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








Travel for FAC

Academic Affairs

Advisory Council

Advisory Council



The University of Texas System
Faculty Advisory Council

Meeting Minutes: December 6 - 7, 2000

<back to Index>

1. Meeting called to order at 1000

2. Minutes approved with minor corrections.

3. Tom Scott: Vice Chancellor for Governmental Relations-Upcoming Legislative Session

Michelle Brock, chair of the group who provides supplemental income for the Chancellor for sundry items, would like to be more involved in UT activities. Hired Nancy Frank (worked with Senator Ratliff) who is very knowledgeable re legislative issues. Have arranged a supportive operation for the students to keep them abreast of legislative items. Can access where we are on a number of issues at the website.

Legislative issues:

  • Increasing Instruction and Operations and Infrastructure Support Formula Funding--$250M for biennium. The formula increase for the 15 UT System institutions is $94M.
  • Faculty and staff salary increases (standard request)
  • Benefits: group health insurance-will require $102M dollars just for UT System to maintain the current benefit structure.
  • New initiatives: in concert with the other university systems (see briefing paper)
  • Funding K-16 programs to meet Texas' goal of increasing the number of university graduates-expanding pre-college outreach programs; advanced preparation in the high-school for college; work with public schools to better prepare their students for university; supplemental instruction; increase in funds for faculty salary increases-formulae would reward the teacher for number of undergraduate hours taught. Eligible faculty would be tenure or tenure-track (are trying to broaden the credentials for this). Could generate slightly less than 2M. Ratliff is very interested in this.
  • Capital needs through tuition revenue bonds: have used this twice in the last decade by focusing on it every other session. Have solicited proposals for all campuses. Could be about $180M for UT components.
  • Transition from capital equity in excellence: had $78M dollars funded thru 2 stage formulae. Distributed through HEAF and PUF. Legislature also authorized proposition 17 to free up some assets of the PUF. The money has a short shelf life-are working with the other systems to retool it and redistribute it to all systems (mission enhancement) without the controversy.

    Robert Nelsen (UT-Dallas): Can you comment on which universities will actually receive the money under this program and which ones will be hurt.

    Scott: the program will address all universities. Also involved here is the issue of permitting universities to retain 100% of their indirect cost funding received from research grants/contracts. There is also the newly funded $1M that all universities will receive. There is talk to set the threshold differently for other universities that want to be more research oriented. For example, the University of Houston and Texas Tech have put forth a proposal targeting numbers of anticipated doctoral graduates and a threshold of research expenditures they can attain. The threshold is one that all universities can aspire to-won't be a categorical naming of one or more universities that would be the anointed ones who would enjoy extra monies from the legislature.

    Nelsen: How will the initiatives affect other institutions in our system. Are we supporting this-where exactly do we stand here.

  • Scott: We are supporting the notion that there needs to be more top flight research oriented universities other than UT-Austin in the state. But there also has to be a realistic possibility that those institutions can achieve this status. There is a lot of wrangling going on right now.

  • Enhancing research funding for the health institutions: Several formulae funding changes are proposed that would add funds to the health science campuses.
  • Economy and efficiency measures-deregulation. Changes in law that would enable the institution to conduct their procurement processes free of some of the state regulation that are cumbersome. We are talking to members of the legislature. Please note that this does not include tuition deregulation-it will be a separate issue. Tuition deregulation will allow the local Board of Regents to set their own tuition rates-very controversial on the House side.

Mansour El-Kikhia (UT-San Antonio): This is a wish list-in your opinion what kind of success do you think we will have?

Scott: I take exception that this is a wish list. These priorities have been developed in conversations with the Chairs of the Finance committee, Appropriations committee, etc. Every item on the list has a good chance of being obtained, with the exception of deregulation of tuition. The House side is very uncomfortable with that issue-would have to amend the general law. They are afraid that some of their constituents would be priced out of the market. On the indirect cost issue, we may have to discuss phrasing in with them since it is a big ticket item, Chairman Ratliff and the others are conceptually in agreement, so there is a very good chance we will be successful.

Hans Kellner (UT-Arlington): You brought up the notion of expanding the definition of faculty so that they could receive the supplemental money, and I am concerned. The problem is that we don't have the authorization to hire full faculty members who aren't on a full time basis.

Scott: UT System is predominately urban compared to some of the other university systems. We as a system have a more dynamic workforce than the others in terms of length of tenure -we can earn more if we can broaden that definition. You are raising an institutional policy. We would like to enable the individual institution to be able to be more flexible.

Betty Travis (UT-San Antonio): I thought you were going to say that the issue of faculty raises would not be received well by the legislature. Do you think there finally is a chance that faculty will see a raise?

Scott: I think we can make the case that faculty should receive the same adjustments that staff do.

Nelsen: Last year we came close to changing the wording from there "shall" be FOS to there "may" be FOS.

Scott: I don't know where SB148 is right now (is now 1261). I will have to get back to you.

Corbett Gaulden (UT-PB): Both are chaired by Bivins.

4. Cullen M. (Mike) Godfrey, Vice Chancellor and General Counsel

I have been here for 6 weeks. I came from private industry, and have no background in education. This allows me to be skeptical of a lot of what I see. But I may not be so helpful right now because I am on such a steep learning curve. For the past 10 years I was the counsel for FINA (Dallas), an oil and gas company. FINA has sales of 4.5B per year in the US.

I have met with Betty Travis and Robert Nelsen this morning for a few minutes, and I will tell you what I have told them. OGC is a service organization. The office should help the UT-System to do what they want and need to do. We are not responsible to write policy, but help you do things within the limits of the statues and regents rules. UT-System is not a system without you (and the students, etc). The System is the client, but you make up the System. You will get response from OGC. I will not tell you that you can't do something unless there is a rule that says you can't do it. I will do everything within my power to help you.

I give you my commitment that my lack of knowledge re the academics will not impede me in helping you. I will get up to speed as quickly as I can because I respect the mission that you all have-you educate our students-exactly what the system is charged to do. I also have an open office. You can call/email at anytime. And I want to know when you think that you are not getting a response from OGC.

Jerry McLarty (UT-Tyler): I am encouraged to hear these open words. We have had some difficulty in the past, especially with the individual campus grievance policies.

Godfrey: This is not the first time I have heard this. All I can say today is that I don't know, but I will find out. I will also make a commitment that the office of OGC will explain to you why we think you can't do something. We will not force our judgment on you.

Joel Dunnington (MDACC): We now have compliance committees on all campuses. They have been set up largely to protect the institution. Some times things stay there and don't get fixed. They should not be just stamped with lawyer-client privilege and then nothing gets done.

Godfrey: Sometimes we lawyers think we deal in a mystic environment! When we try to give you legal advice, we will do it in a way that is helpful and not totally useless. If you think we are not doing this, please call me.

5. Announcements

Josefina Tinagero (UT-EP) has agreed to be our official representative to the K-16 committee.

Chancellor Burck sent the list of executive appointments as of today (with an FYI to us):

  • Kerry Kennedy as Executive Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs
  • Tom Scott as Vice Chancellor for Governmental Relations
  • Armando Diaz as Vice Chancellor for Community Relations
  • Randy Wallace as Assistant Vice Chancellor and Controller

Since our last meeting Regent Miller has corresponded with me and would like to meet to discuss the accountability issues. I asked Martha Hilley and Corbett Gaulden to join the meeting. We met and now have a better idea of his expectations. It is very clear the accountability issue will go forward with or without faculty input. This is the first time a Regent met with faculty on an issue where we were actually advisory. Corbett and Martha have been invited by Regent Miller to attend the Board of Regents' Academic Affairs committee.

Corbett, and a faculty representative from the University of Houston have been invited to be members on the fields of study committee-at the end of the meeting the "transfer problem" was changed to "transfer issues" (since there is no data to support the fact that there is an actual problem). The Commissioner himself is chairing that committee.

We held an executive committee meeting in Tyler before meeting with the Board of Regents. In addition to discussing the accountability issue, we discussed the 4 items we wanted to bring before the Regents (accountability, fields of study, EGI and the faculty satisfaction survey). The meeting with the Regents went very well. Regent Loeffler asked us at the end of the meeting if we really represented the faculty on our campuses? Joel told him we were elected by our faculty, took our responsibilities seriously, etc. We may want to think a little more about this and respond to this. It is believed that the question may have arisen from the President's meeting where it was suggested that we really didn't represent our faculty.

January 8, 2001 from 8-1030: The Board of Regents Academic Affairs Committee will meet at Ashbel Hall. Hilley and Gaulden have been invited to participate in the meeting. However it is an open meeting, so anyone may attend.

Accountability/Assessment and Fields of Study--Ray Rodrigues, Academic Affairs; Martha Hilley; Corbett Gaulden; Dr. Joe Stafford, Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

Stafford: Please let me begin with introducing Raymond Rodrigues. He comes to us with expertise in assessment and a commitment to effective learning. He will be working closely with us on these topics.

Rodrigues: Presentation "Assessment"

Assumptions (pg 1)
Assessment Purposes
Assessment Cycle -- Models says academic assessment is the responsibility of the academic
Types of Assessments -- My favorite-embedded assessments: it happens as faculty are teaching their courses normally. This is not an add on.

El-Kikhia: If the student has to work and comes to class unprepared, what are we expected to do?

Stafford: Stop thinking of accountability as an assessment of the faculty only. We are looking at all factors that impact learning. If a student has to work, and we can document that this impacts learning, then we can make a case for an increase in student aid, for example.

Rodriquez: UT-Brownsville has a very large part-time student population. If we can develop this assessment process perhaps we can obtain funding for faculty to do research into this area

El Kikhia: This can result in dumbing down of the course. What if 75% of your class is failing because they are working and therefore not engaged in the classroom?

Rodrigues: If we can demonstrate that this goes on, then we have something to propose in a way of dealing with the issue. Can we use what they are doing outside the classroom to help with what they are doing in the course?

Richard Rahr (UTMB): Perhaps computer assisted learning would be helpful here-we can offer the education in a different way.

Rodrigues: Some schools are experimenting with enhanced distance learning in a regular class. They may meet only 1/3 of the time to determine how the students are doing

Nelsen: I see that course evaluations/instruments are not a part of the assessment phase. Students actually write direct comments on course evaluations-are course evaluations to be completely eliminated.

Rodrigues: They can be but I don't have a lot of faith in how course evaluations are presented to administrators. Very rarely do students really criticize what goes on in the course. They simply go down the list and check things off-it is not a thoughtful exercise in what they think they have learned.

Issues surrounding assessment

Kellner: You have mentioned quite a few models. What if our campus designed what we thought was a great assessment plan? What if each component designed their own assessment plan? Would this be acceptable?

Rodrigues: I don't have an answer to that.

Kellner: Is there a controlling legal authority that can say that's fine?

Travis: Regent Miller and the Board of Regents would likely be that.

El Kikhia: I think we are looking at the problem in the wrong place. This has to start at junior high. By the time the students get to us they either know how to read or write or they don't. It s not my job to teach this, and this is what is becoming expected. We can design great models and tests, but if the students are not capable of doing the work, then it won't work.

Rodrigues: I would say, could we design assessment data that will give credence to what you are saying. Even the Coordinating Board recognizes that the TASP is a low level test that says little about preparation for the university.

El Kikhia: 50% of new students don't come back at my campus. This tells you something-50% are not capable of taking the courses.

Stafford: That speaks to the importance of the K-16 initiatives. We have a responsibility to reach out to the high schools. We can't pass the buck and say it's the junior high school's fault or the parents' fault. We have to partner with the schools.

Rodrigues: We do have the K-16 on the legislative agenda. Now that the TASP is given to the students while at the school, it is more apparent that the student is not as well prepared as previously believed.

Judy Teale (UTHSCSA): We have a program for science teachers, where they keep their full time jobs and obtain a master's upon completion. They go back to their classrooms after graduation-the competencies from these teachers/students have dramatically increased.

Curriculum and Assessment Improvement figure -- Accreditation bodies are looking at what supports there are. When this is built into the model, the support mechanisms become the most important piece.

Kellner: This is a closed system.

Travis: But it doesn't have to be-you could use the information to go to the legislature to ask for more support/funds.

James Bartlett (UT-Dallas): The Board of Regents seems to be very oriented to having an external test. Miller used the term "high-stakes" testing. Would baccalaureate achievement be considered high stakes enough for him?

Dunnington: Where is the data that says the student is meeting the demands of the workforce?

Stafford: I think Miller believes that we don't have a process that allows us to do the kind of self-assessment process that is depicted here. He wants us to have a process where we are in charge of controlling the overall learning process. If he can articulate that the UT System is taking learning seriously and are investigating how to improve it, then we have achieved what he wants. This is a different matter than external testing/demands of the workplace.

Sophia Andres-Barnett (UT-PB): Have people considered higher standards for graduation-then you would have people who know how to write! Has the legislature considered subsidizing education for the students that have to work to afford an education? The student can't cope because they are trying to survive.

Nelsen: A memo from Dr. Ed Sharpe went to the Presidents asking for some of the information here re the proposed calendar to develop a UT assessment program. Can we get cc'd on the comments.

Rodrigues: Yes, I will keep everyone informed. I welcome information and would be happy to talk to faculty on each campus

Stafford: Please email me with the request for the information and I will provide this.

James Turley (UTHSC-H): Coming from a HSC gives me a different prospective. Everything is incentivized such as research and practice. Education is not. There are different cultures, goals, etc., that needs to be addressed directly.

Proposed calendar to develop a UT assessment program -- Miller has set a date of March-if faculty doesn't have something in place, Miller will.

Travis: Would you (Rodrigues) work with our Academic Affairs committee on this program to keep information channels open?

Rodrigues: Yes.

Dunnington: I would like a bibliography.

Rodrigues: You can start with Banta (Trudy) from Tennessee, James Nichols-spectrum of assessment issues and processes would be good places to begin. But I will send you out a list

6. Campus Reports

University of Texas Arlington-Thomas H. Chrzanowski

University: The University has embarked on a joint venture with the city of Arlington to renovate/expand the baseball stadium. Construction is underway.

Senate Matters:

  • Our Grievance Policy was reviewed by the Senate and approved. The document has been incorporated in our HOP.
  • We are working to ensure that there is agreement (dates, deadlines, etc.) among policies approved by the Senate.
  • The Senate is working closely with our administration to develop and equitable mechanism to approve and administer Faculty Development Leaves.
  • We are working on a Faculty Salary Survey to identify and correct of salary inequities. We are trying to identify, by rank and within colleges and departments, where UTA is below peer institution average salaries.
  • The Senate is working to develop a mechanism for on-line voting. This system, ideally, would be flexible enough to allow faculty to vote for membership on University wide committees, college wide committees, and/or department level committees.
  • Our senate meets with the Provost and President as ex-officio members. We have no mechanism to meet in their absence or in the absence of the press-how do the other components do this?

University of Texas Austin-Patrick Davis

Patrick Davis (Chair) and Martha Hilley (Past Chair), Faculty Council>

UT Administrative Changes. The President's administrative reorganization is nearly complete, with the following changes occurring recently:

  • Vice President for Employee and Campus Services (new position): Pat Clubb.
  • Director of Human Resources: Kyle Cavanaugh. Initiatives already underway to address a number of the issues (particularly staff issues) discussed in our last report, including:
  • A new Staff Advisory Council has been announced and will be developed with input from members of the Faculty Council
  • A new Staff Leadership Development Forum has been announced to start in Spring-01.
  • A new policy allowing for staff to take 3 SCH/sem free of tuition and fees has been announced.
  • Faculty/Staff annual survey on Health Ins/Benefits (from Faculty Welfare).
  • Vice President for Information Technology (new position): Dan Updegrove from Yale.

Policies & Legislation. A policy has been finalized through interactions between the Administration and the Faculty Council:

1. "Policy on Conflict of Interest - Consensual Relationships"

2. Additional policies, etc. under consideration are:

  • Policy on Teaching Continuity and Restructured Faculty Workload upon the Birth or Adoption of a Child
  • Policy on multiyear contracts/appointments for NTF (Lecturer and Senior Lecturer Titles).
  • Status of policies on evaluation of administrators.
  • New ad hoc committee to comprehensively examine the roles & expectations of TTF/NTF on our campus.

UTDirect and eUniversity. UT Direct, was launched at the end of the summer, and is designed to transform how the university uses the internet culture for conducting its business in five areas: eServices, eAcademics, eBusiness, eOutreach, and eResearch. This initiative (focusing on the student portal) was discussed in our last report. Through the eUniversity Steering Committee, additional developments are focusing on academics (courseware) and additional student/faculty/staff services. A major issue we are dealing with now is a unified e-mail policy for all faculty, staff, and students in which e-mail becomes an 'official' mode of communication for the University. We would appreciate hearing from any other institutions that are dealing with this issuee. Do the other components have email designated as an official means of correspondence?

Restructuring Admissions. In response to our problems with escalating enrollment (50,000 students versus a manageable target of 48,000) a proposal from our Provost is under consideration which would markedly alter the Provisional Program that has existed on our campus for decades. The current Program would be altered by a new, three-tiered admission policy: (1) Regular Fall admission; (2)  Summer admission as "regular" (rather than historically "provisional") students; (3) Off-Site Provisional Program at sister UT System Universities (to be piloted at UT-Arlington).  Students in this category successfully completing a required 30-credit hour sequence of courses with a minimum GPA of 3.0 would be unconditionally admitted to the University of Texas at Austin. The proposal was reviewed by the standing Admissions and Registration Committee, which recommended approval to the Faculty Council.However, a substitute motion passed which eliminated (3) above (the off-campus provisional admissions program). Following several meetings with the President (including a called special meeting with the Faculty Council), he decided to forward to Regents the original proposal (including the off-campus provisional program) with the Council's stated reservations included in the documentation.The President's proposal has been approved by the Regents, and we are now working on the logistics to implement (2) and (3) above; i.e., the new 'regular' summer admissions and the off-campus provisional program.

Kellner: What was the procedure used here?

Davis: A lot of the students made it in through the provisional program-50,000 students. We knew that we had to do something for the next cycle. It was late summer when the provost proposed the restructuring at his initiation.

Kellner: He acknowledged that you were a necessary step in the process?

Davis: Yes.

Hilley: We were told that the faculty at Arlington knew everything about this and had welcomed it with open arms.

Kellner: That may be true, but I have not seen a piece of paper about this.

Chrzanowski: The president really missed an opportunity to work cooperatively with the UT Arlington Senate.

Tinajero: It is my understanding that this will be expanded to other Universities.

Davis: Yes, a couple of UT components, such as UT-EP, will be doing this next fall.

Dunnington: What exactly do you mean by "official email"?

Davis: The jist is that if you want to make an official communication to the student, it has to go through the regular mail. Now that email is an offical means, there are lots of implications such as hotmail, date stamping, students must have email address, etc.

Dunnington: Will this also be used with faculty communication?

Davis: Yes, all faculty have a university address.

Dunnington: Do you have timelines on how long to keep email, what the System's policies are on email?

Davis: There is an enormous amount of implementation issues. We were setting up own policy looking with an eye to the virtual university.

The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College-Charles Lackey and William Harris

Effective November 15, 2000, our new Provost is Dr. Jose G. Martin, formerly Dean of the College of Science, Mathematics and Technology at UTB. Dr. Martin came to UTB in 1996 from University of Massachusetts - Lowell where he was the Chairman of the Chemical and Nuclear Engineering Department. He has been a visible leader on campus during his four years as Dean, expanding academic programs, adding high caliber faculty, attracting grants, and building meaningful relationships in the community.

Professor Jay Phillips has been appointed interim Dean for the School of Science,  Mathematics & Technology. Jay has stepped down as President of the Academic Senate and will no longer serve as a representative to the FAC.Professor William Harris has been elected President of the Academic Senate and will serve on the FAC.

Results of the Survey of Organizational Excellence conducted by the University of Texas at Austin on the UTB campus in the Fall 1999 have finally been released by the administration. Of 639 surveys distributed on campus, 304 (48%) faculty and staff responded. Of the 20 survey constructs, based on the five dimensions of (1) team perceptions, (2) physical work setting/accommodations, (3) general organizational features, (4) communication patterns, and (5) personal demands, UTB's score was below the 1999/2000 statewide average on all dimensions except for one in which it tied the statewide average. While there is much food for administrative thought here, a few items should be mentioned. First, the second lowest average score (2.43 of 5.0) pertaining to survey constructs of supervisor effectiveness and fairness, was in response to the query "raises and promotions are designed to ensure that workers are rewarded solely for their performance." The lowest average score (2.32) went to a query pertaining to empowerment, "employees feel that they must always go through channels to get their work done" (negatively phrased so that response scores were reversed so that a higher average score for the question is desired). The responses to another question indicated the perception that 58% of respondents believe that policy is mostly made at the top of the organization. At this point administrative response has included a comment that the standard deviations were high. An internally administered study of a similar sort has also been initiated.

The University of Texas at Dallas-Robert Nelsen

Plagiarism: UTD experienced its "expected" amount of plagiarism this semester (primarily by students in large freshman classes, and primarily from sites on the web). Plagiarism.com was the best solution in the past and the one the University was moving toward; however, the site has become very popular and as such the prices have risen from $20 per person to $100 per person. The price for a department is currently $625. This program allows each faculty member to search 30 times as part of the package.Additional searches have a $1.00 surcharge. Therefore, UTD faculty are switching to dogpile.com.That site is connected to and uses all other search engines and provides more results than other search engines alone.

Freedom of Speech: This fall there were some minor problems regarding the "community's" desire to dictate content in the classroom and to dictate whom should teach classes. The good, very good, news:both in public and in private, the President staunchly supported the First Amendment rights of faculty.His actions were/are commendable.

Upper Evaluation of Administrators: As reported earlier, all deans at UTD will be evaluated this year.  That was decided during the first week of September.The Senate's concern has always been:how do we do so many reviews in one year without doing slipshod reviews? The answer is still out on that one, but as of the end of the semester, the Senate has not received a schedule for the expected reviews.  To ensure further accountability, the faculty will be asking for a larger role in the reviews of academic programs.

Summer Budget: For over four years the Senate has been concerned about the allocation of the summer "money" for administrators, favored instructors or researchers, pet projects.  The administration has worked hard to assure that allocations are above board and not hidden items in the budget.  The effort has been a success, but unfortunately many allocations by Deans remain outside of faculty knowledge.  The Senate is once again re-evaluating the administration's summer budgeting promise for transparent budgeting, but no open, fiscally responsible process has come forth. Hence, the summer budget concerns remain.

Faculty Club: Before his death six years ago, Cecil Green, one of the three founders of UTD and the founder of Green College, Oxford, gave the money to build and fund a new building on campus.The building had two purposes:to create a Science/Technology and Values/Society Center and to house a permanent faculty club where faculty would congregate, eat, relax, and share "cross-disciplinary" (his words) ideas.At his request/behest, a Faculty Club was established. The dues were prohibitively high and there was nothing available at the Club except for a sandwich service at higher than standard costs  Obviously, with no support from either individual faculty members orthe administration, the club went seriously into debt.For the last two years, the Senate attempted to discover a way to meet Mr. Green's wishes and plans. The Club for all purposes is dead at this point. For a while, a coffee and donut service will be provided, but that too will cease when "insufficient" numbers (faculty traffic) use the Club/Commons.  The UTD Faculty was led to believe that an alternative site would be established in conjunction with the new cafeteria. On Wednesday, the faculty was informed that such a site had been eliminated from the architectural plans for the new cafeteria.In effect, all notions of a faculty club have been eliminated-Mr. Green's vision and, for all intents and purposes, his endowment are nil and void. From fellow faculty members here and at Oxford, Green College has not faired so badly.

UTD continues to "seek" ways to eliminate Social Security numbers from being used as identification numbers, but no plan, as of yet, has come forth from UTD's I.R. division. The I.R. Security Committee is also looking into hacking of faculty and staff computers and the improper use by hackers or personnel (including students) of faculty and (please note) dean's computers.

UTD has at last (several years have gone by since the initial proposal) appointed a Vice President for Research who will work with faculty, corporations, and federal/Washington funding agencies. Dr. Feng will also be responsible for improving the graduate student program, especially adequate funding, recruiting, and retention of graduate students. Recently, the Student Life wing of the administration has announced that graduate students be put on waiting lists for University housing.

UTD and other UT System units have been asked to report to the Coordinating Board's Division of Community and Technical College's Division what WECM (technical) courses are being accepted for transfer. The CB is moving to more cross-listings so that more technical courses are (not "can be") transferred to four-year institutions. As is the case with the feasibility of the Fields of Study programs, the community colleges have clearly taken charge.

The University of Texas at El Paso-Josefina V. Tinajero

The compliance training program was instituted this semester. There was an initial meeting/training module that was delivered to groups of faculty and staff by the Compliance Officer.All employees will complete the compliance training using a series of web-based training modules.

We are excited about participating in the Off-Site Provisional Program at sister UT System Universities in response to the problem of escalating enrollment at UT Austin.As you know, students in this category successfully completing a required 30-credit hour sequence of courses with a minimum GPA of 3.0 at sister institutions would be unconditionally admitted to UT Austin.

The search for Dean of the College of Business continues. The current Dean, Frank Hoy, agreed to continue to serve after the search was terminated last year.

Border Health Institute. All entities involved are moving forward together with a united front.

Legacy Campaign Raises Record for UTEP. UTEP's Legacy Campaign came to a close the beginning of this semester. The Campaign not only met its $50 million goal but far exceeded it with gifts and pledges totaling more than $66 million. Five years ago, UTEP launched the most ambitious fund-raising campaign in its history. Through the untiring efforts of community volunteers and members of the UTEP staff, the Legacy Campaign exceeded its $50 million goal by nearly 30 percent, with more than 18,000 alumni and friends contributing to its success. Thanks to the campaign, the university has been able to establish: 124 new endowed scholarships, 51 new departmental excellence funds, 37 new professorships and chairs, 11 new athletic endowments, 10 new endowed library funds, 3 new endowments for technology, and 52 new endowments for their purposes to be designated. These endowments will have a major impact on the quality of UTEP's academic programs enabling us to recruit and retain talented students and outstanding faculty members, and to enhance academic programs across the campus. Dr. Natalicio set the pace. She was a great example and worked as hard as anyone on the campaign as far as soliciting donations

New Student Housing Complex. A $15 mullion apartment-style student housing complex is under construction at UTEP. The new complex of 12 Bhutanese-style building will combine state-of-the-art technology and innovative design to create an attractive, affordable living space for more than 400 students in efficiency and two-and four-bedroom units. It will include a sand volleyball court, outdoor gazebos and picnic areas. The complex will replace the traditional dormitory-style rooms in response to student needs identified in a campus survey conducted by an external consulting firm last year. UTEP will be doubling the number of students who will live on campus. The facility is set to next August.

The Entering Student Program. UTEP was recently awarded two large grants to enhance efforts in student retention. These multi-million dollar grants will focus on the enhancement of the Entering Student Program, with particular emphasis on the University 1301 seminar course.In particular is the development of a Student Leadership Institute that will recruit and train student peer leaders for ultimate assignment as a peer instructor in the University 1301 course. Student leaders will also assist in other Entering Student Program activities such as Orientation, the Tutoring and Learning Center, and the Academic Advising Center. The grants provide for a total of 9 faculty positions, 5 tenure track and 4 lecturer positions. The positions will have shared teaching responsibilities between the Entering Student Program and the academic departments, but will be situated in the home department. Maggie Smith, Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies is the Director of the Entering Student Program. 

Center for Civic Engagement.UTEP solidified its commitment to the community Nov. 13 at the inaugural of the Center for Civic Engagement, which will act as the umbrella organization overseeing UTEP's programs promoting civic and community involvement. The center, which is designed to foster collaborative leadership, civic awareness and deeper democracy in the region, will cooperate with a wide variety of public agencies, schools and non-profit and community-based organizations. The center's aim is to connect the university's academic mission to efforts to aid the El Paso-Juarez region through community-based teaching and learning-promoting hands-on/action-oriented learning, civic education, service learning and active citizenship. The center coordinates affiliated programs like AmeriCorps, Praxis, and the Institute for Community-Based Teaching and Learning. In addition, the center is affiliated with several national and international networks, including the Texas Campus Compact, which consists of nearly 700 higher education institutions committed to civic engagement; the National Alliance for Civic Education; the National Society of Experimental Education; and Developing Democratic Character, a working group of the Institute of Educational Inquiry at the University of Washington. Our goal is to graduate students with a sense of responsibility to others.  Kathy Staudt, political science professor, is the center director.

Season of Lights Celebration. And finally, UTEP sparkles for the holidays with season lights. The flick of a switch turns on hundreds of thousands of twinkling white lights each year at UTEP's Season of Lights celebration.The annual holiday tradition began Tuesday, Dec. 5 with nearly 30 miles of lights.  Each year, thousands of spectators enjoy the magical lighting ceremony, which includes a reception.  UTEP joins the Alumni Association in adding more lights to the campus display each year, making the university a must-see stop on a trip to or through El Paso.You are invited to tour the campus any night to see the dazzling display, which continues through the New Year.The campus is gorgeous!

University of Texas - Pan American-Wendy James-Aldridge

"Iron Butt" Sue Mottinger gave a wonderful presentation re her distance learning experiences as she and her favorite "hog" wove their way across the country and back. The students voiced very positive experience from the course.

The UTPA Faculty Senate is settling into the work that will occupy its time for most of the remainder of the academic year:

Two faculty, one from Nursing, one from Music, have volunteered to work with our Assistant Vice President for Undergraduate Studies on Field of Studies issues.

The ad hoc committee dealing with merit allocation is in the data gathering phase of its work and expects to have a final report ready soon after the holiday break.

An ad hoc committee is fine-tuning our post tenure review document and will present their final report at the first meeting of the Spring semester.

The Executive Committee considered the question put before the Senate by Pan American United Faculty President Ken Buckman, asking if Department Chairs have access to the Faculty Grievance policy. It was our determination that, as the policy is presently written, they do not. It is the case, however, that our Faculty Grievance policy is due to be reviewed this year and we recommend a rewording of that particular section.

The memorandum entitled, "Accountability System," from the System Office has been posted, along with several related documents, on our Senate web page accompanied by an invitation for faculty input. Following an appropriate period for faculty review, an ad hoc committee will summarize the comments into a formal Senate reply. We decided not to rush through this one.

A draft of guidelines developed to facilitate the implementation of the portion of our workload policy dealing with workload reallocation for research/scholarly activity will be [as of this writing] discussed at the Senate meeting on Wednesday.

The Provost is drafting a reply to the Nov. 17 letter from Joe Stafford requesting updated information regarding accrediting organizations relevant to our campus and concerning existing program review and learning assessment processes.

The University of Texas Permian Basin-Sophia Andres-Barnett

New Library. The projected date of the completion of the new library is January 2001. The move will happen in the semester break.The old library will serve as the new Student Union.

Presidential Search. In an attempt to better inform the faculty for the upcoming interviews with candidates for the UTPB presidency, the faculty Senate interviewed President Sorber over his work at UTPB. Questions included his work at UTPB and his future vision of the university.

K Through 16 Initiative. On October 18, VPAA Bill Fannin asked the Senate to consider the following question regarding this initiative: "Should UT System (and Texas A&M) admissions requirements be changed to require the 'Recommended High School Program Course Requirements' for guaranteed admission to UT System and A&M components"?(schools have required, recommended and distinguished course requirements)

Senators made the following suggestions:

  • More research is needed to determine whether students who graduate from high schools with the 'recommended' program actually are more successful in college than those graduating with the 'required' program.
  • The UT System should not at this time advocate stricter admissions requirements.
  • The goals of the K through 16 Initiative should be clarified, especially as those goals relate to colleges and universities.

Dual Partnership Agreement Between UT System and Secondary Schools for First Year Online Courses. The Senate was presented with a copy of this agreement and was asked for input.  No objections were voiced.

College-Level Examination Program (CLEP). The Academic Affairs Committee was charged with considering a request from the College Board that the institution review the scores required for CLEP.

New Undergraduate Catalog. The University Curriculum Committee and the Senate have been busy reviewing update course forms, deletions and revisions of existing courses for the new undergraduate Catalog 2002-2004.

The University of Texas at San Antonio-Patricia Harris

The Provost has proposed revisions to criteria for awarding merit raises. Some of the proposed revisions include the following:

  • The ability of tenured associate and full professors to change the weights accorded to teaching, service, and research, with the limitations that teaching may not be reduced below 25 percent and service may not exceed 30 percent.
  • No restriction on the number of faculty who can earn ratings of very good or outstanding in any given year.
  • Denial of merit to faculty whose teaching evaluation is less than satisfactory
  • Accordance of greater weight to the quality, versus quantity of service.

UTSA reported improved performance on a number of annual performance measures, as reflected in its recent Legislative Budget Board Report. These include a 63 percent increase in percent of lower division classes taught by tenured or tenure track faculty; a 16 percent increase in number of minority graduates; and a 42 percent increase in the dollar amount of externally funded research. Lower performance was noted on some other measures, including percent of black freshmen who graduate within six years (a 16 percent drop); and percent of TASP students retained after one academic year (a 29 percent drop).

All 23 post-tenure review cases for the 1999-2000 academic year received satisfactory ratings.

The Provost is initiating discussions with all academic units with respect to a potential move to a 3/2 teaching workload.

UTSA has taken initial steps to develop its Strategic Enrollment Management Plan as required under HB 1678. Two consultants from the University of Cincinnati will be visiting the campus the week of December 11 to meet with members of a newly-formed Planning Council on Strategic Enrollment Management and other interested members of the University community.

The Faculty Senate has charged its Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee with exploring the issue of academic receivership, or more broadly, examining what measures should be taken when academic units experience severe strife.

The Faculty Senate has charged its Curriculum Committee with examining whether courses with duplicate content should be offered in different disciplines and how to handle course release and credit hour allocation issues that will arise in the wake of academic restructuring to discipline-specific units.

University of Texas at Tyler-Mary Fisher

University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas-Lisa-Ann Wuermser

FAC Representatives: Lisa-Ann Wuermser (in place of Kevin Oeffinger); Jon Williamson

Student housing (apartment complex) is under construction

Construction of the Bryan Williams, M.D., Student Center is about to begin

Construction in proceeding on the North Campus with the ND building

The purchasing of the St. Paul Medical Center is proceeding

The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston-Richard Rahr

Marilyn Greer, statistician, from the University of Houston is doing the final analysis on the Faculty Satisfaction Questionnaire for the University of Texas Medical Branch. The questionnaire had 76% participation rates with faculty participation from all ranks, schools, and tenure status. The questionnaire data output is being analyzed and reviewed by three groups: Women's Caucus, Minority Affairs Committee, and the Faculty Senate. There are five salient areas of interest: faculty development, efficiency of clinical enterprise, research space and recognition, Minority Affairs issues, and Women Caucus issues. The data will be presented to the entire campus this month.

The Senate is actively reviewing the program abandonment of an Allied Health Program (Department of Health Promotion and Gerontology). The outcome of this investigation is planned to be reported to the UT System Faculty Advisory Committee at the February Meeting in Austin, Texas.

The overall financial climate of UTMB has improved with the difficult two-year downsizing adjustments. The overall budget is no longer in the red. The overall morale on our campus is improving as we learn new skills to cope in this balanced budget era.

An overall employee survey with 33% of the employees responding is being analyzed. These survey results will soon be reported to the Senate for distribution.  The overall goals of the Senate this year are to address in committees the areas of dissatisfaction identified by the faculty and other employees in the two surveys.

There has been a new acute care ward opened in John Sealy Towers with additional bed space opened by the Gerontology Department with both medical and surgical patients treated. There has been rapid growth in the geriatric services on campus in last few years. It is one of the major priorities on our campus.

University of Texas Houston Health Science Center-James Turley

Two new Vice-Presidents have been added one in clinical affairs and one for coordination with MD Anderson.

Office of the Executive VP for Financial Affairs has been re-organized with the addition of several positions at the Assistant VP level and the new level of Chief which is higher than a VP. At the same time there are proposals for reductions in the administration costs.

Financial statements for UT-H are reported to have improved significantly and that the Medical School is reported to be in the black.

The new School of Nursing building continues to be in the planning stage. Currently the plan for the building is to go to UT-Board of Regents at the January meeting with proposed ground breaking now in the late spring. The size of the building continues to shrink and many of the student services will now no longer be able to be supported in the building even though the building is funded with tuition revenue bond funds and was to have a 'one stop shop' for students.

Major fund raising campaign underway for construction of several new buildings including research tower for the Institute for Molecular Medicine, School of Public Health Annex and other buildings.

New PhD program in Health Informatics was approved at the last Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board meeting.

Logo has been redesigned to increase the amount of UT orange.

SACS accreditation has been renewed for the next 10 years.

University of Texas Health Science Center-San Antonio-Cheryl Staats

Francisco Cigarroa, MD was appointed to the President's position effective October 16, 2000. The transition in administration is progressing.

Steven A. Wartman, M.D., Ph.D., Dean of the School of Medicine has been appointed Executive Vice President for Academic and Health Affairs, and will function in both positions.

The Faculty Senate has been established and is moving forward in accordance with the bylaws. Tod Sloan, MD is the Chair, Judy Teale, PhD is Chair-Elect, and Margaret Brackley, PhD, RN is in the position of Past Chair. The Faculty Senate has begun fulfilling the committee structure established in the bylaws and is entertaining items for consideration at the December meeting.

There is an all school effort by faculty for the recruitment of students into all majors in the School of Allied Health Sciences. Web-Based Instruction implementation is being explored. Chair position for Physical Therapy has been filled. Dr. Gionni De Domenico will begin in January, 2001.

Barbara Covington, PhD, RN will assume the position of Associate Dean of Curriculum Resources and Information Technology in the School of Nursing. The searches for filling the Chair positions in the Departments of Chronic Nursing Care and Family Nursing Care remain open, Curricular changes are in progress for the undergraduate program. The TAMUK and UTHSCSA nursing program at Palo Alto Community College is in progress. The cohort of students will begin their second semester studies in January, 2001.

Dr. Merle Olson, Professor and Chair of Biochemistry was named as Interim Dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences.

University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center-Marvin Chasen

Since the last meeting the following significant events have occurred at our institution:

Administrative Restructuring: The last campus report contained basic information on the administrative restructuring at our institution.  Since that time, a Town Hall meeting on this restructuring was held on October 17, 2000. At this meeting, the core of the new leadership team was introduced and their plans and goals were explored.  Questions from the audience (all Faculty invited) were addressed although many of these questions remain to be answered. No minutes of the meeting were taken, but rather, a video tape of the meeting was provided and is to be analyzed by the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate in order to plan for a follow-up meeting with the administration

Travel Policy: The Faculty Senate is investigating the travel policy changes at our institution that now mandates a sole source travel agency (the only bidder for the contract) for the obtaining of airline tickets under rules dictated by the institution.Specifically, a BTA (Business Travel Authorization) must be applied for prior to travel at prices quoted by the agency (usually State rate). Members of the faculty feel they can obtain better rates than provided and object to spending any more of their academic allotment funds than necessary. However, there is an implied threat that non-compliance will lead to the State taking over such funds and controlling all such travel. The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate has planned a meeting with the director of this process at our institution in order to fully explore the options available to the faculty with regard to travel requirements.

Conflict Management: The Conflict Management Advisory Committee met to review a number of objections the Senate had to the Conflict Management Policy (this policy attempts to replace our own preferred grievance policy), including who could initiate the conflict management process and the need for a more flexible time period for such a process. The issues were discussed and the Policy is being modified to bring it into compliance with points addressed by the Senate.

Team Anderson Award: This monetary award is presented to classified personnel if specific patient satisfaction criteria are met and there are available funds above the margin necessary to meet the financial goals of the institution for that year. The patient satisfaction criteria were met but not the margin and therefore the award could not be given under the rules. However, the Physician Referral Service (i.e., the faculty practice plan) allocated $2 million dollars from its reserve fund to provide some reward to the anticipated 8,000 employees eligible to receive it. The faculty felt it necessary to do this in light of our designation as the #1 Cancer Center in the U.S. that in large part is due to the efforts of our employees.

Buildings: Much of the Medicine and Surgery faculty along with their support have or are in the process of moving into the new Faculty building. This was necessary to make room in the main facilities for more patient care areas. Plans are under way for two new research buildings (one already is in the building stage) and an ambulatory care facility. Financial planning to fund these buildings have or are in the process of approval at necessary levels of administration and presumably at the State level. These buildings are felt to be necessary in order to "grow" in research, teaching, and clinical service.

University of Texas Health Center at Tyler-Amy Simpson

Representatives: Amy K. Simpson, M.D., Chair, Clinical Faculty Assembly; Zafer Hatahet, Ph.D., Chair, Research Faculty Assembly

Clinical Issues: The clinical faculty continues to express concern about the proposed compensation plan which places 20% of their salary at risk depending on productivity. A trial run of the new plan is scheduled to begin in February 2001. The clinical faculty passed a resolution at the October meeting of the Faculty Assembly that steps be taken to ensure that charges are posted within 24 hours of the date of service and that daily production reports be provided to individual physicians. This will allow physicians to make sure that all their activities are properly recorded and compensation based on accurate data. There is currently no mechanism to provide this data, but a special committee has been formed to see that these requests be implemented by February.

Issues Related to clinical and research faculty: The new proposed faculty grievance policy has been distributed and approved by unanimous vote in both the clinical and research faculty assemblies.  We will now arrange a meeting with the President and UT Systems attorneys for final approval of the policy.

7. Fields of Study and Feasibility -- Julie Leidig, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; David Couch, Assistant Director of Instruction, Community College Division

Leidig: We would like this to be an open forum of questions.

Nelsen: With the music FOS there were classes that were recommended. What has been done with respect to this?

Couch: The music fields of study curriculum was approved. The commissioner has sent a memo to the Chief Academic Officer to all institutions that the curriculum is in effect.

Hilley: If a school decides to teach both music literature courses, you are not saying that we are now supposed to receive two literature courses.

Couch: No. If a student takes both and you don't teach it that way, you are only obliged to transfer the one semester. We do have a law that says the other course has to fit in somewhere, but it doesn't say where.

Leidig: If there is some sentiment that the course descriptions are not adequate as they are now, you can get a group together and send in a revised course description to the committee that is now meeting. Right now the course description is very general, maybe one line.

Hilley: What does the course description say now about the music literature course?

Nelsen: I can send you an email with it. It is a one liner.

Leidig: What we based the course description manual on is the CIP code. As the group is doing its work, they have come in with much more description-get a better idea of what is in the course.

Bartlett: Could you sketch briefly what will happen with fields of study over the next couple of years. How many will be involved? What does your experience so far say?

Leidig: The commissioner has assembled an advisory committee on transfer issues. It has 5 community college presidents and 5 university vice presidents of academic affairs. Faculty have also been added. The first formal meeting was last month. The notion is that we don't know enough about transfer issues right now. No recommendations will be made to the coordinating board until there is actual data. We need to define the problem. Fields of study fits in here due to the law that directs the coordinating board to design the fields of study curriculum. The plan is to draw 50,000 more students into the system, especially the high tech fields that the workplace is demanding. The next fields of study is engineering and engineering technology-they are two separate tracks. Computer sciences and nursing will follow after that.

Kellner: I haven't heard that transfers are too easy and create a lot of problems at the university level. I did hear that in the music field of study only one course is transferable. You are in the situation of negotiating how much can be transferred.

Leidig: It was never our intention to put up ceilings on what can be transferred.

Couch: No one at the coordinating board designed the music field of study-that was done by committee. So if they say one semester is what should be transferred, this is what is done.

Turley: What was proposed is that the university should accept any course unless it can be proven than the course is of an inferior quality.

Leidig: The board wants to discuss one major issue at each meeting. We have agreed not to bring policy changes at this time, until the fields of study committee does its work.

Couch: With the upcoming legislative session, there is a possibility that there may be a change in the wording of the fields of study statute. They may change "shall" develop to "may" develop a field of study curricula. If the bill is amended, then you may see an inquiry into what fields of study should be; should there be a fields of study in a discipline?

Hilley: One of the key issues is the fact that SB1261 called for a feasibility study for fields of study How was this study conducted?

Leidig: A adhoc committee was assembled last summer by the staff. The requirement that a study be conducted was not noticed until the legislative session was over, so we didn't have a lot of direction on this. It was the feeling of that committee that to poll the institutions for a study would not be productive. It was the commissioners decision that the staff should write up what had happened with fields of study so far, some of the issues that were raised thus far and how the board should go forward. It was not a study.

Nelsen: Then it does not meet the requirements of the law.

Leidig: We have turned it into what the legislature requested.

Nelsen: The UT-Board of Regents is going to conduct a survey/study on this problem. When Marshall Hill was last here, he promised that from now on, new committees would be predominately teaching faculty. But you have only managed to have 4 faculty, done after the fact, on the committee. Is this message coming down that there should be faculty on the committee?

Leidig: That doesn't apply to all of the advisory committees that are on the coordinating board. It is not required by law.

Nelsen: Hill was quite strong that that would be the case in committees that directly affect the faculty.

Julie: This committee was called by Don Brown himself. He wanted people on the steering committee who could speak for their institution overall. I think this is a different type of committee with a different purpose.

Nelsen: Why is the division of technical and community colleges running the show now? Why isn't this in the university realm?

Leidig: I don't know where this perception is coming from-this is supposed to be a joint project. In the past the balance was always in the universities favor. Marshall Hill and Glenda Baron are supposed to be jointly in charge and are to work together. No one from the university division could come today and we were asked to step in.

Hilley: Part of the perception comes from 2 specific things. The music fields of study was never posted at the university-that should not have happened. And two, the music fields of study was railroaded through in less than a minute at the community college level and never mentioned at the university level.

Couch: I know that you asked that this be posted on the webpage and it was never done. There was no excuse. On the agenda we alternate those things back and forth. It just happened to be our turn that when the time came for the item it would be presented with the community college section-the decision was made at the assistant commissioner level. It would be standard protocol that is would also appear at the university section. We could check the minutes and see if it was there.

Leidig: We are designing a new web page. The web master is now fulltime. There should be links to all the information re the fields of study curricula.

Nelsen: Will the comments page be more accessible? No one can comment because it is too inaccessible.

Kellner: Can you send the secretary of the FAC the urls' for the relevant information?

Leidig: Yes.

Sent by Couch to Verklan by email:

THECB web site: www.thecb.state.tx.us
Board Members: www.thecb.state.tx.us/about/board.htm
CB Divisions: www.thecb.state.tx.us/divisions/
CB Advisory Committees: www.thecb.state.tx.us/adcoms.htm
CB rules: www.thecb.state.txus/rules/rulemain.htm
Starting Points for Universities: www.thecb.state.tx.us/start/univ.htm
Starting Points for Community Colleges: www.thecb.state.tx.us/start/cc.htm
Lower Division Academic Course Guide Manual (ACGM): www.thecb.state.tx.us/start/cc.htm
Comment on the ACGM: www.thecb.state.tx.us/divisions/ctc/ip/default2.htm
Contact the CB staff: www.thecb.state.tx.us/about/phone.htm
Texas Education Code: www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/edtoc.html

8. HIPAA--Dr. James Guckian, Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs; Elizabeth Rogers, Vinson and Elkins

Rogers' Presentation: Health information privacy and security (bound notebook and copy of slides distributed)

PHI - protected health information

Bound notebook: Overview of HIPAA Security and Privacy Standards

Tab 4: Final Transaction and Code Sets Standards
Tab 2: Application of the Privacy Standards to Workers' Compensation Carriers and Information Disclosed to Workers' Compensation Carriers
Tab 3: Use and Disclosure of Research Information Under the Privacy Standards
Pg 17, footnote 11-IRB
Pg 8, section VI
Pg 9, Research Information Unrelated to Treatment
Minimum necessary rule requires the information to be segregated and will be the most challenging requirement.
Tab 5: HIPAA Security and Privacy Standards. The security standards aren't as rigid as the privacy standards. They state what the standard is and rely on best business practices.

Update: State Legislature

There will be a serious effort to pass privacy legislation.
HIPAA sets the standard-weaker state law is superceded by HIPAA
AG's website has over 500 statues regarding privacy and health information.

Areas of vulnerability not addressed under HIPAA: doesn't apply to paper records-make the rules apply to any form of information. Only administrative causes of action are permitted, no one person held accountable. We won't know what the minimum standards are until HIPAA is finalized.

Dunnington: Who actually will be held accountable civil and criminal for violation of these rules? There needs to be a separate section in this overview that addresses this specifically.

Tab 7: Joint Press Conference on and Highlights of SB 11. Senator Nelson's Medical Records Privacy Bill

Tab 8: Texas Legislative Privacy Initiatives. Other privacy bills: HB291; SB12 and 13; HJR 15 (HUPP)

Tab 6: Regulatory impact statement. These are conservative figures and are still in the billions and billions.

Dunnington: How is the transfer of patient data from a physician to a consultant affected?

Rogers: As long as it is for treatment no patient consent is needed. Almost all physicians obtain patient consent anyway.

Turley: The sending and receiving of information should actually be much easier now. What had to be done is the encrypting of the patient information.

Guckian: The healthcare industry thus far has been far too lax in the use of patient information. Better protection of human research subjects will also be covered under HIPAA. What we need to watch out for is to avoid unintended consequences of the newly developing regulations. It will be onerous, tedious and costly. As we are moving into the information age, we have to be cautious as to who has access to the electronic information.

McLarty: Are the legislators going to give us more money to accomplish these tasks?

Guckian: Whether the legislature will give us more money or not is yet to be seen. But we have been discussing the cost of implementation in the budget hearings. This will take personnel, assessment of current systems, risks. In the long run money will be saved as all will use the same codes, forms, etc.

Teale: I am worried that by the time all of this is in place, the hackers will be one step ahead.

Turley: The encrypting can be broken, but it would take a lot of time, effort and technology to do this, so the information should be secure.

9. Committee Reports

Academic Affairs-Corbett Gaulden

Invited Guests: Joe Stafford, Ray Rodrigues

Members: M. Hilley, C. Gaulden, Josefina Tinajero, Patricia Harris, Sue Mottinger, Jerry McClarty, Michael Siciliano

The primary topic for discussion at the meeting is the Accountability System.Hilley and Gaulden made comments about meetings on the topic with Regent Miller et al.Ray Rodigues discussed the schedule for Spring 2001.Campus liaisons to be arranged soonest so that groups can be working by Feb. '01.  Discussion soon centered on some sort of evaluation of core curriculum or some subset of that. Various ideas for doing so were introduced for discussion.  Faculty involvement and "control" was reinforced as a guiding principle.

A first stage of identifying "best practices" through the inventory of current assessments of general education was discussed. Short fuse - January 8, 2001.Discussion of what we already know of current practices for ideas of how to proceed.

The procedure for selection of a faculty "point person" to aid in program development was discussed.Selection could be carried out in consultation between administrator and faculty senate (senate pres.?). The person should be one who could believe in what is happening and is generally respected on campus.UCC should also be consulted.In any event, at least one of the representatives be an actual faculty member.

The philosophy of assessment emerged several times. Assessment of what?: student, faculty member or program.Purpose of the assessment?:progress in program, faculty punishment, or program improvement. Anecdotes were shared in an effort to fully grasp the key issues.

Committee discussed that any results from a Phase 1 measurement project should not be used for decision making, rather for learning about how to proceed.

RESOLUTION: The UT System FAC strongly supports the revision of 75(R) SB 148to reflect permissive, rather than mandatory, language with respect to establishment of Transfer Fields of Study curricula.Specifically, we suggest that the word "shall" in Sec. 61.823 (line 3-3) be amended to read "may".  We believe that this was the original intent of the legislation.

Nelsen: We also should cc the resolution to Tom Scott.

Siciliano: What is the basis for your belief that this was the original intent of the Senator?

Gaulden: Many people in conversation have voiced this opinion.

Hilley: The fields of study was really the creation of a staff member and not Bivins. Julie Leidig stated that this morning also.

Vote passes unanimously

RESOLUTION: The UT System FAC go on record in response to the "Feasibility Report" adopted by the THE Coordinating Board in August 2000.76(R) SB 1261, Sec 4 states that the THE "Coordinating Board shall conduct a study to examine the need for and feasibility of developing a field of study curriculum..."  The report adopted by the Board appears to have not been an examination, but rather a status report.

Kellner: You say there is no remedy to be had-is there any action in the resolution. The law describes what the report was supposed to do and we don't think the report did this. There is no sense of "so what".

Gaulden: The commissioner said that he was satisfied with the outcome of the study. This gives me the option to say that the FAC disagrees.

Nelsen: The coordinating board said that this was not a study-it was a report done by their staff.

Siciliano: What do you want to accomplish?

Gaulden: I want to be clear that when I speak on the Fields of Study Committee that I am representing the opinion of the FAC.

Wuermser: Is it unreasonable to propose that since the study was not done, to stop forward progress until data is known?

Gaulden: This resolution won't change the coordinating boards' mind.

Nelsen: The Board of Regents said they would conduct their own feasibility study. We could mention this in the cover letter.

Gaulden: Regent Miller's committee will look into this.

Travis: We will send this to both the Board of Regents Academic Affairs committee and the Chancellor.

Vote passes unanimously.

Vice Chancellor Sharpe's office will communicate with chief academic officers soon on the selection of persons for an assessment advisory group.Our understanding at this time is that Drs. Stafford and Rodrigues desire that two persons be appointed from each academic campus. One such person will be an administrator involved with institutional effectiveness and the other should be a faculty member.  That faculty member should be knowledgeable concerning general education curricular issues. For example, the faculty member might be someone who has demonstrated leadership as the chair or member of such committees as the University Curriculum Committee, Educational Policy Committee, Core Curriculum Committee, etc.

Health Affairs Committee - Richard Rahr

Members: Linda Philips (UTMB), Jim Turley (UT-Houston), Richard Rahr (UTMB), Dick Grimes (UT-Houston), Lisa-Ann Wuermser (UTSWMC), Amy Simpson (UTHSC-Tyler), Tod Sloan (UTHSC-SA), Joel Dunnington (MDACC).

Health Institutions Update (JB Pace, Special Assistant to Dr. Mullins)

  • Senators Bivens and West have proposed to have 10% of the admission seats for the Texas medical schools (state) be set aside for in-state and out-of-state colleges other than UT, Texas A&M, and Texas Tech applicants. These applicants will have a special application process and expanded/special mentoring. The rational for this being proposed was because the top 10% of high school graduates who had mandatory admission to college was such a great success in getting disadvantaged students admitted to senior colleges (UT, Texas A&M, Texas Tech).
  • The major goal of the health sciences centers will be to get in their legislation requests. There is a two-month period to file legislation in Texas Legislature and get it out of committee. The legislation must come out of committee by the end of February.
  • Mr. Dan Burck, Chancellor, is seen as a very positive change to the legislature by creating a much less adversarial environment at System.
  • There are legislative requests for cost saving being requested to allow for more competitive buying. There are also requests for more open hiring practice allowing for meeting the more competitive market hiring forces (different hiring categories and pay periods).
  • The campus IRBs are being reviewed with suggested reorganization by having two separate review panels. One review panel for the new submissions and one for the reviews. It was suggested by Jim Turley (UT Houston) to develop a sophisticated management information system where proposals can be tracked, reviewed, and modified-on-line. Dr. Turley will submit a plan to JB Pace that will be reviewed by Dr. Mullins.
  • The Council of Health Institutions has been discussing a way to improve the number of women and minorities in the higher ranks and administrative positions in the UT medical schools.

    McLarty: Most IRBs have a separate committee to monitor things. Splitting it into 2 committees looks like it would be more cumbersome.

    Rahr: More people are now on the committee-will be able to have more scrutiny and review. The budget has also been doubled for the IRB.

    Sciliano: Has it been shown that bringing in the top 10% has been a great success?

    Rahr: I think they are looking at numbers-statistical success!

    Dunnington: I still don't understand what they are doing with this 10% from other colleges. He gave us a printout of the admissions on minorities in the medical schools-they are dropping as a percent of total admissions. We will have to look at the rest of the bill because I don't understand this.

    Simpson: This would allow for more mentoring for the minority students.

    Wuermser: What about the smaller schools in the UT System. They shouldn't be excluded just for the flag ships for the 3 systems.

    Collingsworth: You will have more minorities coming out of the border schools. This is putting all small schools in the system at a disadvantage.

    Philips: What it doesn't do is really clarify the issues. It also doesn't address the diversity issues of women and minorities. The proposal needs to be fine tuned so that it can be implemented properly.

    Sciliano: Is Bivins going to propose that this go into law?

    Rahr: Yes, this will be done. We need to closely monitor this. We need to know what is going on on your individual campuses.

    Kellner: Once something like this is done, the other schools would jump onto the bandwagon, and its easy to see how the admissions process could be chopped up into pre-apportioned policies. Its easy to see how this can extend to many other areas.

    Philips: This is already beginning to be generalized to nursing schools. And its going to begin in the medical schools.

    Wuermser: Why can't we say affirmative action is bad and just go on.

    Travis: Do we have any idea of how well the 10% has done at UT Austin in getting minorities into Austin.

    Hilley: Our admissions director thinks it works very well.

    Travis: Did JB say this was the intent of the new law?

    Rahr: He didn't say.

    Grimes: We have a state that is 35% minority. In 10 years it will be a minority majority. If you think of progress for the future of Texas, to say that we are going to ignore the majority to continue using systems that have done well for Caucasians looks to be a death sentence for the state. We need to have something that works for the minorities. I think the Regents are thinking that far in advance. How do we assist in solving this problem?

    Strong: I don't think this proposal will work. You need to go back to a lower level to get the minorities better prepared in math/sciences.

    Grimes: We need to reassess the admissions criteria, how we do business, etc.

    Hilley: Can you/the committee contact staff members at Bivins office and try to have a dialogue since we don't know what is driving this.

    Strong: We could create a bureaucratic nightmare trying to distribute this to all the schools and not solve anything at all.

Employee Group Insurance (Dan Stewart, Director)

  • RFP is being sought for the student health insurance coverage.
  • RFP is out for a long-term care plan.
  • RFP is out to find a business firm to audit the current and past insurance carriers for fraud and abuse.
  • Faculty and employee group insurance will use up 32 million dollars in reserves as well as have an additional 25 million dollar losses on the employee insurance this year. There was a 20 million dollar loss on employee group insurance last year. The legislative request will be for 139 million dollars in year one and 159 million dollars in year two, or a total request of about 300 million dollars just to break even. If there is a 10% shortfall the premiums could go up by $30. If there is a 30% shortfall the individual premiums could increase by $50.
  • Reminder last year UT EGI has the smallest increase of any employee group insurance plans!
  • The major goal is to simplify the current insurance plans. CIGNA is an example of a plan that is very complex with major reimbursement problems.

    Hilley: Will this increase by shared by all or just those with dependents?

    Dunnington: Just those with dependents. That is the law.

    Sciliano: Our classified employees can't take this anymore. The costs in healthcare are outpacing their raises. We need to get our healthplans to a point where they are paying off.

    Rahr: I think that Dan Steward is working as hard as he can to get this fixed.

    Simpson: Should 43% of our employees shoulder the burden for all---how unfair is this. There are many increased costs overall.

    Grimes: If the legislature doesn't come up with the money to support the present system, the system will presumably reduce benefits and increase premiums too. So this does affect all of us when you look at the total package. There is a need to emphasize the importance of the health benefits when you speak to the legislators.

    Rahr: The legislature is thinking of putting us all together in one plan, rather than let us have our individual plans.

    Dunnington: This may mean that you may not even be able to go to your own institution for healthcare.

ACTION ITEM: Appoint Joel Dunnington (MDACC) to represent the Health Affairs Committee on EGI Advisory Committee with two representatives from all 15 campuses. A person from Health Affairs should be appointed each year.

Nelsen: I think this is a very good idea. One person has to be nominated by faculty and one has to be nominated from staff. It was up to the individual campus to do this.

Zafer Hatahet (UT HSC Tyler): On our campus we were informed that one would be appointed by the president.

Gaulden: I believe that Sue Mottinger and I were on that advisory committee, and were the only faculty -the rest were HR people. Since then the committee has met maybe twice, and not at all this year. The only meeting I knew about was 2 days before the meeting.

VOTE: passes unanimously

Governance Committee - Robert Nelsen

Present: Robert Nelsen, Co-Chair; Cheryl Staats, Co-Chair; Wendy James-Aldredge; Zafer Hatahet; Jon Williamson; Hans Kellner; Judy Teale; Louise Strong; Mansour El-Kikhia

The Governance Committee finished its work on receivership. We recommend that the following policy be offered to all institutions as a sample policy.Each institution, of course, should modify as needed.

Academic Receivership Policy


In the case of the invoking of academic receivership in any unit within the University of Texas at______________ (or _____________Health Science Center), the institution shall abide by the following policy and procedures to ensure due process.Academic Receivership is understood to be any action that suspends normal operating procedures that regulate the functioning of any unit. Academic Receivership encompasses any actions that affect the structure and mission of an academic entity adversely affecting faculty performance, development and professional advancement or involves the application of Regent's Rule, Part One, Chapter 2, Section 14.3 and consistent with the procedures established within the Regent's Rule Chapter III, Section 6 (11), 6.111, 6.112 and 6.113.Academic Receivership shall under no circumstance hinder or curtail the rights and duties of the affected faculty including the rights to participate in faculty governance. This section shall not be construed to create a cause of action for educational malpractice by students or their parents, guardians or persons acting as parents.

No decision regarding the elimination or reduction in scope of an academic program shall be made without thorough consideration of reasonable, viable alternatives as outlined in the policy.


1. Upon identifying one or more academic programs for potential Academic Receivership, the President shall notify the appropriate faculty governance organization along with the administration and faculty of the affected programs in writing.

2. Upon notification, in order to resolve underlying conflict, the President shall appoint within 7 days a mediator acceptable to the affected parties. Upon this appointment the mediation shall not exceed 30 days.

3. If mediation is unsuccessful, a Review Committee shall be created. The Review Committee shall be comprised of 4 faculty members appointed by the Faculty Governance Organization and 3 members appointed by the President.

The charge of the Review Committee is to:

  • consider reasons for receivership
  • assess the appropriateness and impact of this action on current and future students, affected faculty and the integrity and vitality of the __________(institution's) other academic programs.
  • Allow the affected faculty to contribute meaningfully to the committee's review process.

4. The Review Committee's conclusions shall be presented in the form of a written report addressed to the President, the Faculty Governance Organization, and affected faculty.

  • If, upon reviewing the Review Committee's report and consulting with the Faculty Governance Organization the President decides to proceed with implementation of Academic Receivership he/she shall forward the decision along with the Review Committee's report to the Faculty Governance Organization and the members of the directly affected unit.
  • If the President decides to proceed with implementation of Academic Receivership, in lieu of stopping the process, the Review Committee's report shall also be forwarded to the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs or for Health Affairs.
    • If the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs or for Health Affairs approves the report, then the President shall hold discussions with the faculty members affected regarding the mechanisms to establish Academic Receivership.After these discussions, the President shall write a report to be given to the affected faculty stating why or why not the academic unit will or will not be placed in receivership. If the President decides to place the unit in receivership, the written report must contain the reasons for receivership and the terms of receivership, including time limits and the explicit mechanisms to end the receivership.
    • The affected faculty members are entitled to grieve the President's decision before a hearing panel established by the Faculty Governance Organization.The hearing panel's decision will be distributed to the Faculty Governance Organization, the President, and the affected faculty.
  • If a mutually satisfactory solution cannot be established, then the unit may be placed under Academic Receivership in accordance with the terms of the aforementioned written report.The designated Receiver shall issue periodic progress reports to the Provost or equivalent
  • The Academic Receivership must be terminated at the time indicated in the President's report.
  • If the President determines that the unit should remain in receivership after the time indicated in the President's Report as described above, then the aforementioned procedures shall be invoked before Academic Receivership may be continued.
  • The affected faculty and should meet with the affected faculty, the appropriate academic officials and the Provost or equivalent.
  • After one academic year, the faculty of the unit may revisit the issue in a meeting of the Faculty Governance Organization with the President present.
  • Because faculty tenure is within the institution, faculty in the units affected by the Academic Receivership shall maintain full faculty rights and privileges.

    Harris: The whole phrase "academic receivership.." Is too vague and would not be able to be implemented. You need to provide definitions of these phrases with examples so that people will know what is meant by them.

    Nelsen: The feeling of the committee was not to be very exact, but to purposely leave them vague, because there were just too many examples.

    Harris: It says that there will be a mediator for 30 days-this is therapy. Mediation doesn't last 30 days. Call a dispute resolution center and get advice on the logical course on how long mediation should take place. And what exactly is 30 days-a 12 hour day, 30 Fridays, etc. What constitutes a day also needs to be defined.

    Chrzanowski: I agree-we have clearly defined what a day is in our grievance policy.

    Travis: This is to be a model that each campus needs to take back and adjust to their individual campus. When you are adopting the model for your campus is when you put in your definitions. Patty (Harris) does have a good point. Many policies use the 30 days in their language-we may need to review that also.

    Sciliano: Does this call for a change in Regents Rules?

    Nelsen: No, this is institutional policy.

    Sciliano: I think we need an opportunity to review this and clean up the language.

    Travis: We could vote on this by email or bring it back next time.

    Grimes: If this is to be a model that each campus is to individualize, then it doesn't need further review.

    Nelsen: It is a draft, not a boilerplate.

    Harris: You need to reword the resolution. Change the word "model" to "draft" so that we are accepting in principle.

    Bartlett: I would like the governance committee to go round with this one more time to work on the fine points before we take it back to our campuses. That would make this much more useful.

    Nelsen: Can I get a consensus on how many of you would like the governance committee to review it one more time?

    Travis: If we do this, then lets give the committee constructive feedback so that they have fresh thoughts to work with. Then it can come back at the March FAC meeting.

    Sciliano: You have to indicate here what has happened and then you go on and say its not covered under Regents Rules, as for instance, its not a program abandonment issue. Therefore this is a new type of.. and this is what is being called academic receivership. Now you have defined it.

    Philips: You guys did a lot of work on a very difficult problem. Going back to the committee is not necessarily productive. Its a lot of work to take it back to the individual campus-that is a lot of work too, but this is what should be done.

    Sciliano: I would like to make a motion.

MOTION: Send this back to committee with the specific charge of creating a preamble that will adequately define academic receivership based on the examples where it has been used and where these examples are not covered under Regents Rules, such as program abandonment.

SECONDED: Chrzanowski

VOTE: Yea-11; Against-9

Resubmit Resolution from March 23-24, 2000 concerning contracts:

Faculty letters of appointment should be distributed no later than the first day of classes and should contain the following information:

1.the specific section of Regents' Rules under which the faculty member is appointed;

2.the exact dates of appointment;

3.the statement "a revised memorandum will be sent if there is a change in your status during the indicated budget period";

4. the exact nature of the contract, e.g. tenure track, ___year of a multiyear term, administrative appointment;

5. percentage of full time appointment and the basis of appointment (e.g. 9 months, 12 months);

6. total salary and specific breakdown of salary including amounts or percentages for base pay, supplements, stipends, grants, etc.;

7. if applicable, the phrase "the obligation of the University for payment of all or any portions of the compensation that is payable from contracts, grants, and non-state sources is dependent upon receipt of those funds.";

8. contain the phrase "by accepting this document I am not waiving my right to grieve contractual matters."

Dunnington: Do we need to send a little report card to all the presidents on how well they are doing here?

Travis: OGC (Schultz) looked this over and agreed to do this at that time. Will send it again, noting this is the second time.

VOTE: Passes unanimously

Faculty Quality Committee - James Bartlett

Having received only one proposal in response to the RFP for a new Faculty Satisfaction Survey, we propose re-opening a modified RFP inviting proposals from staff of U.T. Systems components, faculty and staff of other universities and the private sector.

Kellner: This can cost significant monies, but you are talking about very important issues. Something like this can get to be incredibly long-where would the questions come from?

Bartlett: We have a good set of questions now, that with some professional help could be tweaked to be excellent. We will also add some and take away some from the first.

Nelsen: I am furiously adamant that this survey be done.

Sciliano: We have talked about this years ago, and there have been big changes in the system since the first one, namely PTR. We need to find out how the climate has changed overall.

Grimes: We have about 8000 faculty-it will cost more than $20 thousand to do the study. If we are going to do this right and professionally we need to have good sense as to how much money is available to do this.

Kellner: Our campus did the compliance training on line. The survey could be handled the same way, and could likely get a better response.

Bartlett: Depends on the campus-some are very concerned about confidentiality.

Consensus of the group: talk with Dr. Sharpe and expand the scope as in (1)

Our rapidly evolving efforts to work with the Board of Regents in developing accountability/assessment tools, have important and complex implications regarding academic freedom. We propose that a member of the FQC serve as a liaison to the Committee on Academic Affairs to monitor progress work on this problem with specific regard to academic freedom.

Consensus of the group: yes

We plan to begin reviewing the outcomes of Periodic Performance Review on the various U. T. System campuses.

10. Meeting adjourned at 1450

601 Colorado Street  ||  Austin, TX 78701-2982  ||  tel: 512/499-4200
U. T. System   ||
  Email Comments   ||   Open Records   ||   Privacy Policy   ||   Reports to the State
© 2002 U.T. System Administration