Home

Guidelines

Committees

Membership

Meetings

Minutes

Travel for FAC

Academic Affairs

Employee
Advisory Council

Student
Advisory Council

The  University  of  Texas  System
Faculty  Advisory Council  Meeting

Meeting Minutes: December 6 - 7, 1999

<back to Index>

1. Meeting called to order at 1001 by Joel Dunnington (FAC Chair, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center).

2.      Chancellor Cunningham visited the FAC meeting: 

a)      Chancellor Search: He is technically not involved in the process, however, he will interview the final candidates to ensure they understand the scope of the position and its responsibilities. 

b)      Legislative Session: A telephone conference call with the local Presidents of the component institutions to identify priorities. The focus will be on: (i) funding of the medical institutions (not properly funded at the last session); (ii) differential flexible tuition; (iii) possibility/need to develop academic flagship universities—which ones they will be and the mechanism for funding to achieve flagship status. In the last funding cycle all universities were brought up a notch with no flagship designations—although there have been discussions, the local Presidents cannot agree as to who should receive flagship status. There had been an extra 75million dollars earmarked for this.

c)      Major challenges for the new chancellor: (i) access/continuing effort to provide access opportunities for students to attend college; (ii) ethnic diversity in the student body and among those graduating; (iii) funding of higher education; (iv) question of flagship institutions as just discussed; (v) immediate immersion in the legislature—will have a lot of scrambling to make the right contacts unless they are already familiar with Texas politics and politicians; and (vi) becoming well-acquainted with the individual campuses will take considerable time.

d)      Capital improvement program: Currently this is where the focus is. The Regents have approved in concept the expenditure of 2 billion dollars over 6 years (wish list).  Are now working to prioritize projects with PUF funds to support some of them. The Academic Affairs Committee will prioritize their projects with input from Ed Sharpe and Chancellor Cunningham, and the Medical campuses will prioritize their projects. Once the choices are made, Ed Sharpe and Charles Mullins will review and make a list of the priorities. Chancellor Cunningham will then take the list to the Board of Regents who will make the final decision re the funding of the projects. These are decisions the board of Regents makes. Then Ed and Charley will come back and a list will be made. Cunningham will take the final list to the BOR and they will make the final decision. Still being discussed is what percentage of the PUF funds will be used—the figures are ranging 4.2-5%.

e)      Run for governor

f)        Legislative Committee: Discussions continue regarding how to respond to the Perry Commission and the Coordinating Board.

g)      UTIMCO and the passage of Proposition 17: will mean millions of new dollars to be made available in the near future. This was a very targeted campaign that worked well.

h)      Chancellor Cunningham thanked the FAC for the commitment to the University of Texas.

3. 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 managed—instead 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 AUF—1/3 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.

Charles Lackey (UT-Brownsville): Why did the debt service go down?

4.      Ed Sharpe (Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs):

There are a number of departments at different components that are having difficulties: The Division of Mathematics and Statistics at UT San Antonio, Communications Department at UT El Paso and the Human Ecology Department at UT Austin. What is going on? I will address each separately.

A. Mathematics Division, UTSA: They have been having trouble for a long time. Last year the Associate VP for Faculty Affairs in the Provost’s Office interviewed each member o the division and concluded that there was deep concern re the health of the division—3 factions appeared. An outside person was brought in as Division Director and also to evaluate if the division can move forward. Weekly meetings of the entire division are being held by a facilitator to begin the process of determining how the faculty can bring the organization into a healthier state. The general expectation is that the faculty can figure out what to do.

Robert 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. Sharpe:  Everything falls under the Open Records Act—anyone 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 this—but 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 issue—from 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. Hale: What is the proper term that describes the situation?

Sharpe: I don’t 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? Sharpe: 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 don’t 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 doesn’t necessarily mean any ill will. Factions do develop as part of the human condition. How do you manage people like that—is 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.

Hale: 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.

Sharpe: You have to put things in context. You don’t 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 can’t 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 work done.

Sue Mottinger (UT-Pan Am): Does that mean the Dean of the College/Provosts are involved?

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 Provost’s Office currently involved.

B. Communications at UT-El Paso:  Communications is in the department of liberal arts, which has a large number of students. This has been a troubled situation for a number of years. A Search for a Department Chair had begun. It was the view of the Administration that the applicants for the position were not acceptable. The Administration decided to use a different model (used in criminal justice)—and so, they used their staff. The department of Communications is being disbanded. The courses will be taught by faculty in other departments following the model used in criminal justice. There are some faculty who are very critical of this approach—they have contacted a number of people in/out of the university. This issue has been aired thoroughly. The press in El Paso have interviewed both inside/outside people, and have chosen not to print anything about this.

Martha Hilley (UT-Austin): the existing faculty in the department—what happens to them?

Ralph Liguori (UT-El Paso): This is not clear yet—things 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 don’t know yet where the affected faculty are going to be placed. The President hasn’t made any public announcements. The faculty are not yet happy—things 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 department’s internal strife.

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 issues.

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 issues—this is not mediation committee.

Page: The question is more about what could be done. At UT-Dallas the president decided to delete a department with one year’s 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 year’s notice. The result is that tenured people are tenured to the university and not their department. The Court suggested the main error in the President’s 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.

C. Human Ecology Department, UT-Austin: The department was having difficulty. There are several different disciplines within the department. There was not a consensus with respect to finding the new department chair. In consultation with the Provost’s office it was determined that there was trusted person that everyone agreed would be a good interim chair (Jack Gilbert) that would help work through the process to find someone. The department is now trying to figure out how to operate. The department is completely in the control of the faculty, and they are happy with Jack.

Hilley: The situation is different from the other two. 90% of UT-Austin faculty don’t know anything about this—is not an issue.

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.

Liguori:  There have been other examples of restructuring at El Paso. This is the one in which the faculty have not participated in a satisfactory way—this 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 Director—this 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 for information

 5.      Minutes were approved with minor corrections.

 Campus Reports

UT-Arlington - Michael Moore

* Three 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.

* Early 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 release, etc.).

* Starting 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.

UT-Austin - Martha F. Hilley

In 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.

Legislation from the Committee on Educational Policy and Curriculum:

            RECOMMENDATIONS:

          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.

Final Report from the Faculty Council ad hoc Committee on Course Instructor Surveys: Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness and Excellence:

            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 section.

Dunnington: Why hasn’t the President passed the grade policy?

Hilley: There is a possibility of having multiple GPA’s on the transcript that would satisfy everyone. For example, you could have transfer credits—at this point they don’t count in the GPA. There is information on the website related to credits.

  University of Texas at Brownsville—Terry Jay Phillips

1.      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. 

2.      A new position for Director of Distance Education has been created and a search is underway to fill that position.

3.      Ground has been broken on two of the four buildings that have been scheduled to begin construction in the current academic year.

4.      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.

5.      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.

6.      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 period.

7.      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".

The 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. Don’t have results yet.

Schneider: 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.

University of Texas at Dallas—Robert Nelsen

The 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 UTD’s home page. You’ll 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 TA’s stipend would be money from faculty, staff, or M&O. Faculty salaries may be comparable with other institutions; however, our TA’s 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 money—from where?—you got it—from 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 Club’s 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 OGC’s decision before reading about it in the student newspaper.

Dunnington: do the students have to sign their name?

Nelsen: We don’t’ 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 review.

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

The issue concerning the reorganization of the Department of Communications continues to circle the campus. It appears that the administration had not thought through the situation fully before announcing the plan to reconstitute the department. They did say at the outset that the plan for reorganization was to be developed during the fall semester and that it would require the participation and support of the faculty. An Ad Hoc Faculty Senate Committee was formed to investigate the impact and ramifications of the change on the curriculum. That committee is still meeting and expects to report to the Senate in February. They appear to have talked to most of the relevant individuals about the situation and their report should be informative. The controversy still swirls, and I have brought a copy of the campus newspaper with a number of stories on the subject.

A troubling situation is developing concerning academic freedom on our campus. Last summer a group of high school students investigated banking practices in El Paso sponsored by an organization called Community Scholars. The report was critical of the banking community for its failure to provide information and for its practices concerning small business loans. It received wide circulation through the local media. The report was submitted to UTEP’s College of Business administration by the director of Community Scholars and was criticized on a scholarly basis. There was a call for a more professional investigation which was to be funded by the local banking community but under the direction of UTEP faculty members. This caused a controversy and has resulted in a letter from State Senator Eliot Shapleigh to the Dean and involved faculty members invoking the Freedom of Information Act to require them to provide him with information concerning contact of these individuals with the affected banks. It is a very detailed list. Further he suggests that any studies done would be tainted and slanted to favor the banks. Since this is coming from a State Senator it is particularly serious and the issue has been turned over to the Committee on Research for a report to the Faculty Senate.

We have discovered that the boiler plate policy Grievance Policy has mysteriously appeared in our HOP. I have discussed the situation with our President and she has agreed to investigate the situation. The policy was never approved by the Faculty Senate. We are beginning to correct the situation.

The issue of grade changes surfaced on our campus. The University Catalog informs students that a request for grade changes must be filed in the Academic Deans office within one year of the assignment of the grade. The HOP spells out that only the Faculty member and in special cases The Student Welfare Committee after an appropriate procedure may assign a grade. Unfortunately there is no link between the two. I have requested that the catalog reference the HOP so that no one be misled into believing that a Dean could change a grade.

A procedural question is developing concerning Faculty Senate minutes and Action Reports. The Faculty Senate passed a curricular change over a year ago. The related action report was neither signed nor disapproved when the other items of the minutes of the same meeting were signed. The issue involved the El Paso Community College curriculum and ours. The Provost appears to be reluctant to approve the change in spite of an accord worked out with EPCC by the affected department and his own Associate VP. The change was implemented with the understanding that the Provost was satisfied by the agreement and has been in effect for this academic year. The Provost is now requiring his staff to undo the change. The issue has to do with the rejection of a Senate Action by pocket veto and without stating the objection to the Senate. We plan to continue the issue with the Provost.

We are currently reviewing the questionnaire for the Faculty Evaluation of Academic Administrators. We successfully implemented our evaluation last year and plan to do it on a biannual basis. We will spend the spring in reviewing recommended changes and then prepare it to be administered in the next academic year.

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 “I’m watching!” or “Don’t do it!”. Senators don’t have power of veto in this.

Liguori: We are not sure yet—he could be saying either. This senator has influence over the budget so that is worrisome.

Dunnington: Is there a refusal of publication if they don’t like the outcomes of the research? If you have that, you’re in trouble.

Liguori: We don’t know—is not imputed in the letter.

University of Texas at Pan American - Sue G. Mottinger

1. UTPA 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.

2.       The 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.

3.       The 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.

4.       A 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.

5.       The 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.

6.       A "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.

7.       A 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.

8.       An 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.

9.       Parking 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 haven’t 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 September—the Web HOP keeper! This is her sole responsibility. She doesn’t write policy. When the policy comes back from System it isn’t 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 what’s 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.

University of Texas at Permian Basin—Corbett Gaulden

P.T.R.:

The 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.

SACS:

SACS 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.

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. The appointment has not yet happened, but will soon.

The 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. 

Hale:  With respect to the Fields of Study—Corbett 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.

The University of Texas at San Antonio - James C. Schneider

RESTRUCTURING 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. Bailey’s qualifications with reference to the job description and Dr. Romo’s 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 Senate’s 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.

            UTSA does not have a privacy policy. A copy of our letter of appointment is attached.

Finally, 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.

UT –Tyler - Steve Rainwater

UT-FAC Action Items:

1.  Attached to this report is a copy of UT-Tyler’s 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 the administrator.

2.   Provided separately to the UT-FAC’s 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 university’s 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 student’s appeal is successful at one of those levels.

5.   Insofar as can be determined, the university has no written privacy policy related to faculty offices, files, mail, or vehicles.
6.      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 formative evaluation.  

Faculty Senate Items:

1.The proposed revision of evaluation/tenure/promotion policies and procedures, which were developed by the Dean’s 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.

2. Consideration of a resolution supporting the establishment of a policy allowing faculty to administratively drop students for excessive absences has been tabled pending further review of the effect of a supposed new federal financial aid policy requiring universities to be responsible for repayment of a portion of student aid when students withdraw from courses.

3. Senate committees reviewed assigned sections of the SACS Institutional Report appropriate to their oversight.  Committee review of the university’s 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 9^th the senate will host the annual Alpha Omega luncheon which recognizes new faculty, recently tenured and/or promoted faculty, and recently retired faculty.

University Items:

1.  The SACS Institutional Report is complete!!!

2.   A 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.

3.                  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 degree. 4.                  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.

UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas—Cheryl Silver