Joel Dunnington (FAC Chair, UT MD Anderson Cancer Centre) called the meeting called to order at 1002.

Approval of the minutes:  approved with no corrections (revised sent out on email).

UT—FAC Executive Council Minutes--Dunnington:

·        Board of Regents:

·        Purchase of the Walmart property for UT Pan American

·        Passed changes in the ethics and conflict of interest polices for board members of the UT Investment Management Company (UTIMCO)

·        No news re: candidates for Chancellor (have not asked for any consultation form the UT FAC)

·        RFP proposal for faculty satisfaction survey continues to be worked on. Dunnington will follow up with Ed Sharpe (Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs).

·        Campus reports should be sent to Terese Verklan (FAC Secretary, UTHSC-Houston) 7 days prior to the general FAC meeting. Verklan will email the campus reports to all members 2 days prior to the meeting, along with “the to do List”. This will also help keep the verbal campus reports to 5 minutes.

·        Daniel Stewart is the new director of the Employee Group Insurance (EGI). Gaulden (UT PB) is a representative on the EGI Advisory Committee. However, the meeting notices arrive so late, his ability to attend is severely limited. The issue will be discussed with Mr. Stewart. 

·        The federal regulation for the New Freedom of Information law was passed last year. Beth Lynn Maxwell from the Office of General Counsel (OGC) will discuss the final draft later in the day.

·        The Mathematics Department at UT San Antonio continues in conflict resolution counseling at this time.

·        Students at UT Dallas will be developing a web page concerning evaluation of faculty teaching on their campus. OGC has reportedly said this was permissible, but the student’s comments would have to be anonymous. The web-based critique falls under the 1^st Amendment freedom.

·        Assignment to committees have been sent out:

·        Academic Affairs: Community College Transfers; Florida and Illinois Transfer Studies; Academic Integrity; Rights on the Web; Status of the Women in Academics Study

·        Faculty Quality Committee: Faculty Satisfaction Survey—RFP; Exit Survey; Privacy; Freedom of Information; Sexual Orientation Statement

·        Governance: Academic Hires; Letters of Appointment; Upward Evaluation of Administrators; Indemnification of Faculty on Committees; Grievance Out of San Antonio’s changes

·        Health Affairs: Freedom of Information; Graduate Medical Information Payments Decreased; Daniel Stewart—New Director of EGI; MSRDP Billing

·        UT-Austin: was found not to be totally compliant with SACS in that SACS questioned the computer literacy and quality of jobs obtained after graduation with a liberal arts and sciences degree. It is believed that SACS just wanted to challenge a leading institution to purposively demonstrate that their students were really prepared. UT-A is now working to accommodate SACS’ recommendation.

                        Shelley Payne (UT-A):  SACS has a statement that the graduate is expected to be computer literate upon graduation.  It was argued that many of the courses offered require the use of computers—students are expected to take one of these prior to graduation. By adding a statement of this type to the general education degree, we should be able to satisfy the SACS criticism.  It is really very similar to the current writing course requirement. All SACS wants to see is that the graduate has the basic knowledge to use a computer.

                        Michael Moore (UT-Arlington): we have also added an oral competency, that of speech, in response to the SACS visit. The students can demonstrate their skill level by taking an existing course that has presentations or the students may take a formal course. For all newly admitted students, it must be documented (checked off) that the student has met this requirement.  

                        Robert Nelsen (UT-Dallas): The oral competency is already a requirement in the common core—why did SACS want this?

                        Moore: I don’t know, but we didn’t have a speech requirement until then.

                        Ralph Liguori (UT-El Paso): Was SACS asking to validate natural science and liberal arts degrees?

                        Payne: SACS wanted us to demonstrate that we had some type of exit exam—we argued that the individual faculty already assesses learning in each class/degree. They want some kind of assessment tool, along with stating in the catalog how the assessment will be done. If we can deal with the computer literacy piece, they may back off on this.

                        James Stokes (UT HSC-Tyler): Is the proposal for a super TASK really from SACS, rather than being independent?

                        Payne: No, that was independent.

                        Nelsen: The TASK document is circulating around the legislature right now. It is being discussed that it is a good form of assessment.

 

 

Beth Lynn Maxwell (Office of General Counsel)—Update on OMB’s Revision to Circular A-110 Regarding Public Access to Research Data Through the Freedom of Information Act

 

Maxwell distributed three handouts: copy of the role; article from the Chronicle of Higher Education and a list of frequently asked questions.

Rule:  Published research data created with federal money has to be made available to the general public upon request.

Origin: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was reluctant to release information regarding their studies which prompted Senator Shelby (Alabama) to make this his mission. It was proposed that the issue be studied for one year—the study was never done. Senator Shelby subsequently inserted two sentences in the Appropriation bill just before it was passed, the bill was not debated and the OMB was then stuck with the two sentences (the rule). In response, there were over 12,0000 comments and letters re the new rule pointing out the numerous problems. It is believed that the rule is there simply because of the EPA, however, it impacts technological research, health research, open up propriety business secretes, etc. The rule did not define what the research activity really is—could be anything, preliminary data, not necessary peer reviewed, any research data (NIH has a study on defining this). There is also no guidance on what type of data was included under this rule (incomplete, not published, etc.).

The rule now has definitions. Research data is defined as recorded factual material accepted in the scientific community necessary to validate research findings (excludes trade secrets, confidential information, intellectual property, etc.). Published data is defined as data in a peer reviewed scientific journal, or if a Federal agency cites the data to support something.  The final rule has been tweaked to include the definitions. The door is still left open to enable the rule to be revised within the next 3 years once the initial requests have been reviewed.

The rule is now in effect. The first real test has been that of the US Chamber of Commerce requesting the EPA for its research—the request was made November 1999 and the EPA has not yet complied.

Liguori:  Does the rule have to be renewed at the end of the year?

Maxwell: It will be renewed every year. 

Jerry Mclarty (UT HSC-Tyler): Large industry may also be behind this—the tobacco industry is very interested in looking at the EPA data. And so was the NRA. 

Maxwell: There was a certain web site, that entered you into a sweepstakes if you said that you were in favor of the bill (rule) and your vote counted yes! 55% of respondents were thus in favor of the bill (rule). Please call me if you get a request of information—requests are likely to be made to attack certain regulations in process, like the EPA or some federal regulatory body.

Moore: Will the state be likely to adopt a similar rule?

Maxwell:  No. This goes through the Freedom of Information Act—the people receiving this information are not trained to evaluate what constitutes research data. FOI Act has two exemptions— commercial business interests and confidentiality—thus, this shouldn’t come down to the State level.  If there is any federal money involved, however, the data needs to be released.

Dunnington:  If you have a core grant at your institution, then all of the data is fair game.

Maxwell:  Yes, everything is open. Your data is validated on a regular basis, the EPA doesn’t have to do this.

Betty Travis (UT-San Antonio): How long do you have to keep your research data?

Maxwell:  3 years after the submission of the final financial report. If the PI chooses to keep the data for longer, then you will be asked to provide that information.

Mellick Sykes (UT HSC San Antonio): This addresses the middle set of data that is not published, but is higher level than preliminary results.  There have been investigators that have published erroneous conclusions—this would allow that someone could look at their data.

Maxwell:  But that’s not the heart of the rule. In scientific publications, you do present your data. This rule is not a vehicle to test the credibility of the science.

Marvin Chasen (UTMDACC): You could question the results by writing a letter to the editor and then the author can respond. If this conflict continues, does this put the editor on the spot to initiate an investigation?

Maxwell: This process could be used to demand the data that supported the conclusions.  FOI Act is not equipped to deal with these types of requests (data, reimbursement, etc.), so there will need to be much more tweaking of the rule. There are still many issues that need to be addressed such as, for example, who will pay for the researcher to comply with this request? The person requesting the information can’t just make a blanket request—they must state why they want it, identify the specific study, identify the specific publication, exactly what data it is that they want access to, etc. The request to the EPA is actually still pending—are talking about a shield of secrecy—they think the Shelby amendment is way too broad.

McLarty:  Are there restrictions on what can be done with the data once the person requesting it receives it? For example, can someone else publish results?

Maxwell: The institution owns the data. It would really be incredible if that person requesting the information subsequently publishes after looking at the data.

Ivor Page (UT-Dallas, Past-Chair, UT FAC): There could be a major discovery that has preliminary work that is kept very confidential. You may not be able to protect your work effectively now when you publish preliminary results. The researcher may not want to say anything until he/she wins the Nobel prize!

Maxwell:  That’s a good point—that’s why the rule will be evaluated every 3 years—to see exactly how the request and the data from those requests are being used.

Sykes: The scope of this appears to be so narrow that I don’t see it stealing intellectual property.

Maxwell: We are talking more about the publications. Much of the researcher’s work is protected (preliminary, not published, etc.) and it will be decided if it was research or not. Personal notebooks will never be classified as research. See 2^nd page of frequently asked questions—it defines what is research.

 

 

Georgia K. Harper (Attorney, Office of General Counsel)—Confidentiality of Mail and Personal Email, and Who has the Authority to Publish Information on the World Wide Web?

 

Privacy issues are becoming more of an issue due to the increased use of the world wide web and email systems. Two articles pertain here—employee privacy and publishers liability for what is published on line.

 

Privacy law is a patch work—there really is no one thing that gives rights. There is tort law, statutory parts of federal law that protect electronic communications. The electronic communications privacy act does not really apply here—it extends the wire tapping law into the electronic environment. This only protects the information while it is in transit, however, it doesn’t apply to the employer, the owner of the communication system. In addition, the Freedom of Information Act and Open Records also work against privacy. In contrast, there is the Family Education and Right to Privacy Act, along with a constitutional right to privacy (4^th amendment—limits search and seizure), and rights to sexual privacy.

These areas of the law are very difficult to understand—it all comes down to whether you had a reasonable expectation to privacy in that particular situation. The employer’s policy sets the stage/groundwork for this. An employer can decide ahead of time whether what you do in your office is private or not. Our policy is found in Business Procedure Memorandum (BPM) 53, which can also be found online. All state agencies had to adopt a similar policy to be in compliance—emphasizes that the information network is state property and belongs to the state, and is there for us to do our jobs. Our mission defines what we use it for—we are here to teach and establish an environment of inquiry. BPM 53 also sets out when the system owners and operators have the right to look at what is on the system. Thus, there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy at the University of Texas (employee privacy policy outlines 5 reasons why you do not). There are some universities who have said that email is private and will not looked at it.

There has been related litigation:  An employee sued the employer because the employee sent a message that was unprofessional to his supervisor. The supervisor subsequently used the message as a part of a disciplinary action. This action was made public and the employee was punished. The court dismissed it out of hand—it was not reasonable to expect privacy in an email—the situation was likened to being at the watercooler. In addition, even if you did have an expectation of privacy, it was not unreasonable to share the highly offensive content as the company has an interest in preventing inappropriate/unprofessional/illegal activity on the email—this interest is put before the privacy rights of the individual.

Linda Phillips (UTMB): What if the email is labeled highly confidential?

Harper: There was a case involving Microsoft—the company went into the person’s computer directory and found those files. The court said that the computer was there for you to do your job—you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.

Sykes: What if you received a personal mail at work?

Harper: The US mail has rules that do not apply to email.

Moore: Unless the mail is marked personal and confidential it can be opened.

Harper: Yes, once it hits the office we can open it.  The US government doesn’t operate the email system. Getting something out of the mailbox is like an interception rather than getting it off the web where it resides, especially after it has already been opened on the server.

Page: If an employer were to systematically read the faculty’s email on a regular basis like surveillance, would the employee have a case?

Harper: There are guidelines in the 4^th amendment—unreasonable search and seizure may provide a framework for the investigation. If an employer suspects wrongdoing (illegal/unprofessional, etc), the faculty can be investigated. The emails may be the evidence you need. I don’t know if you know but you can enter a person’s name at Deja News and get a list of every message they have ever submitted to Deja News! This is legitimate. On the other hand, if there is a malicious reason to do this, that doesn’t fit in with the guidelines of the 4^th amendment or the exemptions with BMP 53 when we reserve the right to look at what is going on on a person’s computer.

James Turley (UT-Houston HSC): There may be problems when Health Information Protection Act (HIPA) is used.

Harper: HIPA requires us to keep certain things confidential—is it private from the public or from ourselves? There are 2 laws that seem to conflict, federal law always trumps state law—BMP 53 would be trumped by HIPA. This would be sorted out when the request was made for the information

Nelsen:  When does the individual have to be notified that searches of their email are being done?

Harper: Notification is not a part of any of the laws.

Nelsen: Is there a retention date on how long the employee can keep the information on file?

Harper: Document retention schedules guide this—but this only applies to the original. A copy can be kept forever.

David Farquhar (MDACC): Our chief information officer says that all email is archived. They can look into it anytime they want.

Harper: This is true, but there are some important distinctions. For example, preparing for disaster—we have a rolling back up of everything on the system. Also we have to send to the state archives, all kinds of stuff—there is some sort of record that goes back for long time, but to what extent it is accessible, with respect to document retention schedules, is unclear.

Ralph Liguori (UT-El Paso): If I do state business on my home computer, does that open the home computer to search?

Harper: That is possible, but with limitations. If you didn’t take the original file home, we can’t insist on the copy—the same is true in the electronic environment.

Liguori: An airline went after an employee who was supporting a sick out—they seized his records for this.

Harper: They needed to have probable cause to do this. It appears to be work related so they would need to have a reasonable basis for going after his home computer records.

James Stokes (UT-Tyler HSC): Does an individual have any right to encrypt files?

Harper: That is extremely controversial. The individual could be compelled to de-encrypt. Because we are state employees, we can’t use encryption to circumvent the open records act. It also runs into things like HIPA where we do have to encrypt—but this is not subject to the open records act (30 exemptions).

Stokes: Let’s say that an employer is keeping email without cause and we are not notified—if we are to insist that anything sent needs to be encrypted, it could prevent the employer from looking without having the key.

Harper: But if someone invokes the open records act, then we would not be in compliance and the person in charge would be liable for not being able to do de-encrypt the file–the institution would be in violation of federal law. There is a policy in the works prohibiting encryption unless the content is exempted. The problem is that you don’t really know what is exempt—thus there is a default to the thought that everything is subject to open records. Also keep in mind that BMP 53 does not permit curious surveillance—people can’t just look at email.

Stokes: The word “audit” is pretty broad.

Harper: If this activity is occurring, bring it to the attention of the Ethics officer at your institution. 

 

 

The U. T. System K-16 Initiative—Ed Sharpe, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Ivor Page, Past-Chair, FAC, UT-Dallas

 

The K-16 committee was established by the System composed of people from the System. The committee has been meeting since last summer. The problem identified is, that for the State of Texas we needed to produce 20,000 more bachelor degree students per year for the next 10 years. UT-Austin produces less than 20,000 bachelor degree students per year. If this goal cannot be met, it is forecasted that we will have an unskilled, uneducated population that can not compete economically or work effectively in business/economic endeavors. Economic trends project that household incomes would decrease—and increases in poverty would be seen. Another issue is that our drop out rates are higher in every grade level when compared to the national average—this also needs to be addressed.

The problems lie in a number of areas: by the time the students reach 3^rd grade, they are behind in their reading—can’t get them back up to speed after this. It has been shown that if reading lags at 5^th grade it will always be a problem.

            2^nd problem—dropout rate at algebra 1, which is needed for entry to University—can’t support technological career/advanced learning. Reading and mathematics skills lag and the student can never make it to college. Mathematics and reading levels tend to be poor if the student takes a lot of vocational classes.

            There is a major discrepancy between economic groups and ethnicity. Minority families and children do have the same aspirations for economic security as Anglos. On examination, there is only a very small proportion of ethnicities represented in college/university. Poor school districts suffer from inadequate supplies, equipment and poorer qualified teachers. This lack of resources has devastating effects on the education. Three inadequate teachers in a row dooms the student to failure. There is a large proportion of teachers who are not certified to teach the content they are providing. A student’s score of A’s in the substandard school system tend to translate into C’s at the better schools—are about 4 grade levels behind their counterparts in the better districts.

            We must do more than improve retention without dropping standards. Money is very significant indicator of success—will take a lot of money and brave legislation to close the ethnic gap.

            How to use U.T. System to assist in solving the problem, not just for Texas, but for the nation:

·        PowerPoint presentation at a Board of Regents meeting introduced them to the importance of this issue.

·        Texas has four million students and 1,042 school districts. The State Board of Education and the legislature has different rules under which they operate. Higher education has 800,000 students in 6 university systems and 50 community college districts. This adds up to about 500-600 board members thus involved with the governance of education. The State of Georgia has one Board of Regents that is responsible for both the universities and the community colleges. The Challenge: who speaks for higher education, and what is the best means to accomplish the goal given the amount of autonomous agencies involved. The Coordinating Board is supposed to be orchestrating things, but it is acting much more like a regulatory agency. This is the collision of the two worlds in Texas.

·        We want to reach the national average each year: 17,000 more associate degrees and 20,000 more bachelor degrees to achieve the national average. There will have to be a focus on the lower socioeconomic class to make the gains. The U.T. Board of Regents has given strong support from their Academic Affairs committee to do this.

·        U. T. components: All components are involved in the project to varying degrees. For example, the El Paso collaborative for academic excellence includes the community college and the three largest school districts in the area. The Uteach program at UT-Austin is nationally recognized.

·        U. T. System: The office of Academic Affairs is trying to involve itself in programmatic activities instead of regulatory ones.

·        Felipe Alanis, Assistant Vice Chancellor, has an ongoing advisory responsibility to Jim Nelson, the Texas Commissioner of Education

·        The U. T. System K-16 Leadership Council has representatives from all components.

·        The U. T. System K-16 seminar was held January 30-31/00. Participants included community colleges, academic presidents, five community college presidents, superintendents, Jim Nelsen, and Charles Miller (Chair of the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Regents).

·        Have developed an agenda for long term collaboration that includes an advanced placement program, mathematics in grades 8-13: the Algebra I Project to develop successful qualified teachers), UT-H Reading K-3: Professional development initiative;

·        Beyond U.T. System:

·        The Chief Academic Officers of the 6 University systems meet monthly for discussions;

·        Texas Association of Community Colleges and the U. T. System superintendents advisory group created;

·        Texas school alliance includes both the largest and the smallest school districts to improve the number of students coming out of public schools; the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; State Board of Education Certification; Texas Business and Education Coalition (TBEC); Education Trust Initiative. The guiding principles in the Initiative: Accountability—focus on student achievement as key outcome measure; Equity –close the achievement gap between ethnicities; need for change and improvement—build on public school reform movement; data-driven actions; value of collaboration; sustained effort.

 

Nelsen:  How is this funded?  The Chair of the Appropriations Committee says there is no money for this.

Sharpe: Currently there are discussions looking into a legislative approach for this. We are also looking into federal level and private sources.

Craven: What is the State Board of Educator Certification?

Sharpe: It used to be part of TPA. It develops the test that teachers must pass to be certified to teach in public schools.

Craven: If teachers then don’t know how to teach Math and Science, what does that mean about the State board of educator certification? They really are not ensuring that the teachers are competent.

Sharpe: This is more demand for teachers than is supplied. Thus they are not all certified, and we know that some of them are not qualified.  There is nothing more important than getting able teachers in the classroom.

Corbett Gaulden (UT-Permian Basin): Senator Bivins says we want more people to go to community colleges for the first 2 years and you say that we need 20,000 more bachelor degrees per year. Someone needs to educate the legislature about the problem/issues.

Sharpe: Those figures are based on the national average. We need to work with the legislature to determine how to best meet the needs. There are some very good things going on in some of the community colleges here—need to work with them to turn out the best graduate.

Moore: Is there any momentum to creating a single board that will cover both universities and the community colleges?

Sharpe: I don’t’ think this is getting serious attention. It would be too much responsibility.

Moore: Accountability of the objectives  and the TEAF proposal is circulating. Do you think that this will be tied together?

Sharpe: I don’t think that proposal has gained any momentum.

Stokes: What is the drive for the numbers related to the needed graduates coming from?

Sharpe: The view is an economic one—if we don’t produce a broad range of people ready for the workforce, we will be in economic crisis.

Dunnington: How is big business supporting the education? They want good deals and don’t want to pay taxes for a period of time. In my area, the kids are not tested until they fail 2 grades. If the school finds out they have learning disabilities, the school district then has to take care of them—meaning Special Education. The school district takes a long time to determine if and when the child has problems. This is not helping the situation.

Sharpe: Remedial work that needs to follow the problem is not occurring like it should. We may see something addressing this at the legislative level soon.

Ross Sherman (UT-Tyler): The proposal to establish literacy centers at all UT components was not carried in the legislature. Where is this now?

Sharpe: The proposal did not get into the higher education coalition that went forward. We are taking a broader view and including the community colleges now. We are going to try to put together a legislative package to go forth.

 

CAMPUS  REPORTS

 

University of Texas at Arlington—Michael Moore

·        The Faculty Senate has adopted and/or finalized the following policies:

-         Upward Review of Administrators - mostly minor changes.  Ready for final approval

-         Grievance Policy - mostly minor changes.  Ready for final approval.

-         Family Leave Policy - to create consistency across campus and expand coverage.  President Witt as agreed to the policy.

-         Privacy Policy - Requires that employees be notified that most means of communication are not private.  Also requires the president be the only one to order any monitoring.

-         Post Tenure Review - Added section for those who have joint appointments.  Also now requires that the administration notify faculty members when the process has been completed.

-         By-laws have been amended to require that the Chair of the Senate be a current member of the Senate or a past member.

·        Enrollment is up 5 percent for the Spring.  Officials are crediting much of the gain to Winter session and to distance education.

-         Wintersession and Maymester raise potential difficulties related to faculty salaries.  These courses are “capped” at $3500 for most faculty.  However, summer courses are paid at a rate of one-tenth of the nine month rate.  University officials have indicated that they would like to raise the rates, however, the recent announcement for Wintersession 2000 show no movement.

·        President Witt announced that faculty and staff would be eligible for 4% raises based on merit.

·        Some bad news.  The university learned that the bricks on nursing and business buildings are literally falling off and will need to be replaced to the tune of $12.5 million.  This was money that we had hoped to use for new construction.

·        Administrative Departure.  Our former Dean of Engineering who had been named a vice-president in charge of the Riverbend Campus has left the university to become a dean of Engineering in Florida.

·        The university has taken the plunge in major media advertising with television spots on the local NBC station.  The advertisements air during the Today Show, Jay Leno and Saturday Night Live.  The first spot focuses on distance education and future ones will focus on Maymester, Riverbend Campus, and other aspects of UTA.  The early reports are that ads are generating more inquires into the university.

 

How do you compensate your faculty in “special sessions”? 1/10 of their rate in the summer. Administration wants to cap the compensation at $3500/course irregardless of the faculty member’s salary.

Senior faculty are finding it difficult to continue in light of being Medicare eligible. Physicians do not want to see them.  How are the other campuses handling this?

Shelley Payne (UT-A):  You have paid family leave?

Moore: Yes, the policy is posted on our web page.

 

The University of Texas at Austin--Martha Hilley

·        Active legislation has not been prevalent this academic year.  To date the Faculty Council has acted on seven formal legislative reports.  All may be found on the Faculty Council web page http://www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/.  A quick survey of legislative action includes:

·        Recommendation from Rules Committee on U.T System Faculty Advisory Council Representatives [The Chair and the Past Chair shall represent U.T. Austin on the U.T. System Faculty Advisory Council.]   Approved by the Faculty Council on September 20, 1999.  Approved by General Faculty October 12, 1999, and transmitted to President on October 13, 1999. Approved by President December 22, 1999.

·        Recommendation from Rules Committee on Faculty Council Executive Committee  [The Executive Committee of the Faculty Council (a standing committee of the Faculty Council). a. Composition: The Chair, and Chair Elect, and Past Chair of the Faculty Council; the Secretary of the Faculty Council; one Faculty Council member (elected by the voting members of the Faculty Council) from each of the following standing committees: Faculty Advisory Committee on Budgets, Educational Policy Committee, and Faculty Welfare Committee; and the Chair (or the Chair Elect in the absence of the Chair) of the Graduate Assembly.]

Approved by the Faculty Council on September 20, 1999.  Approved by General Faculty October 12, 1999, and transmitted to President on October 13, 1999.

Approved by President December 22, 1999.

·        Recommendation from Educational Policy Committee on Changes in Policies Concerning Grades Awarded with Credit by Examination [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.]  Approved by the Faculty Council on November 15, 1999. Transmitted to President November 16, 1999.

·        Report from the Faculty Council ad hoc Committee on Course Instructor Surveys Evaluating Teaching Effectiveness and Excellence. Approved by the Faculty Council on November 15, 1999. Transmitted to President November 16, 1999.

·        Report from the Educational Policy Committee on changes in the Basic Education Requirement.  Calls for the addition of a statement regarding basic use of computers as well as the definition and assessment of student computer competency.  Approved by the Faculty Council on March 20, 2000.

·        Report from the Committee on Committees concerning the creation of a standing faculty committee on academics and athletics.  Defeated by the Faculty Council on March 20, 2000.

·        Report from the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility on the mid-probationary review policy.  Recommendation was amended to “proceed no later than the fourth probationary year and be completed in the same semester as it was started.”  The full text is available at the Faculty Council web site.  Approved by the Faculty Council on March 20, 2000.

 

·        Major issues other than legislation have included:

1)      Cancellation of the Kissinger Speech

2)      Reorganization of the upper administration

·        The proposed reorganization will allow President Faulkner more

                        time to focus more global issues, including the outside community.

                        Dr. Faulkner’s plan calls for ten (10) vice presidents instead of the

                        current seven (7).  Duties of some of the current vice presidents will

                        change under the new plan.

·        There will be a new office of campus services (portfolio will include human resources, facilities, police, utilities, parking, environmental health and safety). An office of information technology will be formed as well as an office of public affairs.

               

Travis: Was the athletic committee not formed?

Payne: A large report was just completed that suggested changes for the athletic committee that should be addressed by the President first. That’s why we didn’t go forward with it.

 

 

The University of Texas at Brownsville—Terry Jay Phillips

1.      Enrollment Goal – 20,000 in 2010: The administration has set this as a goal.  At the general faculty meeting in January, a resolution was passed which stated that the faculty could only support this goal if there were the proper resources available.  The faculty feels that the institution is already at the limit of the services it can provide without major new resources in the way of space, new faculty, new support staff, etc. and to propose a goal of such huge enrollment increases (more than doubling in ten years) without proper consideration of the resource implications would be imprudent.  There was a retreat of the VP’s held in late February, to determine the resources needed to reach this enrollment goal.

2.        An assessment plan for general education curriculum is being formulated. The various academic departments that administer courses under the general education core were assigned the task of devising the methods of assessment of each individual course to determine how the various “Competencies” and “Perspectives”, designated by the THECB are being met in each course.

3.      The current Provost has announced that he will be stepping down.  He has indicated that he will serve until a replacement can be found.  The Provost told the Dean’s Council that some of the reasons for his decision dealt with frustration in relation to the lack of resources to hire new faculty and increase current faculty salaries.

 

 

The University of Texas at Dallas—Robert Nelsen

*Enrollments are going through the roof—up 11% this spring.  How much in the fall?  8 to 10% overall, maybe 12% or more. Actual acceptances are up 30% from this time last year. We have no place to put any of these people. No new dorms will be built until 2002.  Portable classrooms have been ordered.

 

*The odious code of conduct that I kept warning about has become "compliance training." We are currently in the middle of (in my opinion) a major catastrophe. The access to media web training module is a joke, absolutely misleading, and an embarrassment to the System and to the Board of Regents. I asked our President to take down the web site (as was done in El Paso); he refused in spite of my sincere and adamant protestations. The Senate, therefore, passed a “resolution” stating that the faculty considered all of the modules as the view of the administration only, that taking any of the modules did not constitute an agreement to comply with the administration’s views, and that faculty retain their rights to speak and act according to normal academic and legal standards as the faculty understand them.  More to come. This issue is clearly on its way to the courts. On our end, we are rewriting the access to media site, but that site is only one of the myriad of legal and ethical problems that the System’s policy muddies and fails to address. 

 

*The funding of TA's has come to a head—the TA’s were about to go on strike. The administration has offered a proposal ($1000, $500 tuition reimbursement, annual raises on the basis of the annual percentage offered to faculty, etc.). The TA’s have said yes…..  The Deans are unhappy because each school will have to cut its budget by 2.5% to pay for the raises. The raises still leave the teaching assistants $500 dollars below what UTD considers (in published form) the minimal subsistence level of the graduate students to be.

 

*If the administration changes the grades of any of our students (they have always been able to do this), the faculty will at least be notified from here on out.

 

*UTD has been given the right to write a policy on non-discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation." The Senate tried to do this by just adding the words to the catalogue, but failed. The actual policy to be put in handbooks, etc., will work just as well.

 

*The Senate added wording to the catalogue to make it clear that the catalogue is not a contract and that faculty cannot be sued on the basis of changes in the catalogue.

 

* The System's lawyers in Austin have, according to the administration’s opinion, given the students permission to put up anonymous pages (without censorship or limits regarding language, tone, content, or number) for open comments about professors.  These pages will appear on the UTD web site and will therefore be supported by UTD (and System) money.  The debate on campus is, to say the least, rancorous.  Next month the faculty will be considering a motion to be sent to the President asking him to refuse to use University funds to support such a site.

                                               

Payne: With respect to the compliance document—we have no training piece, it is just expected that you will be in compliance with the relevant state laws.

Farquhar: We had an open forum for faculty that resulted in a fiasco. Although it is anonymous, the email can always be traced, and when that was made known, the amount of inflammatory remarks decreased greatly.

 

The University of Texas – Pan American--Sue G. Mottinger

1.      Administration Evaluation:  The UTPA Faculty Senate is conducting an evaluation by

the faculty of the President, Provost/VPAA, Deans, and the Director of the Library.  Opinions based upon a Likert scale will be reported to the Faculty Senate and shared with each administrator. The Chair of the Faculty Senate will share written comments with the appropriate administrator.

2.      Dean Searches:  There are two dean searches occurring:  Dean of the College of

Business Administration, and Dean of the College of Social & Behavioral Sciences.  Each search should be completed before the end of the spring semester.

3.      Curriculum:  The UTPA faculty passed a referendum for a 51-advanced hour

minimum requirement for all degree programs at the university. A core curriculum oversight committee that includes faculty and administrators has been established.

4.      Faculty Salary: A Faculty Senate committee recently completed a study of summer

school compensation and overload compensation for faculty. The report, including recommendations, was submitted to the President. At this time, discussions and negotiations are occurring with the President and Faculty Senate.

5.      President & Faculty Senate:  By invitation, the President of UTPA addressed the

Faculty Senate at its March meeting.  Legislative issues and faculty salary are on the agenda.

6.      Construction:  The general-purpose classroom and student union building

constructions are progressing.  A groundbreaking ceremony will take place in the spring for the new on campus, apartment style, residence housing.

7.