.
We requested the Administrative Task Force for Mission Based Management
to include documentation of national organizational administrative activity. This was noted by the Steering Committee and will be incorporated
in the MBM Faculty Effort survey.
The Faculty parking was recently changed without notice. We have
requested and received membership on the committee which is responsible
for these changes.
Attached are sample Memoranda of appointment letters.
These are sent by Dr. Judy Carrier, Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs,
working in the office of the Dean of the School of Medicine.
Investigation of privacy policies show that policies concerning
posted or campus mail, e-mail, telephone and voice mail, fax, office files,
and private vehicles on campus center on the idea that anything maintained
by the University of Texas Medical Branch can only be used for official
UTMB business. To do otherwise is to serve as a breach of policy.
Campus traffic is moderated by the city. There is no policy as
to who would be able to monitor or enforce policy compliance. While e-mail
is monitored in terms of volume, it would take a complaint from a recipient
or an excessive amount of volume to consider probable cause for direct
monitoring. Probable cause would require a subpoena and
search warrant. Current court rulings do protect our activity while on
vacation. Phone monitoring or tapping would require a court order. There
is no voice mail policy.
Health Science Center at HoustonWilliam
Health Science Center at San AntonioCheryl
Faculty Organization: By laws for the proposed Faculty Senate
are being finalized. A vote is
planned toward the end of January 2000.
School of Nursing is searching for a Dean of Research and Director of
are being planned for the eight applicants for the position of Associate
Dean for Students. A candidates name has been submitted
for the position of the Interim Associate Dean for the Undergraduate Program
with an announcement expected in the near future.
The position of Chair of the Department of Family Nursing Care
has been filled.
School: Candidates names have been submitted to the President for
consideration to fill the position of Dean of the Medical School. An announcement
is expected in the near future.
of Allied Health: Searches continue for the Directors of the Physicians
Assistant Program and the Physical Therapy Program in the School of Allied
Post Tenure Review:
total of 72 individuals were included in the pool for Post Tenure Review.
Of those, 70 were reviewed with satisfactory performance results. One individual resigned and one postponed the
process for health reasons.
Institutional Compliance Committee: One faculty member sits on
Policy for communication media and privacy:
policy on information security is to go to the Executive Council in the
near future for addition to the HOP. There is no policy in media privacy at this
Policy for inspection of autos on campus by campus police:
police are considered peace officers and hold the same status as any other
peace officers. They are bound to uphold local, state and federal
laws, statutes and codes.
Privacy with regard to e-mail:
VMS Mail folders sit in the user's personal directory and are
like any other data. Those tapes
are held about a year.
For POP users, there is not necessarily a back up, because mail
deleted from the server as the user downloads it. Some percentage of
do get captured by the backups, e.g. mail that arrives shortly before
tapes run, or mail accumulating for someone who's on vacation.
But this is only a "backup" in terms of restoring the
server after a disaster; once a message is downloaded to a POP client
there isn't a way to provide any recovery for it.
People concerned about confidentiality will want to know about
the retention of those few messages that do find their way to tape. If the POP account were based on VMS Mail,
those messages would be retained as long as regular VMS user data. The Popstore is backed up separately, and because
that tape contains only mail in transit, it is kept long enough for disaster
recovery purposes (a week or two).
In Exchange the only backups are short-term tapes for disaster
recovery. These are kept for a
month at most. When users transfer
messages to a personal folder, they no longer exist on the server and
the user has effectively taken responsibility for them.
The personal folders might sit on a file server that has a backup.
The Vice President and Chief Information Officer would be responsible
for authorizing the checking of e-mail.
An independent technician would be contracted for such a task.
Letters of Appointment and Contracts:
distinctive types of appointment letters are issued to the faculty, administration
professional staff. Samples will be given to the Committee on Governance.
Evaluation of Vice Presidents:
President evaluates members of the Executive Committee.
The Deans are
on a 5-year cycle (1 Dean per year in a 5-school campus).
The same holds
for the Vice Presidents, although the cycle is different based on the
Presidents. Information is shared with the individual evaluated
and placed in the
Transfer of credits:
of credits is unique to each individual professional school.
criteria that must be met in each of the disciplines based upon accrediting
requirements. The procedures for transfer are specific and
by contact with the admissions and registrars offices for the particular
Dunnington: It cant
be emphasized enough how important it is to have faculty on the compliance
Nelsen: UT-Dallas compliance
committee has found new regulations which will not allow beepers or
water into labs because of federal rules regarding production of drugs.
Travis: What is the status of law regarding confidentiality of data
under federal monies.
Dunnington: We can obtain
a copy of the rules and have someone speak on the issue at the next
Cooley: Because of the influx
of comments from academia the rules have been revised, but I dont
have a copy of them.
University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer ClinicDavid Farquhar
is generally good at the Cancer Center.
The administration is the best it has been in years, and the environment
is extremely supportive. Most
of the problems stem from success. In-house
beds have a high occupancy rate and there are occasionally difficulties
in accommodating new patients. The
research faculty have been very successful in the grants market and there
is a problem finding laboratory space to conduct the work.
Construction on a major new research building is scheduled to begin
next year. The
major issue on the Senate calendar is that of 7-year term appointments
vs. tenure. The President has said that he will support
whatever the faculty wants. Most
of the basic science faculty support a switch to tenure. On the other hand, most of the clinical faculty - which are in the
majority - prefer to retain the present term appointment system because
they fear that the bar will be raised for tenure award. A vote on this issue will occur in the near
D. Anderson faculty who devote more than 70% of their time to research
have been directed to put 30% of their salaries on grants.
This policy is now in effect.
An unexpected development was the appearance of a clause in the
annual contract of everyone affected stating that administration reserved
the right to reduce the salary of any faculty member by 30% in the coming
academic year if they did not comply with this directive.
The Faculty Senate Officers met with senior administration and
requested that this clause be removed, pointing out that it was offensive
to many faculty and could lead to a legal challenge.
After much deliberation, administration agreed to remove the clause
- but inserted a new clause stating that all faculty are expected to comply
with the directive.
of Texas Health Science at TylerJerry McLarty
major advancements or problems have occurred since our last meeting. The
faculty chairs, Drs. Stocks and McLarty, met with our President, Dr. Garvey,
to discuss the tenure issue. He remains neutral on the subject and suggested
that he get us in to see the Chancellor to present our case for tenure.
We asked that instead, he write a letter to the Chancellor asking
for a change in Regent's Rules to permit tenure or term-tenure at the
Health Center in Tyler. The meeting was interrupted and will be continued at a later date.
local newspaper in Tyler recently reported salaries and raises of administrators
at the Health Center. Some administrators
got as high as 25% increases. About
half the research faculty got a 5% increase, the rest nothing. Clinical faculty is on an incentive plan where salary bonuses are
tied to funds generated from their clinical practice and other activities,
such as service and teaching and consulting.
requested that a faculty member be placed on the local Compliance committee.
Although the chairman of the Compliance Committee is willing, he
said the appointment has to come from the President.
We are pursuing this action.
Director of UT Telecampus
UT Telecampus Benefits of Service outlining the benefit of running courses
through the telecampus. This is being circulated to all campuses.
is some confusion re library licensingit will be licensed through
a proxy server for courses for the students involved in our programs.
education evaluation forms: We have reviewed copies of evaluations from
each campus in the development of this form. The form will be emailed
to the students, who will email it back to the telecampus, from which
the evaluation will be forwarded to the respective campus. Her office
is now requesting faculty feedback on the content of the evaluation
form before issues of distribution are dealt with.
Kellner (UT-Arlington): What is the rationale for Questions 12, 11
and 10. If there is no narrative response, what is the purpose?
Hardy: We just wanted to get a feel of how the student felt about
it. 11 and 12 are really geared
for the marketing office. All of these questions dont necessarily
directly affect faculty.
Schnapp (UT-Houston): What will you do with all of the points in using
this as an evaluation tool? A faculty could score badly on one of these
points, and it could affect his overall evaluation. I am concerned with
how the evaluations may be interpreted. Is the goal to effectively evaluate
Hardy: It will not be used
for that purpose. We were just trying to replicate the kinds of questions
used in the traditional evaluation forms on the first page. The second
page is to be used for telecampus purposes.
The purpose was to first develop an evaluation form, and second
to determine how well the class runs in the electronic format.
Nelson: I would recommend
that the second page not be sent to the universities. That information
is specific to the telecampus and could be interpreted too many ways for
a faculty evaluation as that page is not a part of the formal evaluation.
Hardy: Could page 2 be shared
with Academic Affairs committees on the campuses. Lackey: I dont think
the second page needs to be evaluated in the context of the individual
faculty member with respect to promotion and performance. People may target
individual questions rather than look at the overall information.
Hardy: Are these 15 questions similar to the traditional evaluation
questionsthats where they came from.
Liguori: I would expect differences because the delivery of the information
is so different. For example, question 7the interaction would be
very different. Ques 6is very different in a traditional classroom
as compared to an on-line classroom.
Page: The instrument lacks designit looks like a bunch of questions
were pulled together form a number of sources. If you designed the instrument,
you could determine what it is that you explicitly want to measure. The
course will be one thing, the facultys performance is another, and
there are a number of dimensions between the two that need to be kept
in mind. It is difficult to interpret what exactly the questions really
mean. Design the question to be aimed at one simple point and get specific
data so that the student knows exactly what is being asked. I would recommend
a committee be formed of those who develop evaluation tools to do this.
Schnapp: Students want a place where they can say they have learned
somethingthat is not found here.
Hardy: We have talked to Academic Affairs committees at length. One
group wants the same questions that are traditionally used.
Moore: Have you asked the campuses if it is ok that this evaluation
supersedes the existing evaluation forms? I am concerned that we oversurvey
students and ask them the same questions over and over. There is an issue
of comparability between existing surveys and this. I would also recommend
that the NA option be added so the student can honestly answer what doesnt
Hardy: We can build in individual departmental questions. We can also
build in open-ended responses.
Kellner: A numerical response cant be given to things that cant
be counted. You could have a narrative series of questions that is tacked
onto the objective questions. You want this information as a marketing
tool to show how great the telecampus is going to bebut it will
move to evaluation for matters of promotion and tenure, and now to students
who are asking for the course evaluations to be posted. I would second
Pages suggestion that the questions be designed to obtain specific
Lackey: I think you should also ask the students how things compare
to the traditional experience, especially since this is being done for
the first time.
Nelsen: Have you looked at
the University of Washingtons surveysthey have over 53 different
universities and provide forms for all class sizes on the telecampus.
This might give you something to base your questions on. The tool is well
designed and thought out.
Hilley: We have just completed a teaching surveyhave you gone
to the center for teaching excellencewe are in the process of how
you evaluate data as it pertains to an instructor or administrator or
Page: We have participated in the growth of the telecampus since the
beginning. We have asked for faculty involvement and we have gotten what
we have asked for. The protections and boiler plates are there for your
protection. People need to get involved so that they are aware of what
the telecampus is doing.
Gaulden: the on-line courses
takes 3 times the time the traditional course does. Besides the development
of the course there are the emails, written assignment, and bulletin boards.
If things are specific to one student then email is used, as opposed to
using the chat rooms or bulletin boards.
Liguori: I would recommend you have an up front question about what
the student expects from the course.
Hardy: The questionnaire has
a pretest and posttest. We had asked all faculty to have 10 questions
for the pre- and post-test, and then we tacked on 5 questions that were
specific to the telecampus.
Schnapp: You want to test whether students thought it was a good experience,
the effectiveness of the course, the excellence of the faculty initiative
within the course. For excellence do peer review, for effectiveness do
Hardy: The primary goal was to come up with something electronic rather
than paper evaluations, so that at the end of the course the student could
evaluate on-line. This is the purpose of the first page. But when the
faculty is teaching on-line as a part of their teaching load, then it
is important that they make the course interactive and well thought out,
and that needs to be evaluated.
Dunnington: There are questions related to administrative and technical
supportstudents have different equipment, browsers, etc. Where are
the glitches? The course and graphics can appear different depending upon
the linkage, hardware, etc that the student hasthere is no question
dealing with this.
Hardy: Those issues have been solvedwe have final approval on
the course design and pay close attention to the size of the graphics,
etc. This will ensure that all students can download documents without
waiting for a long time irregardless of phone lines, browsers, their personal
equipment, etc. We have tried to cover everything that is out there. We
work with someone in the home office with AOL. We have tried to make everything
the lowest common denominator. We also have a network analyst and technical
support locally until 5 p.m.; help from AOL is available until midnight.
Gaulden: We already have peer review and faculty oversight in the
courses, especially in the MBA. We have almost gone overboard in trying
to anticipate all the problems.
Buckman (UT-Pan Am): What are the disadvantages, what isnt offered.
There needs to be a question of what a traditional course gives you that
the telecampus doesnt.
Kellner: Students will miss the contact with each other that they
get by interacting with each other in the classroom. It is very difficult
to get that connection on-line.
Lackey: I disagreeI
have conferences on-line that include them describing themselves, they
post pictures, etc., so that they can get to know each other. Their term
papers are posted so they can see how each other is developing their ideas.
The interaction and knowledge they can get on-line is incredible.
Cooley: Would it be beneficial
to have an ad hoc committee of interested individuals to help you design
Hardy: A group of 3 or 4 from the FAC would be welcome. Our goal is
to be very involved in this since so many are already doing thiswe
need to make the most effective use of the technology and ensure excellent
quality in what we put out. We want to attract those students who dont
fit on the campus and who will want to come to us rather than another
Travis: I have a question
in general about faculty evaluations. I was talking with the president
of the student groupthey are working with System in developing a
faculty evaluation form. Do we need to get involved in this? She wanted
to know how the faculty would feel if faculty evaluation summaries were
posted on the web site provided by UT Systemif there isnt
an issue from faculty this will become a reality. Faculty input is supposed
to be solicited on these issues.
Dunnington: We would be willing
to develop model language to be used on the campuses, but dont know
if they are following through with this.
Travis: Should be have a joint committee with the students to do this.
Kellner: There will be major changes in the evaluation forms when
they are placed on-line. Let the students develop their own evaluation
forms and see what they come up withthe idea is that they are taking
official/semi-official instruments designed for other purposes and are
putting them on-lineCOMMITTEE
Committee Report -- Linda Cooley
Attendees: Linda Cooley (UTHSC-Houston), Bill Schnapp (UTHSC-Houston),
Kevin Oeffinger (UTSW), Ross Sherman (UT-Tyler), Rodger Marion (UTMB),
J.B. Pace, Bob Malloy (EGI), James Guckian (Vice Chancellor for Health
FOIA: Dr. Guckian indicated that the FOIA was revised after numerous
comments from academic institutions and that UT System is now satisfied
with the revision. He stated that
original data and patient information will not be accessible. He also indicated that federally funded for-profit
institutions are under the same rules as non-profit institutions.
Legislation signed by President Clinton 12/1/99 amends the balanced
budget act. Indirect payments
for GME will still decrease, but will decrease at a slower rate. Direct payments will increase to Texas beginning
in October 2000.
For the next legislative session UT is working on mechanisms to
increase funding for faculty salaries.
Update on Health Science Centers
MDA is doing well financially
UT-H Medical School is making progress financially with the new IDX billing
UTSA is improving; a new MS Dean soon; $200M for Childrens Cancer
UTSW is doing well
UT-Tyler continues to have problems primarily because it is small; new
leadership may improve campus
UTMB continues to recover from problems.
Strategy is to do those things UTMB does best and discontinue programs
that lose money or that dont have enough patients to support the
PTR summary All academic components have had a PTR with
percent of tenured faculty reviewed ranging from 6-21%. A June summary indicates all reviews were completed.
32 faculty had specified areas designated for further development.
Three of the HSC had completed their PTR and 2 were still in progress.
Several faculty chose retirement over PTR.
Bob Malloy from EGI:
Reported that he is aware of 9 applications for the position of EGI director.
At retirement, funds must remain in your ORP or TRS account, however,
there is no minimum amount that has to be present when you elect to begin
retirement benefits. Part of the
ORP or TRS accounts can be rolled out prior to retirement. The account does not have to remain open once the retirement benefits
are begun. The retirement explanatory
document is still in draft form. Mr.
Malloy is awaiting information from the OGC.
Customer service issues with health care providers continue. The United Health Plan has a 24-hour nurse hotline for questions.
EGI is considering a similar position with someone who would be
knowledgeable about all the health plans offered by UT System.
Delta Dental benefits are being reviewed.
EGI is looking at trying to increase the annual benefit to over
the current $1000 maximum.
The prescription plan is also being reviewed.
Rodger Marion (Galveston) suggested that interested FAC members
access the UTMB web site www.UTMB.edu
and go the site on Mission Based Management to review the information
there for a discussion in Health Affairs committee at the next FAC meeting. If this can be done prior to the next FAC meeting,
and if members want it, Dr. Stobo is willing to talk with us by teleconference
at the next meeting about this item.
Recommendation: The institutional reports be submitted in writing
for review by the members and that oral reports be limited to items solicited
or approved by the Chair or Executive committee. This is recommended to keep the time spent
on institutional reports down as well as keeping them focused on items
of interest to all components.
Dunnington: Could everyone
prepare your campus reports together and email it a week before the meeting
and we will discuss pertinent issues only.
Verklan: I could email everyone
out a reminder 7-10 days in advance.
Stokes: We will lose the flavor
of the meeting if we only report on what that person thinks is interesting.
Schnapp: What is the goal of the campus reports? If the goal is to
know what is going on, then that could be done in written format. There
is little time for processing important issues and discussing with each
other these issues, and what needs to be done with these issues.
Dunnington: The items that are of interest are assigned to the respective
committee. Nelson: We need to
continue to converse. As things are discussed and are rephrased, they
give you new ideas on what needs to be done at the home campus. Limit
the time for reports. Schedule for 2 hours and then have half an hour
afterward for general discussion.
Travis: If it is a consideration
that we dont have enough time, could we make Thursday dinner a working
dinner? We are taking on more substantive issues than in the past and
we may need more time to get the work done.
Silver: The campus reports do contain answers to specific questions
that FAC has on issues.
Hilley: Set a specific time limit for each verbal report.
Verklan will send out a reminder 7-10 days before the next meeting for
the campus reports to be emailed to her so that they can be emailed out
to the FAC in their entirety.
FAC set aside some time at each meeting for members from the Health components
and the Academic components to meet separately to discuss issues germane
to only those institutional types.
Dunnington: If we split off the groups for an hour or so during the
committee meetings, how many Health Sciences people would actually go
(no one raised their hands).
Cooley: Health Affairs addresses
issues related to insurance, etc., but there is also a wider scope of
issues that could be addressed. One possibility would be to take one of
those committee meeting times and make it a health component time. That
could also be true to the academic side.
Nelson: The tradition of keeping
us together is tremendously important. I had not sat down with a medical
component before coming to the FAC. It is stimulating to have everyone
listening to all of the issueswe are not just academic or health
science components. We have opinions about everything. This would be a
division that could later separate us apart. If this type of meeting is
something that is wanted by a few people, then they could set up a time
to come earlier for themselves.
Schnapp: We are already separated.
Those people that are interested in health affairs that didnt attend
the meeting missed out on the discussion.
Nelsen: Thats exactly
why we should stay together. All of us should have heard that presentation.
Dunnington: We can make a special effort next meeting to invite someone
to talk on specific health matters (Stobo, for example). We could have
an hour set aside to do is.
Stokes: When a committee is
going to have a presentation the FAC should be made aware and then those
who wanted to attend could.
Dunnington: We usually do announce when visitors are coming to specific
committees. We can be more explicit in what the agenda is for the individual
Academic Affairs Committee Corbett Gaulden
Catherine Parsoneault and Glenda Barron
C. Gaulden, M. Hilley, S. Mottinger, C. Lackey, L. Phillips, R. Liguori
The Illinois Study (also a Florida study) on success of students
who go to community colleges. Catherine
will get us copies of the studies.
CC/JC articulation groups have met lately on articulation and transfer.
(Junior colleges, community college)
Current study between UT and feeder CCs is underway to identify
certain problem transfer courses.
oS Advisory committees are being launched now gen. business and
music. Interdisciplinary studies is already launched.
The accounting group did some stuff last year.
Concluded that we should leave acct. in with gen. business. Business deans have been consulted twice by
way of TCCEB deans are looking at the basic 18 hour thing.
The feasibility study on FOS is due September 2000. We do have to go ahead with the current committees prior to that
time. Purpose is to have some
experience to feed into the feasibility study.
Reports are sent by universities back to feeder CCs on how students
who transfer are doing at the universities.
Can we get these reports? Go to individual UT campuses for a starter
Appears these THECB folks perceive the transfer problem is backwards of
the way we perceive it. It seems
they are hearing it more from the perspective of the universities complaining
about the quality of CC/JC courses. It
looks like its basically backwards from the way the legislature
is perceiving it.
SACS evaluations of community college faculty insures appropriate credentializing
of faculty who may teach core curriculum courses.
(Masters and 18 hours). SACS
uses same criteria for part time as for full time.
Transfer problem questions come to THECB about every week or so, but resolution
mechanism has only been used twice in history.
Catherine and Glenda seemed to disagree on the implementation of transfer
of individual core curriculum courses.
Message from Governance Committee:
How is summer teaching done
(budgetarily)? Inconsistent from
to campus to campus. Inconsistent
within campuses? Survey campuses. How is budget determined, etc? Flexible scheduling is a growing phenomenon. What is going on? Is there anything that FAC needs to be concerned about? Relationship to the summer question. Feeling is that administrators are trying to
get more for less.
The Senator Shapleigh letter with respect to the banking
study in El Paso was discussed. The
issue relates to the impact of that sort of legislative involvement in
the research agenda of the university.
To be continued . . .
Dunnington: There is 0 data on transfer problems in Texas.
Gaulden: We could shape a group of questions and find the answers
to answer the legislatures concerns.
Dunnington: If the community colleges are sending the reports of how
well their students are doing, lets send the report to the coordinating
board and let them review it.
Hilley: There isnt a 100% involvement in these reports going
back to the community colleges. The quality of the reports is awful.
Governance Committee Report Robert Nelsen
The committee discussed 3 issues
academic and administrative hires, letters of appointment and upward
evaluation of administrators. The
committee has proposed the following resolutions:
1. Hiring of Academic Administrators
Resolved: University System component Academic Administrative hires
(academic officers from Chairs through Presidents) should be conducted
in an open manner inclusive of the opinions of affected faculty and administrative
members, and should include consultation from external professional sources.
Moore: What are the thoughts regarding interim appointments?
Lackey: Should Chairs be included
in this, because I think of myself as a faculty member and I am a chair.
Kellner: The intent is to
provide open appointment/consultation with large number of informal faculty
groups as much as possible and to prevent closed secret meetings.
Hale: I was anointed as chair, and when asked to do it again I refused
until there was full faculty involved in the process. I think this is
a good thing so that faculty are supportive of their Chair.
Nelsen: Chairs are called administrators in Regents Rules.
Travis: Where will this resolution
Nelsen: It will go to the individual institution to begin discussions.
I will give to Joel Dunnington (Chair, FAC) who will speak to Vice Chancellors
Sharp and Mullins re distribution.
Sherman (UT-Tyler): Chairs are not academic administrators. My letter
of appointment is as a faculty.
Nelsen: According to Regents
Rules, Chairs are administrators.
Dunnington: This is stated in 37.435 of Regents Rules.
Dunnington: Can we make an amendment:
sources external to the component.
Sherman: The implication of that is that you are now hiring someone
from the outside.
Hale: I dont see that implication. I think that it is good that
there is some external review.
Schneider: This will help address incestuous situations that are now
Moore: It is common to have someone appointed as interim and then
is put in place.
hires to appointments.
Resolved: University System component Academic Administrative appointments
(academic officers from Chairs through Presidents) should be conducted
in an open manner inclusive of the opinions of affected faculty and administrative
members, and should include consultation from professional sources external
to the component.
Vote: passes unanimously
Nelsen: We will take up the issue of interim appointments and the
issue of the Presidents Councilsno records, no notes, no agenda,
no faculty consultation. Will look at the possibility of interacting with
them in the meeting.
Travis: Can we ask for copies
of the Presidents meetings?
Dunnington: We have done that, but since they dont have minutes
(not in compliance with state law) we cant get anything.
2. Letters of Appointment
that notify faculty of appointments have various names and differ greatly
from campus to campus, especially in the health components.
However, all of the letters should:
Be sent out at the earliest possible date following the August
Board of Regents Meeting;
Contain the exact dates of employment;
Contain the phrase by signing this document I am not waiving
any institutional rights.
Gaulden: What is institutional rights?
Stokes: The right to a grievance.
Hale: Then why not just say grieve?
Nelsen: We thought that we needed the larger rights protected, because
the campuses are so different and the grievance policies on each are not
the same. Administrators would reject it thinking they are being set up
Dunnington: MDACC contracts lays out the rules you will obey. If you
dont have to sign a contract how can they say you violated Regents
Rules if you havent signed. Is it because you cashed the paycheck?
Moore: Are we opening up unnecessary tension? With the compliance
policy now in place the faculty are not being forced to go through this,
but the staff on contracts are. This may set us up to have to go through
this so that administration knows we know what our rights are.
Nelsen: Should we change to not waiving the right to grieve?
Dunnington: Lets hold this until the next meeting and get those
sample contracts Schultz has written in the past.
Travis: OGC has taken out our right to grieve contractual issues.
Thats why its important to keep it here.
Lois: Thats a good idea to put it on next meetings agenda
so we can have this discussion with System.
Nelsen: now changed to By accepting this document I am not waving
my right to grieve contractual matters.
Dunnington: With respective
to Number 1, if they expect my academic year to be Sept 1, then I would
expect the letter to be here before the start of the academic year.
Nelsen: Then we would have to change the meeting dates for the Board
2. Letters of Appointment
that notify faculty of appointments have various names and differ greatly
from campus to campus, especially in the health components.
However, all of the letters should:
Be sent out at the earliest possible date following the August
Board of Regents Meeting;
Contain the exact dates of employment;
Contain the phrase by accepting this document I am not waiving
my right to grieve contractual matters.
Vote: passed unanimously
As to upward evaluation, the Committee
chose to focus on:
For whose eyes?
need your upward evaluation forms to be able to evaluate the issues.
Harris (UTSA alternate): a 7th question is what is the impact
from the evaluation.
Mottinger: Are you going to disseminate the forms from all of the
Nelsen: If you ask me for them I will send them to you.
Faculty Quality Committee
The letter from Dunnington and Sharpe re the faculty satisfaction
survey was discussed (draft of letter at end of FAC report)
RFP was discussed re issues of timing and moving things along. The FAC
Executive Committee could review the applications and make recommendations.
The date the application is due is being left blank until FQ speaks to
Sharpe to resolves issues such as when the RFP goes out, monies, etc.
Submit the RFP to Sharpe for distribution to all Chief Academic Officers
and Faculty Governance Organizations with a flexible date.
The Mechanism of the Survey (Mike Moore)
have been issues raised regarding the anonymity since a social security
number will be needed to verify that the responder is a faculty member.
The request to participate will only be asked once. Will need to determine
if we have a representative sample of all faculty from all campuses. Using
email will make the survey less expensive to distribute, and easier to
analyzecan take off the old survey and make an new one easily. We
will talk to System to determine if they want to do a pre-survey using
paper and pencil asking about the level of comfort re web based surveys
before we do this. The old method was quite expensivein addition
to being quite lengthy.
Hale: The survey could also be done on the web and be supplemented
with paper. I cant yet see just doing the web at this time. We will
have to do a lot of promotion on our respective campuses to ensure faculty
participation. The web also allows you to nag people to fill out the survey.
Dunnington: How do you find everyones email address?
Hale: the component institutions will provide those.
Dunnington: Do you follow up with a sample survey to determine demographic
differences if you do the web based survey?
Moore: We will need to determine the level of comfort first. The System
does not yet have the survey engine developedwill take hundreds
of hours to develop. Before we do this we will determine if we can get
a representative sample.
Stokes: The insurance sign-up on the web could be that engine.
Moore: But the social security number is linked in that data base
and you could be identified.
McLarty (UTHC-Tyler): Shouldnt it be the person who responds
to the RFP who decides how it is implemented?
Hale: We said that it was the responsibility of the System to distribute
and collect the surveys.
Criminologist: There is a middle grounda questionnaire could
be posted on the web. It is important to let the faculty know what happened
with the last surveythat changes did occur as a result of the survey.
Surveyplease provide feedback.
This is a previous draft that has been revised. Please email me (Michael
Moore, UT-Arlington) with suggestions/comments. This has never been done.
We will follow up at the next FAC meeting.
Hale: It was a rider that was passed on a bill at the legislature
that required the Coordinating Board to survey faculty who were leaving
before Oct 1. They were sent a form by the board (1 page survey) in an
attempt to largely look at the reasons why faculty are exiting all state
universities/institutions in Texas. When that data is analyzed perhaps
we can get their data.
Travis. Was there anything on there regarding PTR?
relates to all areas including mail, fax, office, files, cares on the
campus. Please send any additional information you may have on your respective
campus. There is no privacy except in outgoing US mail. Incoming mail
is protected only if it has confidential or personal on the outside. If
you have private materials in your car, they are also accessible.
Criminologist: 4th amendment search and seizure only applies
to police. You are at the mercy of the employer when you are on their
Hale: the President of the respective campus has to authorize it.
Travis: Not only is the issue
of who has the authority, but there has to be a reason presented for why
they are looking at the mail, your files, etc. They cant come in
just looking for something.
Hale: What about the confidentiality of the act?
Travis: At what point is the faculty told that this is occurring?
How do you know when they are reading the email?
Page: Except for extreme cases of criminal cases, there should be
notification. If the policy is in the HOP, then everyone should know what
reasonable behaviour is.
hoc committee to work on the telecampus survey instruments: Lois Hale
(UT PB), Michael Moore (UT Arlington), Bill Schnapp (UT Houston), Pat
Davis (UT Austin)
adjourned at 3:06.
December 29, 1999
University of Texas System
Office of Academic Affairs and the Faculty Advisory Council
601 Colorado Street
Austin, Texas 78701-2982
512/499-4233 Fax: 512/499-4240
Chief Academic Officers and Faculty Governance Officers
Edwin R. Sharpe, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs,
and Joel Dunnington, Chair, U.T. System Faculty Advisory Council
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals to Conduct a U.T. System-wide Faculty Satisfaction
University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council with the cooperation
of the Office of Academic Affairs is soliciting proposals from University
of Texas System faculty interested in conducting a survey of all research,
clinical and teaching faculty employed at U.T. System component institutions.
The purpose of the survey is to determine the extent to which faculty
are satisfied with their jobs.
periodic assessment of faculty satisfaction is essential to the recruitment
and retention of first-rate faculty at all University of Texas System
components. For this reason, the
University of Texas System Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) administered
a Faculty Satisfaction Survey (FSS) to U.T. System faculty in April and
August of 1993. The FSS was successful
in identifying several areas of strength as well as certain problems experienced
by faculty throughout the U.T. System.
Some six to seven years later, it is essential to reexamine faculty
satisfaction in order to identify trends, to incorporate new information
arising from activities of the U.T. System Committees on the Status of
Women and Status of Minorities, and to examine many recent development
potentially affecting U.T. System faculty job satisfaction. Developments of particular significance include new state legislation,
financial restructuring at the health components, and initiative in the
areas of distance learning, computing, and information-resources technology.
distribute the attached Request for Proposals to any and all faculty who
might be interested in constructing the survey instrument, analyzing the
data, and preparing the final report. The U.T. System Office of Academic Affairs in conjunction with the
Office of Information Resources will handle the actual distribution and
collection of the surveys.
contact ????????? if you need additional information.