University of Texas System
Minutes: March 1, 2001
Travis, Chair, called the meeting to order at 1004.
for the December 20000 FAC meeting approved.
Update--Amy Shaw Thomas, Governmental Relations
election put things on hold. The Lieutenant Governor is the presiding
officer in the Senate and oversees the bills. Now that the position
has a name, things are moving forward. Governor is Rick Perry; Ratliff
is now Lt. Governor and Pete Laney is the Speaker
has gone to the floor for consideration yet. Bills are going to the
House, but are not yet coming from the House to the Senate.
committee is looking at Medicaid projections and figures.
- 3300 bills
have been filed to date. Last session at this time there were 6000.
The deadline for filing is March 9.
concerned mainly with teacher health insurance, prison guards. Last
session we had the benefit of tobacco monies. This session there is
$900M in tobacco money, but a lot has already been allocated, so there
is not extra money floating around. There is some new tobacco money,
but dont know how this will be distributed.
has been a request for several million dollars to hold our insurance
coverage comparable to where we are now.
- The 2
top priorities from each institution have been submitted.
happens once every 10 years along with the census. Still uncertain as
to how much infighting there will be. This translates into unhappy politicians
trying to kill each others billswill take peoples
minds of bill passage. Something different from the last redistricting
time is the use of computer modeling to evaluate the effects of redistricting.
- Have requested
a 6% funding increase to maintain current service levels; 3% increase
in faculty/staff salaries. Academic campuses are requesting that they
be able to retain 100% of indirect cost recovery as the health components
do (currently retain 50%).
- Have requested
increased funding for biotech research infrastructureTexas is
behind the curve as compared to the rest of the country re incubation/startup
of small companies.
tuition: requesting an increase by $3 per semester credit hour/year.
We have now reached the maximum of $40, so need to ask for more. Are
also asking for individual campuses to be able to set their own tuitionthere
is still resistance to this.
revenue bond this session$500M. Dont know which priorities
will be financed or who will get these monies as yet. This is in addition
to the usual PUF funds.
academic health centersasked for extra money for the extension
campuses (Laredo); UTMB works with large indigent population (40M appropriation
with bump up for inflation received last time).
- Are aware
of the tremendous nursing shortageSenator Montcrief filed a bill
that had an original amount of $50M to help with education re the nursing
shortage. Is getting watered downis somewhere around $14M.
increases in utility costs required an immediate appropriation to cover
expenses ($40+M) for all campuses. This is an example of an unexpected
expense the legislature has to deal with.
medical privacy bill passed at the federal level. The bill was originally
designed to curtail inappropriate use of your medical information. It
has grown into lots of mushrooms that affects research, clinical trials,
student health units, etc.
- A bill
has come out of committee re the use of entrance exams such as LSAT,
MCAT, etc. These tests can only be used to compare a similarly situated
economically disadvantaged studentcounts as 25%. Otherwise they
cannot be used in the admissions decision otherwise. Bill has come out
of committee, but there are lots of steps where this may be stopped.
Nelsen (UT-Dallas): Is there any new legislation on fields of study?
Has the May changed to Shall.
Not that I am aware of.
(Executive Vice-Chancellor, Academic Affairs): I havent heard
anything. This is out of Senator Bivins officeno one has
With regard to the hearings on the accountability billwho is now
doing it and where is it at?
Remember that the bill filing deadline has not yet passed. We dont
know what is going on. There is some evidence that no one else is really
as interested as Cuellar washis focus is now more on border issues.
Davis (UT-Austin): Can you tell us anything about Wilsons bill
concerning provisional admissions?
The testimony went on for hours. There is a website that you can look
at and can send donations to the House of Tudors. It really has been
left pending. A lot of effort has gone on behind the scenes to convince
the committee that this is an area that is not appropriate for the legislature
to be in. We will continue to monitor this. Ron Hill understands the
issues. The bill was to force UT-Austin to go back to summer admission.
El-Kikhia (UTSA): Did we really lose $7M in the PUF fund?
It needs to be placed in perspective. Everyones portfolio has
gone down in recent times. This will even out with the market over time.
you see something that catches your eye, please give us (governmental
relations) a call. We are in the process of tracking these things and
may have the information you want.
In our February
2001 meeting, the Executive committee discussed giving one member of the
Executive Committee the added responsibility of developing a formal relationship
with OGC. This would help with the flow of information. It is our suggestion
that this person be the Chair-elect. This would be a three year commitment,
such that there would be continuity for some time. Thus, not every Chair-elect
would have this added duty. Dr. Sharpe and I discussed thishe was
I talked with Mike Godfreyhe is ok with us to proceed with this.
I will send a letter to Mike Godfrey to initiate the process.
from the Executive meeting is that the Board of Regents expressed an interest
in doing a study on fields of study when we met with them at the November
meeting in Tyler. I checked with Ed to see if there has been any activity
yetthe Board of Regents has not started anything.
Should we write them a letter reminding them of this, and include that
there are now four more fields of study identified.
Discuss this in your committee meeting. I would pose a question: What
is the Coordinating Board now doing with the transfer committee that
Corbett Gaulden is on? I would focus the energy on the transfer committee
rather than doing an independent activity. There is state law in place
that says fields of study must be done.
We will take this back to committee.
Hilley (UT-Austin): There have been some difficulties with our accrediting
body in music because of the field of study requirements.
June 2001 meeting we will elect new officers. The Chair-Elect must be
from an academic institution this time.
executive meeting will be attempted as a video conference. This may cost
more in terms of real dollars.
I would like to restate my concerns on this. I dont know how frank
we can be as members of the executive committee. There are issues of
being secure as a broadcast, not to mention that there will be others
who will review the tapes.
was awarded the Chancellors awardplease congratulate her when
you see her.
the accountability issuesRay Rodriguez will discuss that now.
Special Assistant to the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
I have gone
to all institutions except for San Antonio and Tyler. I have been warmly
received and everyone has been very helpful. I have found that each campus
has an infrastructure in place that can be used for assessmentcurriculum
cte, core-curriculum cte, assessment cte, accountability cte that addresses
all accountability issues on the campus, etc. There is only one campus
that has assessed student learningthe rest have done surveys of
student attitudes, surveys of student perceptions to determine if the
curriculum works, for example. The same types of questions/concerns have
come up on all the campuses. There is a website for accountability. On
that website the most frequently asked questions are there. I have not
addressed any political or local issues for each campus on the website.
Travis, Bartlett, Gaulden, Robert Sledd (UT-Brownsville) and myself traveled
to ETS. It was productive in that the faculty were able to express their
concerns. Two items from ETS are here today: (a) a newsletter (ets.org)
and (b) Summary of Meeting UT System Faculty Advisory Committee at ETS.
Answers to questions 4 and 5 illustrate that ETS will help us, but what
they will do depends on what we want. Question 6 is a key questionwhat
is critical thinking? ETS has a critical thinking test that they previously
developed when working with the state of New JerseyNJ faculty there
developed and tested the testit is an essay type of test that looks
at reading, judgment, reasoning, etc. ETS is saying that it is our job
to decide what it is we want.
Did they give you an idea of cost?
The critical thinking test is $12/student. But the cost really depends
on the type of test chosen and combinations of testing.
There are also costs not included in the testsuch as bringing
someone from ETS to help faculty become familiar with the scoring, and
then the faculty would do the scoring.
(UT-Arlington): Are these tests going to be given annually? If given
once it is a snapshot. The test could give it at the beginning of a
year and again at the end?
See question #2 related to value added. The more times you give the
test, the more it will cost. How do you demonstrate value added with
There is more than type of testyou can have a sampling approach
taken, so that you are not necessarily testing each student. This could
take away from high-stakes to get an impression on what the students
are actually learning. As nearly as I can tell from asking questions,
we really dont know anything about the external validity of the
testit has some face validity, but how it relates to anything
else is unknown.
Do we at any point do we overtly teach critical thinkingthat is
another approach. ETS is also doing some experimentationif we
could get a grant to do this it would be helpful. For exampleGRE
on the flythe student could take the GRE anytime. The questions
would be the same, but the way the question is asked is different each
time. They have also developed an essay evaluation computer program
that they claim has 98% correlation with faculty evaluation of the same
essays. Some faculty are using this right now for students to practice
(UTHSC-SA): What do you mean that only one component assesses learning?
I was referring to general education programs. Faculty always assess
the students in each course/program, but no one really looks at the
big pictureare not assessing student products.
I want to commend you on all your efforts on this issue. I have a major
concern that you are looking at assessment in the wrong place. I believe
the students should be tested before they come to the university and
then after they have been there for 2 years to see if there has been
What you say makes sense, but it costs money when you are talking tests.
We are not necessarily talking tests. There are alternative ways of
doing thiscapstone courses that exists in many majors; imbedded
assessment (student material produced as a regular part of going thru
the courses sent to a group of faculty who evaluate it outside the course);
The difficulty is, can students be compared from campus from campus.
Davis (UT-Austin): After having gone to the different campuses, what
is your take on the sentiment of the faculty toward assessment?
No one wants this to be high-stakes. They are concerned about the student.
Andres-Barnett (UT-Permian Basin): What is the distinction you make
between critical thinking and what is going on in the classroom. Assignments
are constructed to include critical thinking. You cant get away
Absolutely. What I was getting at is that critical thinking is not overtly
taught per se. Is it the ability to evaluate writing, to make accurate
conclusions, to interpret data? This is very wide ranging.
(UTHSC-Tyler): Sampling definitely is cheaper and it does work. I dont
see how you can tell what part of critical thinking is attributed to
the education program and what part is due to the student maturing.
Thats where faculty come in. What in our program can be given
the credit for this?
Harris (UT-San Antonio): Sampling is good if it is representative. Regarding
pre-and post testingthat would be a stronger design, but it is
the principle of measuring progress that is most important. Post-test
only doesnt give you the information.
What about transfer students? Who is accountable for them? What about
the university student who takes their courses at the community college?;
the senior student who takes their majors in their senior year? Would
a pretest help here? There are so many different types of students.
(UT-MDACC): Is there a difference in critical thinking between a music
student and a physics student? Are you going to assess each different
That is a very good question.
Now that you have been to ETS and have gotten feedback, are you getting
a feel re the type of assessments that would be system wide or institutional
Assessments can be done on the individual campuses and each can figure
out how best to do that. System wide the faculty can come together to
develop/agree on the rubric with which to evaluate the student. They
can also determine the best time to give the test.
I would like to comment on process. This is one of 3 issues that were
identified by the Academic Affair Committee as being important. There
are other aspects to accountability other than assessmentthe Board
of Regents did authorize us to move forward to collect data. It is clear
that the assessment of the learning part is still being investigated.
We dont know what will be taken forward to the Board of Regents.
The working assumption will be that it will be discussed at their Academic
Affairs committee this July. We are also dealing with imminent changes
in the make-up of the Board of Regents and their committee membership.
So when the Governor appoints the new members any time now, there will
be 3 new members (rumored that of these there is one re-appointment).
The Board of Regents will reorganize themselves, select a new chair
who will determine which committees will form and who will serve on
those committees. We dont know who will be chair of Academic Affairs
committeethat is the committee that we will deal with regarding
all these issues. What I hasten to say is that the Board of Regents
has a strong interest in accountability, but how we move forward will
be affected by the membership of that committee. The commitment that
the Office of Academic Affairs has made regarding all of the accountability
issues, especially the assessment of learning, is that we feel obligated
to see that an open process is followed. That means we will be in touch
with you and keep you abreast of all of our actions so that the FAC
will have input into everything. But also, we will have a plan that
will go to the Board of Regents Academic Affairs Committee in its public
meetingwe would expect that the FAC as concerned citizens would
speak then and have the Board of Regents aware of all the concerns.
This is likely to be discussed at the BOR July meeting. We will be talking
about this at the June meeting in the Academic Affairs committee. The
point is that I guarantee that you will be involved every step of the
way. One reason you have not heard us talk a lot about cost is because
we need to keep an open mind and talk about the alternatives first.
Another reason for going through the formal process, is that the discussions
need to go thru the Academic Affairs committee before it goes to the
full Board of Regents. It may well be that strong proponents will reach
a different conclusion when they see some of the unintended consequences.
Do we know how the students feel?
Regent Miller met with the students council in Galveston last
monthit went relatively well. He has received a letter from one
of the campus student groups. They are concerned about any tests they
may have to take that is high-stakes. If it is embedded, they couldnt
care less. But there doesnt seem to be a lot of concern.
Has Regent Miller backed down on his high stakes testing?
He wants everything on the table. Initially there was a lot of resistance
to the idea, but I dont think he is an advocate for standardized
I have a letter from a student at UT-Austin: The student is concerned
that there will be a standardized test and that the university will
teach to the test. There is concern that the creativity of professor
might be then be stifled.
Chrzanowski : When you visited us at Arlington, you had said that we
would be held accountable for transfer students also. Accountability
can morph into scores and quotas and then turns into reward systems.
Assessment does not become a performance reward system. That is the
difference between assessment and accountabilityassessment is
good, but there is not usually a punitive response.
I dont have a doubt that the intentions are good to develop a
system that teaches better, but I am worried about the issue trying
to evaluate in the wrong place. What will be done in the case of failurethose
students that come to us are already programmedwe should go back
to testing in the grade schools and evaluate the whole education system.
We also are getting mixed messageswe want better students, but
we also need more teachers. It needs to be decided exactly what is wanted.
One of my hopes is that through this process we can help the Board of
Regents and the legislature to better understand how we work. We have
the concern that we dont have enough data to give the necessary
information to those people who are responsible for policy, budgets,
The students who sit on the student councils understand the diversity
of the students. Many students have lived through being taught to take
We are talking about assessment of student learning rather than assessing
the factors in the university that lead to success. What we should be
assessing is the success of admission predictions, for exampleassess
students coming in and out, junior college transfers, etc. A rolling
large complex way of looking at these matters is needed. The model of
the east coast student of 30 years ago is aimed at benefiting those
institutions that show how great their students are (graduation rates,
start/finish at the same institution).To test year a and a+4 is not
a bad idea, but there could be a placebo group (one who had no education),
an age cohort that is in the military for example. Has this ever come
up? You stated previously that there is only one campus that is assessing
their studentswho is this?
Brownsville. We are beginning with the community college; have open
admissions; remedial studentsonly about 20% make it through, but
many come with the intention of never getting a degree. We had 4 students
out of 1300 graduate in 4 years. We need to find out how to better help
When are the students tested at UT-Brownsville?
We were using ACT comp and didnt like it. We used inventive assessment
in the majors. We left it up to each major to determine how best to
do this (portfolio, capstone, etc). SACS said we must assess general
education at that time. We pulled out samples of student work, sent
it to teams of faculty, who issued reports. The general conclusion was
that the student couldnt write.
(UTHSC-Houston): Has anyone thought through the legal liability issues
associated with testing? If you have taken tuition money for years and
you test them and they havent learned anythinghas been demonstrated
in court precedents re student athleteshave successfully sued
their university for exploiting them.
(UTHSC-Tyler): When you assess, the most important factor is the temporal
one. You have to test enough to see students progress. Money might
be better invested to test a smaller sample on a more frequent basis.
We are talking about 2 distinct thingsdo the students benefit
from going to college, and are we doing our best to bring every student
up to a minimal level (if someone is above that level, have we taught
(UT-El Paso): What do you think will ultimately come of this?
I have learned to deal with uncertainty. The main thing I have control
over is the process, I can speculate on the unknowns, but when one thing
changes, everything changes.
Ray (Rodriguez), you responded to SACS at UT-Brownsvillebut there
is a wealth of information in the reports back to SACShas anyone
looked at that information? What do we do when we get asked the SACS
questions re accountability/teaching effectiveness? Is no one across
the system looking at that material?
We are working with each component and believe that we are working with
the people who responded to SACS.
University of Texas at Arlington Thomas
Salary Survey is nearing completion.We will probably hear reports within
the next two weeks.
voting.This system is ready and we will use it over the next two weeks
in conjunction with nominating/electing faculty members to serve on
the Periodic Review Committees for our Provost and a senior Vice-President.
- Fire -
we had a small fire as a result of a TV shorting out.Damage was estimated
at$25,000.No injuries occurred and response to the fire was quick from
emergency folks.What we learned was that 8 buildings on campus do not
have proper alarm systems.The buildings are in compliance with code
since they were built before the standards were adopted.We were in the
process of upgrading them, but we will move more quickly now.At first
UTA police and not a private company have been hired to patrol the buildings
during hours of use to look for signs of fire and radio for help.This
will be a fairly costly upgrade.
A search for Vice President for Information Technology is underway
and applications are coming in.Also, a search for Assistant Vice President
for Enrollment Services will begin shortly.Candidates or the position
of Dean of Architecture have been on campus over the past two weeks.
- VP Mary
Ridgeway is stepping down at the end of the school year and will head
up a new effort related to service learning.
- New apartment-style
student housing has been approved. Some older greek houses will be razed
to make room.
is up again. Spring enrollment is up 7.7% over last spring, making this
the fifth consecutive semester the university has posted an increase
in students.Official headcount enrollment is 19,599.The largest increase
is for new graduate students - 43.6%."SCH is up 10.8% compared
to Spring 1999.Distance Education enrollment is up 102% over Spring
2000.Minority enrollment also increased - black enrollment increased
by 17.8% and Hispanic students increased by 18.5%.
(UT-Pan American): Do any faculty have concerns re on line votingare
there concerns with regards to secret ballot?
When you log on, the log on data is completely separated from your vote.
People believe that?
Was this an in house job?
What is the increase in distance learning enrollment attributed to?
We have actively promoted distance education, and there is now more
of Texas at AustinPatrick Davis
Admissions: In response to our problems with escalating enrollment our
admissions processes are being restructured.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.
Program agreements are being developed with UT Arlington, UT Pan Am, UT
Permian Basin, UT El Paso, and UT San Antonio.Students in the provisional
track would be required to complete a prescribed curriculum of 30 semester
credit hours with a GPA of 3.0 before relocating to the UT Austin campus.
The GPA requirement could be adjusted year-to-year in response to enrollments
the previous year. Two meetings will be held this Spring with participants
from the various campuses; the first with advisors and the second with
faculty.The start date is Fall-01.
Changes:The Presidents administrative reorganization is nearly complete,
with the following changes occurring recently:
President for Employee and Campus Services (new position): Pat Clubb.
of Human Resources: Kyle Cavanaugh.I nitiatives already underway to
address a number of the issues (particularly staff issues) discussed
in our last report, including:
new Staff Advisory Council is being developed on campus.
new Staff Leadership Development Forum is being developed
new policy allowing for staff to take 3 SCH/semester free of tuition
and fees has been implemented.
annual survey on Health Ins/Benefits (from Faculty Welfare).
President for Information Technology (new position): Dan Updegrove
& Legislation: Current issues before the Council include the following:
(student reps) involving student participation in the hiring of faculty.
(student reps/Calendar Committee) for a Fall break (mini-version of Spring
on Teaching Continuity and Restructured Faculty Workload upon the Birth
or Adoption of a Child".
of catalog change approvals.
multiyear contracts/appointments for NTF (Lecturer and Senior Lecturer
New ad hoc
Committee to comprehensively examine the roles & expectations of TTF/NTF
on our campus.
with Faculty Senate of Texas A&M for March 26.
Speech Policy: Based on past incidents (e.g., cancellation of Henry Kissingers
talk last year) and more recently controversy surrounding a graphic anti-abortion
exhibit sponsored by Justice for All, we will undoubtedly be looking at
our campus free speech policy and would very much appreciate hearing
from any campuses that have policies in place that we could examine (firstname.lastname@example.org).
to the To Do List:
- Are there
already meetings going on re the HIPAA onyour campus. [According to
Kyle Cavanaugh, A fair amount of work is going on related to HIPPA.Jeannie
Carpenter (Director of Student Health Services) has been the primary
contact on tis.At this point, the impact appears to be more with provider
than with employers; heoever, we are actively reviewing the impact with
a Project Team.]
- What is
your components stance on getting funds for domestic partners
insurance. [Response from Kyle Cavanaugh, My understanding is
that the reason we currently cannot extend benefits to domestic partners
is based upon the Texas Family Code (law).Again, my understanding is
that before we could extend the benefit we would have to have a change
in the law.You may know that we did implement such a benefit at Rice
and at that time may have been the first University in Texas to do so.This
issue is currently being looked at by our Faculty Welfare Committee
and they may have a recommendation by the end of the Spring semester].
- Does the
FAC need a budget committee (from governance)
- Are there
any campuses that do not have an upward evaluation policy? [President
evaluates VPs & Provost.Deans are evaluated by Committee (including
faculty) every six years.Chairs more of a mixed bag (some evaluated,
some not; bigger concern is lack of faculty consultation in new chairs
in certain departments].
identify (and bring) sample policies; ie the best policies from your
handbooks so that people can have a number to look at.
- Does your
campus have email designated as an official means of correspondence?
[Question originated on our campus.We are currently looking at a draft
policy, but recognize there are enormous implementation issues].
Is it mandated that Navigant Travel be used in the System?
What is the purpose for the joint meeting with the Texas A&M senate?
We have done this every year, like touching base with a neighbour.
We compare how we each handle issuesus with assessment, them
with non-tenure track faculty, for example. We will have free speech
on this agenda too.
University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost CollegeWilliam
Harris and Charles Lackey
1. At a General
Faculty Meeting held on January 10, 2001 the majority of the discussion
at the faculty meeting revolved around monetary concerns. Faculty are
most concerned with Level 1 merit, or base merit.Two important resolutions
came out of the faculty meeting:
1:Be it resolved that: base merit be no less than the cost of
living for this biennium."
2:Whereas, the original merit system recognized the potential
that the entire faculty can be meritorious, Whereas, it has become obvious
that the administration is setting quotas on how many faculty will receive
base merit, Therefore, be it resolved that the faculty recommends that
the administration return to the original intent and spirit of the base
senate discussed these resolutions at the February meeting. A resolution
passed by the academic senate and forwarded to the president requested
that base merit should be tied to the cost of living index and be applied
to all faculty.
2. The new
Provost, Dr. Jose Martin, announced the creation of the Provosts
Corner, an informal forum for faculty to air their views on different
issues with the Executive Council of the University.
3. A proposed
HOOP policy, Distance Education Guidelines, has been presented to the
Academic Senate for approval. It provides for course release and/or supplemental
compensation for distance education courseware development by faculty.
In addition, curriculum approval and review follows the same procedures
as other academic programs or courses. We would like to know if other
campuses have developed a policy dealing with distance education. And
also if there are campus committee related to distance learning.
4. The Dean
of Graduate studies has held a series of faculty forums to discuss the
state of graduate education at UTB. A discussion of indicators of quality
of graduate programs is planned for later this Spring. This activity corresponds
with a significant downturn in graduate enrollment at UTB.
5. The new
Provost has recently emphasized that resources are a primary concern.
He affirmed that the University will make a strong case to the legislature
this biennium. In the meantime, UTB/TSC has received approval for several
new student fees to be used to support operations. The use of student
fees seems to be a rediscovered source of supplemental funding on campus.In
a related development, the fourth Director of Development and Institutional
Advancement in four years has just been appointed. Gift and grant activity
on campus, while on the increase, is only a trickle but the administration
has not been successful in hiring a professional for this slot.
Budget Review Committee has not met this academic year; these meetings
are called by the VP of Business Affairs.
to To Do ListA:
University of Texas at DallasRobert Nelsen
1. An ad
hoc committee is considering the possible reorganization of the academic
components in the University, given its tremendous growth, the needs of
students, the recruiting of students and faculty, disparity in funding
of schools, the lack of faculty control and governance of specific
areas or disciplines, and UTDs failure to qualify for the first
tier Carnegie rankings.The key word the committee is wrestling with is
disaggregation.In our next meeting, we will be looking at models
from various universities.Please note:the committee is not certain that
we should change our structure, but the two models that seem to attract
the most attention is a school of liberal arts and sciences, or a school
of liberal arts and a school of natural sciences.In either scenario, more
traditional departments with actual budgets would likely be formed.No
decisions are imminent.
2. A survey
of faculty with regards to the quality of personal, in-office computers
shows that 7% of the faculty feel that their computers are seriously deficient,
28% feel that their computers are less than adequate; 52% feel that their
computers are adequate, and 12% feel that their computers are more than
adequate.The deans have been allotted infrastructure money to correct
problems.However, each individual faculty member must negotiate with his
or her dean to obtain relief.
3. We are
considering a fall break and changing the spring break to assure that
midterm exams and papers happen before the spring break.
4. We are
less than pleased that the sewer continues to leak (read: rise up
out of the drains in the floors of a large lecture hall, telecommunication
rooms, and faculty offices) in Founders building.And, yes, of course,
there are problems with the smell not to mention the health hazards.
5. Now that
the course evaluation data is here, the Deans are looking at which Senior
Lecturers, in their opinion should be given 3 year contracts with all
the rights and responsibilities of tenure track faculty, except tenure.The
goal is to issue contracts by the end of March.Possible tenuring of Senior
Lecturer remains one option that the ad hoc committee is still considering
as they continue to debate what the status of Senior Lecturers at UTD
should be.The ad hoc committee is also in the process of establishing
hiring and review procedures for Senior Lecturers.
Committee on Educational Policies is considering the following items:
- a maximum
number of withdrawals in graduate programs (probably 3 or so) to keep
students from sampling classes and to ensure that classes do not fill
up with students who will not end up taking the classes and that there
are more possibilities for the majority of students
and minuses for graduate student grades
- the status
of incompletes for graduate students
instituting pluses and minuses for undergraduate students this year, the
average student grades have dropped approximately .15 pointsfrom
2.92 to 2.82 (with the grades in large lecture courses and Natural Sciences
and Mathematics showing the largest decrease). Students with A averages
have been the most affected.
to the To Do list:
- No one
(whom I know of) has ever asked the question about email as an official
means of correspondence. And everything (I know of) comes via paper.
Hence, mixed answer.
- We have
to use Navigant to make travel arrangements (unless we can talk the
VPBA to allow us to purchase a cheaper ticket).
- Our EGIpeople
are both staff (the Senate couldnt get any faculty to participate):the
new HR Director, and the person who takes care of insurance issues on
campus, Claire Ochipinta.
got a committee working on HIPPA matters and the new HR person (to start
in the next week or so) will the Coordinator.
partners and insurance? We passed anti-discrimination wording last year,
so I foresee no problem.
- Yes, we
need a budget committee.
- We have
an upward evaluation process.
Chasen (UTMDACC): What is the idea of + and -.? Is this an attempt
to raise the GPA?
There is a 1/3 difference between the grades. Engineering feels they
can make better distinctions between the students in large classes.
Faculty feel they can better evaluate the student.
Robert, didnt we go from a 5 level system to pluses only, and
then we had increases in the GPA. So I think we are back to where
we were before.
University of Texas at El PasoGreg Rocha
1. The Larry
K. Durham Sports Center. Early this year groundbreaking ceremonies were
held to begin construction of the Larry K. Durham Sports Center. It is
named after an alumnus who donated a sizable portion of the money needed
to build the complex. The 60,000 square foot building will serve two purposes.
First, the Kinesiology Department will locate its faculty and facilities
into the Center. Currently, the faculty members are located in various
buildings on campus. It will also be the headquarters for inter-collegiate
athletic programs. Offices for all coaches and their staffs will be housed
there. In addition, a 10,000 square foot training and conditioning center
will be built and equipped for use by UTEPs collegiate athletes.
It is hoped that construction will be completed around November of this
was delayed because of an ongoing dispute between El Paso County and UTEP
and the UT System because the County owns the land on which the complex
is located.They Commissioners wanted access to the adjacent Sun Bowl in
order to hold events and delayed their approval to begin construction.
UTEP, which has a lease from the County to exclusive use of the Sun Bowl,
denied the request. Negotiations to resolve the matter fell through, the
County Commissioners voted approve construction on the land, but UTEP
and the UT System invoked the power of eminent domain to take control
of the Sun Bowl, for which they paid the County $1,600. The County has
challenged the legality of the UTEP and UT System appraisal of the property,
and the issue is currently in the courts.
of Deans. President Natalicio recently appointed John Conway as Dean of
The College of Health Sciences. Dr. Conway comes to UTEP from SUNY Albany
and has a Ph.D. in Public Health. The other opening for a Dean, in the
College of Business, is currently at the point where a short list of 5
candidates has been sent to the President, and it is expected that the
new dean will be in place for the Fall 2001 semester.
3. UTEP Centennial
Commission. The Centennial Commission is a project that not only celebrates
UTEPs 100th anniversary in 2014, but is also designed to report
on the status of the University and where it should be headed as an institution.
As envisioned by the President, faculty, staff, administrators, politicians,
El Pasoans and Juarences would be member of the Commission and generate
the report. The Faculty Senate Executive Committee has conveyed to the
President that the faculty would be very willing to participate. Senate
President Elizabeth Anthony envisions our participation based on the standing
faculty committees. So, for instance, the Curriculum Committee would offer
input into the campus curriculum, the Library Committee would do the same
for that institution, and so forth.
Citizen Employment Paperwork. We were recently notified that the Human
Resources office would no longer assist non-US citizens obtain employment
papers in order to work for UTEP. The faculty found this troubling given
that many departments on campus hire faculty from other nations. In our
case Mexico is a major source of foreign-born faculty hires. But we were
notified that the change in policy is due to two factors. First, the previous
head of HR was a lawyer who could provide some assistance. She took a
position in the private sector and the new director does not have a legal
background. Second, before she left, the previous director urged that
the University not longer offer the service because the laws governing
the hiring of foreigners is becoming increasingly complicated and an immigration
lawyer would be more adept at helping someone secure the needed approval.
We have urged HR to have available the needed forms and a directory of
immigration lawyers for those who need them.
of Faculty Who Work at Research Centers.The increasing number of faculty
with course releases to work at research centers on campus has created
problems when it comes to departmental evaluations.Currently, no formal
procedure exists to properly evaluate those in this situation.There have
been times when faculty are involved in research only but have to be evaluated
by the Department. It has placed both the faculty member and the department
in a quandary.The Faculty Senate is currently developing a form that would
evaluate the performance of the faculty member at the research center,
and when combined with the departmental evaluation, would give the Deans,
the Provost and the President a better and fairer picture of that persons
University of TexasPan AmericanWendy
making event recently occurred on our campus.With the consent of our Executive
Committee, I cancelled the scheduled February 14 meeting of our Faculty
Senate for lack of an agenda.This does not mean that were not doing
anything; only that we are between major reports and are experiencing
something of a welcomed lull in campus-wide crises requiring the Senates
and past Senate Chairs recently participated in a visit to the Pan Am
campus by two consultants from the Kaludis Consulting Group. The goal
of the consultants was to review three major campus initiatives related
to (a) student access and success, (b) teacher preparation, and (c) the
university research agenda. Regardless of the nature of the consultants
report, being interviewed by these gentlemen was very interesting; they
had done an incredible amount of homework and at times seemed to know
more about us than we know about ourselves.They also brought in an outsiders
perspective and asked a number of delightfully unexpected questions.We
await their preliminary report later this month with tremendous interest.
recently assisted in coordinating travel arrangements for twelve faculty
who recently attended the American Association for Higher Education Forum
on Faculty Roles and Rewards held in Tampa, Florida.The trip was funded
through the Provosts office.
January meeting the Senate voted to participate in a study of the post
tenure review process in Texas.This is a project funded in part by the
AAHE New Pathways II Project.We are promised a summary of findings specific
to our university and would be interested in sharing ours with those of
other participating UT campuses.
5. Our Senate
now has a completely redesigned web page.Dr. Rubik Atamian was elected
official Senate webmaster and is doing a wonderful job of keeping us connected
with the outside world and with one another.We post ad hoc committee reports
for review on the web page rather than distributing paper copies of drafts
prior to their discussion in Senate meetings and can view the documents
online in the meeting room as we discuss them .In addition, the site provides
ready access to the HOP, UT System, Coordinating Board, and a diverse
array of links of professional interest. Visit us at http://w3.panam.edu/senate
6. The Executive
Committee has approved in concept a new area on the above mentioned web
page providing advice on the construction of folders for annual review
and tenure/promotion review. This would be especially directed to junior
faculty, calling upon the experience of senior faculty (frequently their
peer reviewers) and the expertise of several TFA trained faculty advocates.
The project was inspired by remarks made by the Provost to Deans (and,
through them, to Department Chairs) at a recent Council of Deans meeting.
the December to do list items:
- Many components
of the university use email as an official means of communication though,
to my knowledge, it is not the official means in any area.
- Our travel
related printouts carry the logo: World Wide Travel, though it is listed
in the campus directory simply as the Travel Office. We must use the
campus service for all official travel.
- A request
for Senators to survey faculty in their colleges regarding the matter
of obtaining funds for health care benefits for domestic partners resulted
in, most obviously, a low response rate! Given that, however, responses
ran approximately 70% in favor, about 20% neutral, about 10% opposed.
The few comments received included this is an area we really dont
want to get involved in and we need to get health care to as many
people as possible.
- Does the
FAC need a budget committee? In my opinion, no; not unless we have people
with the time and expertise to do it right.Otherwise, some combination
of us will waste an incredible amount of time and accomplish nothing
of import.Obviously, we should be kept informed regarding budget related
matters, and if anything looks at all strange, we have an obligation
to ask questions.But, in general, I recommend leaving the budget monitoring
to the auditors and to faculty professional associations who can provide
appropriate training to small groups of interested members willing to
take on the task.
- I know
of no UTPA HOP policy that I would recommend especially as a model document.All
of them, however, are easily accessible to anyone through the university
web site at www.panam.edu.
University of Texas of the Permian Basin--Sophia
- New President.Dr.
David Watts has been appointed as the new president of UTPB, starting
Fall 2001.The Faculty Senate, the Graduate Council, as well as faculty
and staff, were involved in the interviewing process.Dr. Watts is presently
serving as the VPAA at Jacksonville State University in Alabama.He will
replace Dr. Charles Sorber, who will return to U.T. Austin to work as
a faculty.Dr. Watts will be the guest speaker at the Honors Convocation
on April 4.
- New Library/Lecture
Hall. The two-story, 80,000 square-foot building features a split face
limestone exterior and includes more than 66,000 square feet for the
library.The new facility contains two lecture halls.A dedication ceremony
was held on February 9, 2001.President Charles Sorber, Chancellor R.
D. Burck, Vice-Chair, Board of Regents, Rita Clements, and Faculty Senate
President, Sophia Andres-Barnett, participated in the ceremony.The library
was dedicated to J. Conrad Dunagan.
Ray Rodriguez visited our campus and discussed assessment with the assessment
and curriculum committees as well as with the English and Math faculty.
- The Senate
has been busy in reviewing update course forms, deletions and revisions
of existing courses and in passing policy changes for the new undergraduate
- The Senate
will evaluate the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences this semester.The
evaluation is coordinated by the Senate that collects and tallies the
ballots and forwards the results to the VPAA.Evaluations of the chairs
and deans occur every three years.
- Our campus
does have email designated as an official means of correspondence, but
we still get hard copies ofminutes of the Graduate Council and the Faculty
Senate and of memos from the President.
- We dont
have to uses Navigant, simply because it doesnt save us any money.80%
of our travel is to Austin and for the rest oftravel we are limited
to three airlines.
Isham, Director of Personnel, and Corbett Gaulden, Associate Professor
of Marketing, are our representatives on the EGI committee.
- Pat Jaramillo,
Vice-President for Student Services, has informed the Center for Behavioral
Analysis about HIPAA.J. Tillapaugh, Assistant Vice-President for Graduate
Studies, attended a conference at Galveston on HIPAA.UTPB does not have
a lot of exposure and contracts to a private medical agency.
domestic partners insurance, we havent been presented with an
official proposal which would include its impact on other policies (e.g.
insuring ones parents) and its cost.Once this is done, such proposal
will be considered by the Staff Advisory Council and by the Faculty
- See our
sample policy and form on evaluating administrators.
University of Texas at San AntonioPatricia
Patricia M. Harris, Senate Chair; Mansour El-Kikhia, Secretary of the
is making progress in achieving independence from the Assembly. Currently,
faculty are elected only to the Assembly, and then serve on the Senate.
In addition, all Senate resolutions must now be voted on by the Assembly,
whose composition includes Senators as well as an assortment of elected
Administrators. In a recent meeting with President Romo and Provost Bailey,
it was suggested that the independence of the Senate could be brought
about by inclusion of text regarding the role of the Senate in the Faculty
Handbook. The text was drafted last week by the University attorney and
is not final at this time. If independence were achieved, the Assembly
would be retained as a forum for representatives of four groups: faculty,
administrators, staff and students.
Romo has agreed to establish a Campus Committee on the Advancement of
Women. The Committee will be constituted at the start of the new academic
3. A search
for a new Vice President for Student Affairs remains unresolved.
4. No progress
has been made in obtaining OGC approval of the last part of the Senates
proposed grievance policy, relating to the burden of proof. Other aspects
of the proposal are already in the Faculty Handbook.
5. The six
colleges forwarded plans for restructuring to the Provost's Office in
early February. At this point plans mainly involve the creation of discipline-specific
departments. Proposals involving the transfer of disciplines to different
colleges are not being examined at this time.
to To Do List:
notices are transmitted over e-mail, but there is no designation of
e-mail as the official means of communication.
- The University
requires faculty to make University-related travel reservations through
one of two travel agencies (Corporate and Rengert).
- I dont
know the answer to this question.
is no discussion regarding domestic partner benefits.
is an upward evaluation policy.
University of Texas at TylerSteven Rainwater
Mabry announced that, beginning the 2001-2002 academic year, UT-Tyler
will be reorganized from the present six college structure into five.
Most prominent in the changes will be: the merging of sciences and mathematics
with liberal arts to form the College of Arts and Sciences; moving the
computer science department to the College of Engineering; moving the
technology department to the College of Business; and the merging of Nursing
with Allied Health Sciences and Kineseology. Prior to his decision, both
the faculty senate and student government association passed resolutions
in opposition to the merging of the College of Science and Mathematics
with the College of Liberal Arts.
Mabry announced that the University will begin participation in NCAA Division
III athletics over the next several years. Mens and womens
tennis will be the most likely first sports programs.This decision was
made after representatives of the Academic Council visited several schools
similar to UT-Tyler and a student referendum approved an intercollegiate
3. SACS accreditation
for UT-Tyler was reaffirmed and included the approval of several substantive
changes since the last cycle. Certain follow-up reports will however be
required including several pertaining to institutional effectiveness.
4. An ambitious
campus master plan was revealed. Funding for the HKPE and Nursing/Allied
Health Sciences Buildings are near completion with construction scheduled
over the next several years. Construction of the A.W. Riter Carillon Bell
Tower will be completed sometime late this spring.
5. Bill Baker,
Provost and VPAA, is retiring May 31st. Five candidates for the position
visited the campus during January. No decision has yet been made on Bills
1. An ad
hoc committee of the senate has been appointed to review the revised Handbook
of Operating Procedures to ensure that previously approved senate initiatives
new grievance procedure, and faculty emeritus guidelines.
the pending reorganization of the University, major changes in our senate's
organization will be necessitated in order to provide fair representation
to faculty in each college. As such, we are requesting from each academic
institution information on how your faculty senate/assembly is organized
(# of senators per college, at-large representatives based on college
faculty size, how president is elected, etc.) so that we may begin to
deliberate on possible changes to our constitution to accommodate the
reorganization and to provide our faculty with equitable representation.
Our senate is currently organized such that two senators serve each college
with three senators elected at-large (i.e. the senate's executive committee
with three year terms: vice-president; president; past president).
3. The senates
annual Alpha-Omega luncheon was held in December honoring newly-retired
faculty, new faculty, and recently promoted and/or tenured faculty.
4. The senates
Student Affairs committee reported on the results received from a faculty
survey related to the addition of intercollegiate athletics.Of those responding
to the survey, 42% were in favor, 23% against, and 35% neutral.Comments
on the survey revealed though that many faculty had serious concerns such
as the diversion of funding away from academics.
5. The senates
University Affairs committee is studying two issues brought forward by
administration: eliminating the Monday of final exams week as a class
day and whether a particular time period during every week of the semester
should be designated when there no classes are scheduled.This time could
be used for student organization and faculty committee meetings.
to FAC Questions:
doesnt seem to be an official designation of e-mail as an official
means of correspondence (i.e. no policy), but most accept it as such.
to administration, we are not at this time mandated to use the designated
state travel agency (Navigant) for scheduling any travel arrangements,
but believe we are scheduled to begin with them on June 1.Supposedly,
even then however there will be other options.
Bandy, benefits specialist in the HR office, serves as our representative
to the UT EGI committee.
to administration, there has been no discussion on funds for domestic
partners insurance and thus no official position exists on this issue.
- We do
have an upward evaluation policy (i.e. Evaluation of Academic Administrators)
in our HOP.The policy is included below...a copy of this will also be
Tyler Evaluation of Academic Administrators
periodic evaluation of academic administrators is intended to serve
a variety of purposes.Foremost among them is to provide a mechanism
to facilitate the development of administrative excellence.The evaluation
is intended to assist in identifying:(1) those areas of performance
which are strong; (2) those areas of performance in which improvement
are needed; (3) those aspects of the position which contribute to
or hinder administrative performance.Having identified areas in
need of improvement the subject of the evaluation will be able to
develop realistic short and long range goals for improvement.The
periodic nature of the evaluation will provide a means of assessing
both the extent to which superior performance and skill areas are
capitalized on and the extent to which progress toward needed improvements
has been made.
yearly evaluation of each academic administrator is the responsibility
of the individual's immediate supervisor.In addition, every four
years there shall be a more extensive evaluation conducted by the
supervisor which must provide an opportunity for input by all faculty
members in the unit(s) reporting to or directly affected by the
administrator.The manner of the review should be agreed upon in
advance by the administrator and the supervisor.While the opinions
and participation of the faculty are of major importance, the supervisor
may solicit input from any source, including staff and students,
he/she believes may contribute to the evaluation.
completion of the evaluation, the supervisor will prepare a draft
of the report, discuss it with the administrator, make revisions
if appropriate and forward it through channels to the President.Consistent
with the purpose of the evaluation, the final report will be distributed
only to the person being evaluated and to those administrative officials
to and through whom the report is submitted.
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at DallasKevin
of the Six Year Plan for the institution is in process
2. With the
recent acquisition of St. Paul Medical Center, short and long-range use
of the facility are being discussed
email designated as an official means of correspondence? Yes
do you have to use for travelare you mandated to use the one for
the whole system (Travel agency: Navigant)? Yes, but there is optimism
that the new web-based forms will decentralize the process and make
is easier for departments and divisions to schedule travel.
are the legislative agendas on your health science campus? As always,
a primary agenda item is maintaining/increasing state funding for the
health center as it grows.
are the people on the EGI committees from our campus? Abby Freeman,
Vice President for Human Services Administration is our appointed representative.
Stacey Rychtyk, Administrative Manager for Otolaryngology, is our elected
representative.Lynelle Burt, Associate Director of Systems and Benefits
Division also attends the EGI meetings.
there already meetings going on about HIPAA onyour campus? Yes,
we have a committee that has been meeting and has implemented some policies
and procedures that will address the HIPAA regulations.
is your components stance on getting funds for domestic partners
insurance? As I understand from our HR, this is not a local but
a state issue and one that has been introduced before the Texas legislature
for the past four years.
the FAC need a budget committee (from governance)? Would not be
a bad idea.
there any campuses that do not have an upward evaluation policy?
We have upward evaluation as described in previous reports.
University of Texas Medical Branch at GalvestonRichard
1. The Faculty
Satisfaction Survey data have been presented to the UTMB Faculty Senate
in a 1 and ˝ hour presentation with focus upon six topical areas.Four
members of the UTMB Senate( Ruth Marcott/SON, Steve Owen/SON, Linda Phillips/SOM,
and Richard Rahr/SAHS) presented data related to Faculty Development,
Research Issues, and Clinical care Issues.Susan Weller/SOM, Chair of Core
Committee on Women presented the questionnaire outcomes on Womens
Issues. Gayle Weaver/SAHS, Chair of Core Committee on Minorities presented
the data and conclusions related to Minority Issues. The UTMB questionnaire
data were presented to the Deans at a Deans Retreat in January.
The report was also presented to the President of UTMB, Dr. John Stobo.
The President and Deans approved $300,000.00 to be used for 4-5 six month
Presidential Faculty Development Leaves in response to facultys
high value of such leaves.The faculty member on leave must bring back
a new research, clinical, or educational skill that is useful to the University.
2. Dr. Linda
Phillips was requested by the Deans and President to put together a planning
committee to develop guidelines for the Presidents Faculty Development
Leaves. Dr. Phillips within a two-week period developed the criteria,
deadlines, application criteria to apply for the Presidential Faculty
Developmental Leaves through a committee representing all four schools
( Dr. Joel Gallagher, SOM, Dr. Robin Froman, SON, Dr. Linda Phillips,
SOM, and Richard Rahr, SAHS).The Senate feels very appreciative to the
President, Deans, and Dr. Linda Philips for their rapid response to faculty
requests and creating the faculty development leaves.
3. The Academic
and Administration Committer are into its third month of reviewing the
abandonment procedures for the Department of Health Promotion and Disease
Prevention.The Process is being followed very closely by the Chair Elect,
Dr. Victor Sierpina,We should have a final report within one two
months.This will be presented to the entire senate.
is a search underway for a new Dean of Nursing at UTMB.Dr. Mary Fentondesires
to step down after 17 years of outstanding service and leadership.Dr.
John Stobo is personally chairing the search for the new Dean of Nursing.There
have been a number of Nursing leaders from throughout the United States
that have been invited to consult and help find the right leader for UTMB
Nursing School.Dr. Victor Sierpina will serve on the recruitment and selection
committee.We are very appreciative to Dr. Fenton for her fine leadership
and agreeing to stay until a new Dean of Nursing is found.
University of Texas Health Science Center at HoustonRichard
University of Texas Health Science Center at San AntonioJudy
1. The Faculty
Senate decided to concentrate on two issues this year. The first one is
facilitating communication within the Health Science Center (HSC). With
the past administration there was little communication between the faculty
and administration. Faculty morale has been low as it appeared that the
faculty had no voice in the decision making process. The Executive Committee
of the senate met with President Cigarroa who agreed that lack of communication
is a major problem. As a result, Vice-President Wartman will be attending
the Senate meetings and the Chair of the Faculty Senate will attend the
first 10 minutes of the HSC Executive Committee to discuss plans, issues,
and concerns. The Senate will continue working on other communication
streams as well.
2. The second
major issue to be addressed by the Senate is faculty development with
emphasis on mentoring new faculty. A committee is working on a strategic
plan for mentoring.
3. Dr. Wartman
in his new capacity as Executive Vice President for Academic and Health
Affairs has begun working with the Deans of the schools on academic planning.
Current issues include relooking at the annual campus review and the issues
surrounding tenure and part time employment. The legislative session has
occupied a large part of President Cigarroa's effort and many initiatives
are being proposed on behalf of the University. The Regional Academic
Health Center figures prominently in the legislative requests as does
competitive compensation for employees.
4. The Medical
School indicated that a large part of its effort is currently devoted
to the University Physician's Group (UPG), the medical practice plan.
There is a search ongoing for a Vice-President for business affairs and
a Vice-Dean of the medical school. Mr. Steve Lynch is currently serving
as the interim VP for business affairs.Dr. Celia Kaye has been named interim
Vice-Dean of the Medical School.
the Nursing School, a draft proposal was presented and endorsed by the
FacultySenate to change nursing faculty contracts from 9 to12 months.
In addition, the Nursing School will be participating in Nurse Legislative
Day at the State Capital.
6. An ad
hoc working group in the area of tech transfer is examining existing policies
and procedures, including conflict of interest, and will recommend changes/improvements.The
technology transfer office is planning for an increase in research funding
from industry (although only 1-2% of funding currently, it is likely to
increase to as much as 20-40% in the next 10 years). A conference on March
7 will deal with some of the ethical issues attendant to University-Industry
cooperative research efforts.
7. The HSC
recently had a site visit for accreditation by AAALAC. The exit interviews
were very complimentary.
8. The search
for Graduate Dean of Biomedical Sciences is ongoing and Dr. Merle Olson
is acting as Interim Dean.
is nothing in the HOP, but according to the Office of General Counsel
(Ms. Georgia Harper), email is considered an official means of communication.
campus requires the use of Corporate or Rennert Travel Agencies
agendas-Requests have been made for additional monies for South Texas
outreach and for competitive compensation.
- EGI members-Mr.
Anthony Ramirez (appointed), Dr. John Brown (elected)
- There are ongoing meetings regarding HIPPA and a survey has been sent
out for all employees to complete.(I have brought a copy.)
Partner insurance:Mr. Ramirez (Director of Human Resources) informed
me that according to the Office of General Council (Mr. Dan Stewart),
domestic partner insurance does not meet eligibility requirements according
to state law.However, this is an issue that has been sent to our Faculty
Senate.·FAC budget committee-This would be a good idea.
Evaluation policy-The HOP has such a policy and I have brought a copy
University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer CenterMarvin
were held at the Clinical Council Meeting and the Executive Committee
of the Faculty Senate regarding the new Multi-Year Contract.
Committee of the Faculty Senate recommended that faculty be utilized on
the various Planned Funding Initiative Programs Review Committees, such
as the Prostate Program, Brain Tumor Program, etc.The reviewers were primarily
Division and Department Heads.Recommendation was accepted.
3. The Year
2001 will be the 60th Anniversary of the U.T. M. D. Anderson Cancer Center.Plans
for year-long celebrations are being organized.The highlight of the year
will be a fund-raising gala on November 1, 2001.
4. An institution-wide
employee opinion survey is being developed which will be overseen by a
steering group of senior managers and faculty representatives.
5. In January,
a Town Hall Meeting was organized by the Faculty Senate with the Management
Committee forming a panel to answer questions from the faculty. The main
agenda was growth and issues related to growth.Some of the questions raised
were as follows: is growth exceeding capacity; is the faculty working
for diminishing returns; is there faculty input; is there administrative
accountability; discussion of the growth of administration relative to
the number of administrative positions, salaries, and to the margin.Issues
of growth pertaining to patients were the quality of care for the patient,
the cost to the faculty in academic pursuit, cost to faculty morale, and
the contribution to the mission.
is continuing deliberation on the issue of E & G funded laboratory
technicians, and leveling the playing field.
7. A proposal
has been made by the CAO to eliminate the position of Research Associate.
These are faculty positions, senior to a post doctoral fellow, but below
an Instructor or Assistant Professor.The CAO contends that there is no
career path for these individuals.If the position is eliminated, the individual
would move to a faculty position of Instructor, or a classified position
requiring a Ph.D. with growth in terms of salary.
has been raised regarding the construction of new buildings, the costs
involved, and the issue of people traveling from one building to another,
since the campus is so far reaching.
to the To Do List
the other components have email designated as an official means of correspondence?
I do not know the answer specifically but will find out.This form of
communication is widely used but when it is for the record, I believe
it must be on letterhead.
do you have to use for travel? Are you mandated to use the one for the
whole system (Travel agency: Navigant.)? We have Navigant as the
are the legislative agendas on your health science campus? Will
have to investigate this further with the appropriate office at our
campus and either bring it to the meeting as an item or e-mail it to
are the people on the EGI committees from our campus? We do have
a representative from our campus - name to follow.
there already meetings going on re the HIPAA on your campus? YES,
Will try to find out what are the official channels for this program.
is your component's stance on getting funds for domestic partners insurance?
This item, to the best of my knowledge, has not been formally addressed
at our institution. We certainly have antidiscrimination policies and
the FAC need a budget committee? Will defer to Dr. Joel Dunningtonyes
there any campuses that do not have an upward evaluation policy?
We have one.Will attempt to bring a copy of ours.
identify (and bring) sample policies; ie the best policies from your
handbooks so that people can have a number to look at.
I presume this relates to upward evaluation per the above question.
your campus have email designated as an official means of correspondence?
See the first question asked.I know that we send official letters from
the Faculty Senate on lettterhead.
University of Texas Health Center at Tyler
PhD., Representative of research faculty
M.D., Representative of clinical faculty
run of the new Faculty Compensation Plan begins March 1st. During the
trial run, faculty will receive their current compensation but will be
provided with data on what their pay would be under the new compensation
plan. The actual plan will go into effect September, 2001.Under the new
plan, faculty will receive 80% of their current salary with the remaining
20% fluctuating based on productivity. During the most recent meeting
of the clinical faculty assembly the primary concern of the faculty is
that the RVU (relative value unit) which is the value assigned to a given
task may be adjusted throughout the year depending on reimbursement to
the hospital and the number of indigent patients seen. Faculty members
are concerned that their income will be at risk due to hospital losses.
2. A committee
has been organized that consists of 4 physicians and representatives from
the business office to develop daily reports of physician activities so
individuals can track their productivity and make sure they are being
3. The faculty
grievance policy was sent to Cullen Godfrey and I received correspondence
from him that it has been forwarded to W.O. Schultz.I received this correspondence
approximately 2 months ago and thus far have not heard from Mr. Schultz.
to To Do List:
is not an official means of correspondence on our campus.
- We are
now mandated to use Navigant travel agency.
- Our EGI
representatives are Donna Royal from Benefits Office and Kevin Hawbaker
from Information Systems.
- A HIPAA
committee has been organized on our campus and is headed by Ron Tissier
in information systems. They are not currently having regular meetings
but plan to do so.
- Our component
has no plans to try to obtain funds for domestic partner insurance.
- Our campus
does have an upward evaluation policy.
discussion: Simpson provided a quick overview of the situation. Travis
sent a letter to Chancellor Burck re concern that UT-Tyler faculty did
not have merit raises. After speaking with UT-Tyler President, Chancellor
Burck communicated back in a letter to Travis that this was due to miscommunication.
Tyler FAC representatives said this not true. Travis to write another
letter using the wording: Since the use of the money to benefit
the faculty was not achieved, and the business office says the money has
been absorbed, the clinical faculty would like reconsideration to
distribute the money in the next fiscal year.
to Dan Stuart, you must be a representative from a campus to hold an official
position on the EGI committee. Thus, Joel is not eligible as was originally
requested. However, he is welcome to come and speak on our (UT-FAC) behalf,
but he will not have a vote.
We are reviewing a department for abandonment. The Senate is checking
to see that the members rights were upheld. The presidents office
and the legal department are also reviewing the situation. The review
will be reported to UTMBs senate within the next two months.
from OGC was to respond to us on several issues, including the indemnification
web page, and has not yet gotten back to us.
We had requested
that we be ccd on matters related to academic affairs as well as
faculty matters between the Presidents and the Chancellor. Sharpe says
that he has spoken with them, but cant make them do that. Ray Rodriguez
also promised to cc us on matters related to accountability. He sends
things to the chancellor. Travis will speak to Sharpe about this.
Post-Tenure Review Survey Frank Fair, Sam Houston State University
Generic version of the survey, collection of results from the surveys
we have done within our System.
Sam Houston State Universitys committee on PTR. The policy meets
the letter of the law, but doesnt have a lot of teeth. The American
Association of Higher Education gave grant money to study PTR wrote a
proposal to study PTR as it operated within the Texas Sate University
System. Both the faculty senate and administration were involved in the
process. What has PTR changed if a faculty is failing professor 101, s/he
has more incentive and an opportunity to mend her/his ways. If not, the
lawyer has more ammunition to take her/him to court. This focuses the
attention on the deadwood only. PTR is/should be aimed at the development
of the 98% of faculty who have potential thus this is beneficial.
In addition to individual anonymity, we also promised institutional anonymity.
The reports we complied stayed within the institution. The official report
contained the pool of data rather than specific information for a campus.
Interesting findings:54.4% of respondents received no formal feedback
after going through PTR. When we talked to legislators they promised to
revisit this in the near future would be nice to tell them data. 22.6%
agreed that the process helped them identify professional weaknesses.
It almost seems too early to do the survey some of the questions you
wouldnt really have answers yet for. Are you going to redo the
survey to better judge the impact of PTR?
we get enough collaboration, it is not expensive to produce the survey,
send it out to the campus senates and have them distribute it. If we
have continued sponsorship of the program, we will redo the survey in
3-4 years definitely in our system. If we have money/collaboration,
then we can go further.
If you are collecting numbers on those who chose early retirement rather
than go through PTR?
think those numbers are important too, but we havent done this.
We have just asked the question if retirement was contemplated. This
should also be a component of the exit interview done by the department/HR.
This is very important. In 1996 when Ratliff presented the idea of PTR,
his goal was to get rid of the deadwood.
You said that you got interested in this because of academic freedom.
What impact has PTR had on academic freedom or the perception of academic
hasnt really bothered us at all because of the way the systems
were designed to operate. It does have the potential to do harmPTR
could evolve in several directions. It is not clear where it is going
and that is why I fear revisiting. If we cant show data from this,
then I think the tenure system would be in real jeopardy and there goes
academic freedom. I think there are some worries re the peer review
component. We for too long have acted as if we are solo practitionerswe
need peer review to discuss what we are doing professionally. Incompetency
is the language of the law.
When people talk about making PTR more meaningful, you are not talking
about incompetency anymore.
Lackey (UT-Brownsville): Have you come across follow-up studies from
I am going to an AAG sponsored conference in March in Washington. There
are systems that do peer review in different ways, like UNC.
Beidelman (UT-Tyler): I feel that we are responding to an underlying
negative assumption that we are not fulfilling what we should be doing
as professionals. The burden of proof is on us after we have already
worked to receive the tenure we have to continue to justify our existence.
It is incomprehensible to me that someone who has gone through the tenure
process has to have peers to continue to review their work! If you are
publishing in peer reviewed journals, doing the research, etc., then
you are constantly being peer reviewed. I know that my work is good
and is not below competent standards. You also have teaching evaluations,
etc.And that information is part of my annual report.
I would like to see how long it takes to put together your PTR report
in addition to how long it takes to do your annual report.
It doesnt take away from your research or teaching time, it takes
away from your personal time.
At the School of Public Health at UT Houston, we do our annual report,
and then we randomly select faculty to review these. They use a 10 point
scale (high and low numbers are thrown out) and the remaining data is
normalized. Those data are feed back to the faculty. This is a very
different approach to peer review. There are some flaws for example
you might not know the person at all, just see the papers. The dean
does use it for merit raises, but we havent been able to have
him show us how he uses the data for this. We have been using this procedure
for 25 years it has been very consistent. However, faculty are becoming
less satisfied as the number of faculty have gotten so large. It is
a real burden to be on this committee now due to the work involved.
Faculty time is the major cost involved in all these projects. It is
really career time that is never evaluated. I am going to propose in
our senate that all projects that go in include the number of faculty
hours that go into it. This needs to be recognized. When things go wrong
in the PTR we talk about intervention and development. Many times the
institution does not support the faculty in this, such as faculty leave
Affairs Committee - Martha Hilley
Martha Hilley, Co-Chair, Sue Mottinger, Patricia Harris, Virginia Beidelman,
Linda Montgomery, Josefina Tinajero, Charles Lackey
Rodrigues, Betty Travis, Jim Bartlett
is a summary of Thursday and Friday meetings of the Academic Affairs Committee:
topic for discussion was Accountability and Assessment. Ray Rodrigues
met with our committee on Thursday.In that two hour + meeting discussions
centered around the merit of using writing, math and/or critical thinking
as the key areas of initial assessment.
should be programmatic and not student achievement or faculty evaluation.
The Academic Affairs Committee believes that the area of critical thinking
presents the fewest problems for system-wide input regarding interdisciplinary
assessment.The areas of writing and mathematics are better served by individual
about student opinion: student leaders state that if the assessment
tool carries no consequences to the individual, there is no motivation
to take it seriously.If high stakes, the assessment is viewed as testing
and becomes punitive and opens the door to teaching to the test.
It is critical
that accountability and assessment not be driven by $$$ cost alone.
should use a representative sample.
assessment across the disciplines could be a desirable vehicle.
assessment would impact faculty time less in terms of their teaching,
professional achievement and service.
agrees with Regent Charles Miller that high stakes testing is not in the
best interest of students in the University of Texas System.Consequences
could be detrimental to the areas of recruitment, retention and graduation.
goes on record with concerns regarding the time line as stated by Dr.
Rodrigues.There are too many unanswered questions:
- What is
the responsibility of each campus?
- What is
the responsibility of the UT System?
- What is
going to be done with the finished assessments?
- What is
the scope of each of the three areas of assessment?
UT Sys FAC
members should return to their respective campus and determine:
- Who is
on the committee of 5?
- Is this
committee going forward with discussions prior to the April meeting?
- It is
suggested that each local campus committee look at previous SACS evaluations
for existing data on assessment.
at UT Sys FAC afternoon Committee Reports:
- Each campus
is a player in this as much as the UT Sys FAC is a player.We must all
be as informed as possible about assessment.
representatives to the April meeting must be informed re: assessment
it is possible representatives from testing corporations (ETS,
ACT) will also join this group.
- Will there
be similar assessment tools used at individual campuses and then some
overall interpretation system-wide?
I cant support this because it is System wide. Our goal as the
FAC is to keep assessment local. Assessment is important, but it needs
to be done individually on each campus to account for individuality.
Rodriguez has said it is ok to handle this locally. The people who know
how to best do this are the people at their own university.
EdI got the idea from Ray that something needs to be system wide.
Nothing has been decided. That has been one of the things on the table.
You need to make the statements that you can have consensus onthis
is the process. We want your honest input.
I have the impression from Rodriguez that the critical thinking portion
is system wide only in as much as some folks help us figure out how
to do it. Then it would be adapted to the different disciplines. System
wide guidelines would be acceptable.
Harris (UT-Brownsville): I understand the emphasis on the writing instead
of critical thinking. But it should be left up to individual campuses
to define the area they want to assessthe more important for them.
You dont have to worry about a document coming against you or
taking a firm standwe have said that we want the FACs involvement.
What you say or do as a result of this meeting is not written in stone.
We are working with the Board of Regents Academic Affairs committee
and your academic affairs committee, and we will continue to do that.
Your plans have to considered very carefully by all of us because UT-Austin
is the flagship university.
UT-Austin feels very strongly toward embededness being the only way
What about student portfolios?
That is dealing with a major, and right now we are dealing with general
I worry about having this in our minutes, because it could be construed
as a position.
Could you review for me how this assessment should be used? You have
said how it should not be used.
That comes under the section that there are too many unanswered questions.
No one has articulated any clear goals with this process. That became
very clear when we were at ETS. If we dont develop the goals,
someone else will. We could take the leadership role in defining this.
The goals are in the draft document on accountability.
All administrators seem to be concerned about dollar cost. As faculty
we need to be more concerned on what it achieves or it is a waste of
the resources it used.
What were Rodriguezs goals articulated to the local campuses?
That goes back to what Nelsen was sayingit needs to stay at the
local campus level.
Lets go back to SACS and see what each campus has in place.
No one cares what is in place. This has been said explicitly.
Phase 1, whatever that is, is not likely to be the implementation of
a definitive assessment program. It may have substantive parts. But
the notion that this will end and nothing happens wont happen.
This is the beginning of the process. Some kind of proposal will come
out of the Board of Regents Academic Affairs committee meeting in July
and it should involve cost, plans, definitions. Having a workshop has
not been finalized, and that is an additional cost. We have spent at
least $100,000 on this pre-phase. Phase 1 will have significant costs
associated with it that is not in my budget. There are some very practical
aspects that have not yet been worked out. We are in the data gathering
phrase, we do not have to come up with some kind of a proposal when
we dont have the answers. The proposals will be generated primarily
from my office and come out in draft form. We are talking with the presidents,
provosts, you , the cte of 5, etc. We are still in the early stages
of discussion that could be years in evolving, and probably will be.
One of the fundamental questions is at some point is it going to be
guided by an expectation that there will be similar assessment mechanisms
used for each campus and some comparison used for all at the System
What should we ask our campus committee to do? I have asked my committee
to look at the list of materials that Rodriguez gave us (bib and web
addresses), look at the SACS and, come up with what embedded assessments
would work in which areas at UT-Dallas.
This is the pre-phrase. Maybe we should be making these recommendations.
We should be talking about what role we need to have in the process
rather than saying this is what we will do.
Some of this is already happening in Brownsville. It is extremely time
intensive. There is a tendency to run through the alternatives, and
then you hear we can do this one because the only cost is faculty time.
This is a cavalier comment that I hear frequently. Faculty time is expensive.
Working on committees like this means that you cant do your real
work on which you will be evaluated.
Quality CommitteeJames Bartlett
1. We met
with Frank Fair to discuss the results of the survey of satisfaction with
post-tenure review (PTR) at Sam Houston State University and other campuses.
We discussed and will continue to consider whether this or a similar survey
should be conducted throughout the University of Texas System. On the
one hand, the survey conducted by Dr. Fair and his colleagues has unearthed
some procedural shortfalls in the implementation of PTR which need to
be addressed (see item # 2 below). On the other hand, many questions in
the survey might be viewed as premature as only a minority of faculty
on U. T. System campuses have yet been subjected to PTR. In addition,
if the FAC initiates a second faculty satisfaction survey (see item #
4 below), it might be efficient to add a few questions about PTR to this
more general survey, rather than to conduct an independent survey dealing
only with PTR.
2. The PTR
survey conducted by Dr. Fair and his colleagues has revealed some procedural
shortfalls at Sam Houston State and other campuses that might very well
exist on the U. T. System campuses. Specifically, it appears to be the
case that some faculty receiving PTR are never given feedback as to the
outcome of the review.To assess the scope and extent of this problem,
we suggest that all Faculty Senate Presidents, Speakers, and Chairs initiate
reviews of how PTR is being conducted on their respective campuses, and
to report the outcomes of these reviews at the next FAC meeting. The specific
question to address is whether the approved procedures for PTR on each
U. T. System campus are in fact being followed.
3. Last year
the FAC recommended a revised form for reporting the outcome of PTR (or
Periodic Performance Evaluation [PPE]) each year at each campus.It was
not possible to implement this change for the 2000-2001 academic year.However,
we hereby request that our chair, Dr. Travis, forward a new copy of the
revised form to Exceutive Vice-Chancellor Sharpe so that he can determine
if the change can be implemented for 2001-2002.
4. At our
December meeting, the FAC recommended a new RFP for our second Faculty
Satisfaction Survey (FSS), opening the application process to other University
systems as well as the private sector. As the estimated budgets for such
proposals are high, and as many other important initiatives are competing
for funding, Executive Vice-Chancellor Sharpe has advised us that broadening
the scope of the RFP is not practical at this time. Not wanting to abandon
the idea of a second FSS, the faculty quality committee will attempt to
estimate the costs of a first-rate FSS conducted from within the U. T.
System. We will communicate our estimate to Dr. Sharpe to determine if
a more focused RFP for our second FSS would make sense at this time.
What do you mean by feedback from the PTR process?
Whatever your policy says it is. Also the proceduresare they following
what the policy says.
I went through PTR. My chair had a one and one-half page single spaced
report and we talked about it. It was great, but it went up to the Dean
and I havent heard anything from the dean, provost, anything.
Affairs Committee--Kevin Oeffinger (UT Southwestern)
Richard Rahr (UTMB), Joel Dunnington (MDACC), Marvin Chasen (MDACC), Amy
Special Assistant to Dr. Mullins:
of the health institutions are evaluating incentive plans for clinical
Teaching Centers in South Texas buildings should be complete
within two years
6%/year salary increase for faculty
to mandate that all medical and dental students to have health insurance
(financial aid will be available for students with financial need)
Nursing Association has requested funding to increase the enrollment
of nurses at the bachelor and masters level
bill proposing that 10% of Texas medical students come from the
smaller schools of Texas is in committee. Included in this bill
is a formalization of the mentoring process of the medical schools
with local colleges/universities.
Director of Employee Group Insurance:
requested almost $300 million for the biennium for support for faculty
insurance. The legislature will likely approve around $280 million.
for spouse and family health insurance will increase in the next year,
but the cost increase will not be as large as last year. Employees will
continue to be offered full coverage at no cost. The cost for spouses
will increase by about $25 35/month, and families by about $50
co-pays will likely not be increased.
- A long-term
care program has been authorized by the Board of Regents and will be
offered in the coming enrollment.The costs and benefits are better than
other Texas plans.
- EGI staff
has increased from 16 to 29 members in the last two years.
- The EGI
Advisory Committee, composed of an elected and an appointed representative
from each of the components, will meet in the near future.
Did he indicate a cost for the long-term insurance?
That depends on your age. It does not depend on any previous medical
condition. You can include a parent on thisdont know how
their preexisting condition affects this. For the individual there
is no preexisting condition. The cost for this is approximately: Age
25-$5.65/mo; age 35-$10.84; age 45-$17.73; age 55-$37.26; age 65-$85.41;
age 75 216.95/mo.I am not sure how much it is for you and a spouse.
The cost is also different for a parent. There is portability with
the plan so you are covered if you leave the institution.
You are not locked into this price. It can change.
EGI is working to standardize the plans across the campuses.
Stewart is working very hard. He is going back and auditing past performance
with companies so we may get some monies back. There are now penalties
placed into the contracts. We are much more optimistic re the health
Partner Insurance discussed within the committee. This is not
a local or ate issue.
Whereas several UT Health Institutions have placed clinical faculty
on various types of incentive policies; Whereas several UT Health Institutions
faculty have reported that their practice plan business offices have
not been capturing all of the faculty generated billings or the collections
from these billings; Whereas, most UT Health Institution practice plans
do not give a weekly printout of the clinicians billings, revenues
and denials; The UT Faculty Advisory Council recommends that the UT
System implement a systematic and annual audit of the component practice
plans to include, but not limited to, reconciliation of all billed procedures,
contractual write-offs, reconciliation of all denials, payor mix, and
other business plan procedures necessary to optimally run a medical
practice. Further, the UT Faculty Advisory Council recommends that all
clinical faculty in the UT System receive a weekly report, paper or
electronic, of their billed procedu billings.
Boucher (UTHSC-SA): Why the resolution?
The resolution is an attempt to highlight the issue and hold the administrators
Where does this go?
Send it to both the Chancellor and Exec Vice Chancellor Mullins
Nelsen and Cheryl Staats
Jon Williamson, Zafer Hatahet, Hans Kellner, Gregory Rocha, Judy Teale,
Monsour El-Kikhia, Wendy James-Aldridge, Bill Harris
at Administrative Levels
Faculty Advisory Council members concerning Faculty Senate representation
on Deans Councils and/or Executive Committees (Presidents
- Six institutions
have representatives on Deans Council/Clinical Councils
- Six institutions
do not have representatives on Deans Council/Clinical Councils
- One institution
has representatives on the Presidents Council
- Ten (10)
institutions do not have representatives on the Presidents Council
and membership on Executive Committee or Presidents Council at the
various campuses was discussed.Open meetings, open records, and the Freedom
of Information Act were discussed.OGC will be asked to present at the
next Faculty Advisory Council meeting of the Governance Committee.
Whereas, communication is essential between faculty and administration
in order to successfully fulfill the missions of the universities and
direct input from the faculty promotes better management, the Faculty
Advisory Council proposes that a Faculty Senate representative participate
in the Deans Counciltees at each campus.
I think you really should try to have someone on the highest levelthe
Presidents advisory board. Thats where we at MDACC stopped
the rifts. The problem is you dont know what the agenda is until
you are there.
We are recommending that people be at the highest level. We could take
out the or if you would prefer.
I recommend that you amend the or
reworded to: Whereas, communication is essential between faculty and administration
in order to successfully fulfill the missions of the universities and
direct input from the faculty promotes better management, the Faculty
Advisory Council proposes that a Faculty Senate representative participate
in the Deans Councils and Executive Committees at each campus.
Committee requests that the FAC Executive Committee consider that the
bylaws of the FAC be amended to include a Budget Committee.
This is not a watch dog committee. It is one that could help educate
us, give us answers when we have budget questions, etc.
sent to FAC Executive Committee for consideration.
reasons for a budget committee at FAC and on campuses at the local level
to the Executive Committee that at the next meeting we have 2 lawyers
to discuss the Open Records Act. There are senate meetings that can
be closed. We would like more information at the June meeting.
annual reviews of administrators with a reporting mechanism
for an Academic Receivership Policy
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.
Receivership includes actions that suspend normal operating procedures
within an academic unit or that regulate the functioning of an academic
unit, or actions that affect the structure and mission of an academic
unit or that adversely affect faculty performance, development and professional
Receivership may include but does not require:
and/or replacement of Deans and Department Chairs,
of faculty governance,
of faculty to other academic units, elimination of a portion of an
academic unit, dismissal of two or more faculty from an academic unit,
of administrators or faculty from other universities or from within
the academic component to chair an academic unit (especially in cases
involving faculty strife between faculty or between Deans and Chairs
and the affected faculty)
Receivership may also include the invocation of Regents Rules,
Part One, Chapter 2, Section 14.3, 15.2, 15.3 and shall be consistent
with the procedures established within the Regents Rule Chapter
III, Section 6 (11), 6.111, 6.112 and 6.113 and 6.12, 6.12(1), 6.12(2),
Receivership shall under no circumstances 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.Any faculty member within an
affected unit may invoke the following procedures.
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 below.
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
2. Upon notification,
in order to resolve underlying conflict, the President shall appoint within
5 days a mediator acceptable to the affected parties. Upon this appointment,
the mediation shall not exceed 15 workdays.The mediation shall include
the affected faculty and relevant administrators and may involve other
faculty members within the institution.
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:
reasons for receivership
the appropriateness and impact of this action on current and future
students, affected faculty and the integrity and vitality of the __________(institutions)
other academic programs.
the affected faculty to contribute meaningfully to the commit.
4. The Review
Committees 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 Committees 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 Committees 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 Committees 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 Presidents decision
before a hearing panel established by the Faculty Governance Organization.The
hearing panels 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 Presidents
- If the
President determines that the unit should remain in receivership after
the time indicated in the Presidents Report as described above,
then the aforementioned procedures shall be invoked before Academic
Receivership may be continued.
- The affected
faculty should meet with the appropriate academic officials and the
Provost or equivalent.
one academic year, the faculty of the unit may revisit the issue in
a meeting of the Faculty Governance Organization with the President
faculty tenure is within the institution, faculty in the units affectedeivership
shall maintain full faculty rights and privileges.
Clarified Regents Rules quoted in the proposed policy.
There are different levels to faculty governance. It could be at the
department or senate level.
You are not asking this body to take it back to your campus and have
it passed by OGC for all to use?
No. You take it back to your campus to review it and see how you want
(if you want) to adapt it for your own institution. The word model
here simply meansel.
policy be given to each senate with the recommendation to review it and
determine if they would like to adapt fotion.