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








Travel for FAC

Academic Affairs

Advisory Council

Advisory Council



The University of Texas System
Faculty Advisory Council

Meeting Minutes: March 1, 2001

<back to Index>

1. Betty Travis, Chair, called the meeting to order at 1004.

2. Minutes for the December 20000 FAC meeting approved.

3. Legislative Update--Amy Shaw Thomas, Governmental Relations

  • Presidential 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
  • Nothing 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.
  • Special 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.
  • Budget: 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 don’t know how this will be distributed.
  • There 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.
  • Redistricting 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 other’s bills—will take people’s 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 infrastructure—Texas is behind the curve as compared to the rest of the country re incubation/startup of small companies.
  • Stairstep 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 tuition—there is still resistance to this.
  • Tuition revenue bond this session—$500M. Don’t know which priorities will be financed or who will get these monies as yet. This is in addition to the usual PUF funds.
  • Regional academic health centers—asked 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 shortage—Senator Montcrief filed a bill that had an original amount of $50M to help with education re the nursing shortage. Is getting watered down—is somewhere around $14M.
  • Dramatic 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.
  • HIPAA: 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 student—counts 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.


Robert Nelsen (UT-Dallas): Is there any new legislation on fields of study? Has the “May changed to “Shall.

Thomas: Not that I am aware of.

Ed Sharpe (Executive Vice-Chancellor, Academic Affairs): I haven’t heard anything. This is out of Senator Bivin’s office—no one has touched it.

Nelsen: With regard to the hearings on the accountability bill—who is now doing it and where is it at?

Sharpe: Remember that the bill filing deadline has not yet passed. We don’t know what is going on. There is some evidence that no one else is really as interested as Cuellar was—his focus is now more on border issues.

Patrick Davis (UT-Austin): Can you tell us anything about Wilson’s bill concerning provisional admissions?

Sharpe: 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.

Mansour El-Kikhia (UTSA): Did we really lose $7M in the PUF fund?

Sharpe: It needs to be placed in perspective. Everyone’s portfolio has gone down in recent times. This will even out with the market over time.

Shaw: If 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.

4. Announcements—Betty Travis

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 this—he was very supportive.

Sharpe: I talked with Mike Godfrey—he is ok with us to proceed with this.

Travis: I will send a letter to Mike Godfrey to initiate the process.

Another issue 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 yet—the Board of Regents has not started anything.

Nelsen: Should we write them a letter reminding them of this, and include that there are now four more fields of study identified.

Sharpe: 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.

Travis: We will take this back to committee.

Martha Hilley (UT-Austin): There have been some difficulties with our accrediting body in music because of the field of study requirements.

During the June 2001 meeting we will elect new officers. The Chair-Elect must be from an academic institution this time.

The next executive meeting will be attempted as a video conference. This may cost more in terms of real dollars.

Nelsen: I would like to restate my concerns on this. I don’t 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.

Patty Culler was awarded the Chancellor’s award—please congratulate her when you see her.

We discussed the accountability issues—Ray Rodriguez will discuss that now.

continued below

5. Accountability and Assessment

Ray Rodriguez, 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 assessment—curriculum 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 learning—the 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.

Last month 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 question—what is critical thinking? ETS has a critical thinking test that they previously developed when working with the state of New Jersey—NJ faculty there developed and tested the test—it 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.

Nelsen: Did they give you an idea of cost?

Rodriguez: The critical thinking test is $12/student. But the cost really depends on the type of test chosen and combinations of testing.

James Bartlett: There are also costs not included in the test—such as bringing someone from ETS to help faculty become familiar with the scoring, and then the faculty would do the scoring.

Hans Kellner (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?

Rodriguez: 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 out retesting?

Bartlett: There is more than type of test—you 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 don’t know anything about the external validity of the test—it has some face validity, but how it relates to anything else is unknown.

Rodriguez: Do we at any point do we overtly teach critical thinking—that is another approach. ETS is also doing some experimentation—if we could get a grant to do this it would be helpful. For example—GRE on the fly—the 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 with.

Judy Teale (UTHSC-SA): What do you mean that only one component assesses learning?

Rodriguez: I was referring to general education programs. Faculty always assess the students in each course/program, but no one really looks at the big picture—are not assessing student products.

El-Kikhia: 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 improvement.

Rodriguez: 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 this—capstone 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.

Patrick Davis (UT-Austin): After having gone to the different campuses, what is your take on the sentiment of the faculty toward assessment?

Rodriguez: No one wants this to be high-stakes. They are concerned about the student.

Sophia 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 can’t get away from this.

Rodriguez: 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.

Jerry McLarty (UTHSC-Tyler): Sampling definitely is cheaper and it does work. I don’t 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.

Rodriguez: That’s where faculty come in. What in our program can be given the credit for this?

Patricia Harris (UT-San Antonio): Sampling is good if it is representative. Regarding pre-and post testing—that would be a stronger design, but it is the principle of measuring progress that is most important. Post-test only doesn’t give you the information.

Rodriguez: 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.

Joel Dunnington (UT-MDACC): Is there a difference in critical thinking between a music student and a physics student? Are you going to assess each different area?

Rodriguez: That is a very good question.

Nelsen: 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 specific?

Rodriguez: 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.

Sharpe: 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 assessment—the 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 don’t 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 don’t know who will be chair of Academic Affairs committee—that 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 meeting—we 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.

Travis: Do we know how the students feel?

Sharpe: Regent Miller met with the students’ council in Galveston last month—it 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 couldn’t care less. But there doesn’t seem to be a lot of concern.

Travis: Has Regent Miller backed down on his high stakes testing?

Sharpe: He wants everything on the table. Initially there was a lot of resistance to the idea, but I don’t think he is an advocate for standardized tests.

Rodriguez: 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.

Thomas 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 accountability—assessment is good, but there is not usually a punitive response.

El Kikhia: I don’t 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 failure—those students that come to us are already programmed—we should go back to testing in the grade schools and evaluate the whole education system. We also are getting mixed messages—we want better students, but we also need more teachers. It needs to be decided exactly what is wanted.

Rodriguez: 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 don’t have enough data to give the necessary information to those people who are responsible for policy, budgets, bills, etcs.

Hilley: The students who sit on the student councils understand the diversity of the students. Many students have lived through being taught to take a test.

Kellner: 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 example—assess 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 students—who is this?

Rodriguez: Brownsville. We are beginning with the community college; have open admissions; remedial students—only 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 these students.

Travis: When are the students tested at UT-Brownsville?

Rodriguez: We were using ACT comp and didn’t 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 couldn’t write.

RichardGrimes (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 haven’t learned anything—has been demonstrated in court precedents re student athletes—have successfully sued their university for exploiting them.

Zafer Hatahet (UTHSC-Tyler): When you assess, the most important factor is the temporal one. You have to test enough to see student’s progress. Money might be better invested to test a smaller sample on a more frequent basis. We are talking about 2 distinct things—do 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 them more)

Greg Rocha (UT-El Paso): What do you think will ultimately come of this?

Sharpe: 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.

Nelsen: Ray (Rodriguez), you responded to SACS at UT-Brownsville—but there is a wealth of information in the reports back to SACS—has 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?

Sharpe: We are working with each component and believe that we are working with the people who responded to SACS.

6. Campus Reports

The University of Texas at Arlington —Thomas Chrzanowski

  • Faculty Salary Survey is nearing completion.We will probably hear reports within the next two weeks.
  • On-line 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.
  • Searches – 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.
  • Enrollment 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%.

Wendy James-Aldridge (UT-Pan American): Do any faculty have concerns re on line voting—are there concerns with regards to secret ballot?

Chrzanowski: When you log on, the log on data is completely separated from your vote.

James-Aldridge: People believe that?

Hatahet: Was this an in house job?

Chrzanowski: Yes.

Kellner: What is the increase in distance learning enrollment attributed to?

Chrzanowski: We have actively promoted distance education, and there is now more access.

The University of Texas at Austin—Patrick Davis

Restructuring 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.

The Provisional 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.

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

  • Vice President for Employee and Campus Services (new position): Pat Clubb.
  • Director of Human Resources: Kyle Cavanaugh.I nitiatives already underway to address a number of the issues (particularly staff issues) discussed in our last report, including:
    • A new Staff Advisory Council is being developed on campus.
    • A new Staff Leadership Development Forum is being developed
    • A new policy allowing for staff to take 3 SCH/semester free of tuition and fees has been implemented.
    • Faculty/Staff annual survey on Health Ins/Benefits (from Faculty Welfare).
  • Vice President for Information Technology (new position): Dan Updegrove from Yale.

Policies & Legislation: Current issues before the Council include the following:

A proposal (student reps) involving student participation in the hiring of faculty.

A proposal (student reps/Calendar Committee) for a Fall break (mini-version of Spring break).

"Policy on Teaching Continuity and Restructured Faculty Workload upon the Birth or Adoption of a Child".

Restructuring of catalog change approvals.

Policy on multiyear contracts/appointments for NTF (Lecturer and Senior Lecturer Titles).

New ad hoc Committee to comprehensively examine the roles & expectations of TTF/NTF on our campus.

Joint Meeting with Faculty Senate of Texas A&M for March 26.

Campus Free Speech Policy: Based on past incidents (e.g., cancellation of Henry Kissinger’s 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 (davispj@mail.utexas.edu).

Response 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 component’s 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 VP’s & 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].
  • Please 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].

    Travis: Is it mandated that Navigant Travel be used in the System?

    Sharpe: No.

    Kellner: What is the purpose for the joint meeting with the Texas A&M senate?

    Davis: We have done this every year, like touching base with a neighbour. We compare how we each handle issues—us with assessment, them with non-tenure track faculty, for example. We will have free speech on this agenda too.

The University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas Southmost College—William 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:

  • Resolution 1:“Be it resolved that: base merit be no less than the cost of living for this biennium."
  • Resolution 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 merit policy.

The academic 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 ‘Provost’s 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.

6.The Faculty Budget Review Committee has not met this academic year; these meetings are called by the VP of Business Affairs.

Response to To Do ListA:

  • Email is not official
  • We are not using Navigant, but do have an official travel agent.
  • Members on the EGI committee do not include faculty—they are representatives from human resources.
  • Upward evaluation—we have done this over the last several years. We do not evaluate the President.

    Sue Mottinger (UT-Pan American): I thought that you had to have an elected faculty member on the EGI committee.

    Nelsen: It is either elected staff or faculty.

The University of Texas at Dallas—Robert 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 UTD’s 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 Founder’s 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.

6. UTD’s 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
  • digital dissertations
  • pluses and minuses for graduate student grades
  • the status of incompletes for graduate students

7. Since instituting pluses and minuses for undergraduate students this year, the average student grades have dropped approximately .15 points—from 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.

Response 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 couldn’t get any faculty to participate):the new HR Director, and the person who takes care of insurance issues on campus, Claire Ochipinta.
  • We’ve got a committee working on HIPPA matters and the new HR person (to start in the next week or so) will the Coordinator.
  • Domestic 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.

    Marvin Chasen (UTMDACC): What is the idea of + and -.? Is this an attempt to raise the GPA?

    Nelsen: 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.

    Bartlett: Robert, didn’t 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.

The University of Texas at El Paso—Greg 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 UTEP’s collegiate athletes. It is hoped that construction will be completed around November of this year.

Construction 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.

2. Appointment 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 UTEP’s 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.

>4. Non-US 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.

5. Evaluation 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 person’s performance.

The University of Texas—Pan American—Wendy James-Aldridge

1.A history- 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 we’re not “doing anything; only that we are between major reports and are experiencing something of a welcomed lull in campus-wide crises requiring the Senate’s attention.

2.The current 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 outsider’s perspective and asked a number of delightfully unexpected questions.We await their preliminary report later this month with tremendous interest.

3.The Senate 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 Provost’s office.

4.At its 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.

Regarding 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 don’t 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.

The University of Texas of the Permian Basin--Sophia Andres-Barnett

Campus Events:

  • 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.
  • Assessment.Dr. Ray Rodriguez visited our campus and discussed assessment with the assessment and curriculum committees as well as with the English and Math faculty.

Senate Activities:

  • 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 catalog, 2002-2004.
  • 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.

Questions by FAC:

  • 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 don’t have to uses Navigant, simply because it doesn’t save us any money.80% of our travel is to Austin and for the rest oftravel we are limited to three airlines.
  • Linda 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.
  • Regarding domestic partners insurance, we haven’t been presented with an official proposal which would include its impact on other policies (e.g. insuring one’s parents) and its cost.Once this is done, such proposal will be considered by the Staff Advisory Council and by the Faculty Senate.
  • See our sample policy and form on evaluating administrators.

The University of Texas at San Antonio—Patricia Harris

Representatives: Patricia M. Harris, Senate Chair; Mansour El-Kikhia, Secretary of the General Faculty

1.The Senate 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.

2. President 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 year.

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 Senate’s 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.

Response to To Do List:

  • Official 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 don’t know the answer to this question.
  • There is no discussion regarding domestic partner benefits.
  • There is an upward evaluation policy.

The University of Texas at Tyler—Steven Rainwater


1. President 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.

2. President Mabry announced that the University will begin participation in NCAA Division III athletics over the next several years. Men’s and women’s 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 athletics fee.

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 Bill’s replacement.

Faculty Senate:

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 are included: privacy policy, new evaluation/tenure/promotion policy, new grievance procedure, and faculty emeritus guidelines.

2. Given 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 senate’s annual Alpha-Omega luncheon was held in December honoring newly-retired faculty, new faculty, and recently promoted and/or tenured faculty.

4. The senate’s 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 senate’s 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.

Response to FAC Questions:

  • There doesn’t 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.
  • According 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.
  • Lynne Bandy, benefits specialist in the HR office, serves as our representative to the UT EGI committee.
  • According 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 provided separately.

    UT Tyler Evaluation of Academic Administrators

    The 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.

    The 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.

    After 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.

The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas—Kevin Oeffinger

General news:

1. Updating 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

Responses to Questions:

  • Is email designated as an official means of correspondence? Yes
  • Who do you have to use for travel—are 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.
  • What 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.
  • Who 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.
  • Are 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.
  • What is your component’s 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.
  • Does the FAC need a budget committee (from governance)? Would not be a bad idea.
  • Are there any campuses that do not have an upward evaluation policy? We have upward evaluation as described in previous reports.

The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston—Richard Rahr

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 Women’s 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 Dean’s at a Dean’s 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 faculty’s 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 President’s 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.

4. There 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.

The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston—Richard Grimes

No minutes available.

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio—Judy Teale

General News:

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.

5. Regarding 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.

Responses to questions:

  • Email-There is nothing in the HOP, but according to the Office of General Counsel (Ms. Georgia Harper), email is considered an official means of communication.
  • Travel-Our campus requires the use of Corporate or Rennert Travel Agencies
  • Legislative 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)
  • HIPPA - There are ongoing meetings regarding HIPPA and a survey has been sent out for all employees to complete.(I have brought a copy.)
  • Domestic 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.
  • Upward Evaluation policy-The HOP has such a policy and I have brought a copy with me.

The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center—Marvin Chasen

1. Discussions were held at the Clinical Council Meeting and the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate regarding the new Multi-Year Contract.

2. Executive 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.

6. There 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.

8. Concern 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.

Response to the To Do List

  • Do 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.
  • Who 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 only agency.
  • What 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 you ASAP.
  • Who are the people on the EGI committees from our campus? We do have a representative from our campus - name to follow.
  • Are 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.
  • What 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 diversity requirements.
  • Does the FAC need a budget committee? Will defer to Dr. Joel Dunnington—yes
  • Are there any campuses that do not have an upward evaluation policy? We have one.Will attempt to bring a copy of ours.
  • Please 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.
  • Does 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.

The University of Texas Health Center at Tyler

Zafer Hatahet, PhD., Representative of research faculty

Amy Simpson M.D., Representative of clinical faculty

1.The trial 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 fairly compensated.

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.

Responses to To Do List:

  • E-mail 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.

4. Announcements Continued...

Merit raise 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.

According 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.

UTMB (Rahr): We are reviewing a department for abandonment. The Senate is checking to see that the members rights were upheld. The president’s office and the legal department are also reviewing the situation. The review will be reported to UTMB’s senate within the next two months.

Mike Godfrey 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 cc’d 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 can’t 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.

7. Post-Tenure Review Survey Frank Fair, Sam Houston State University

Handouts: Generic version of the survey, collection of results from the surveys we have done within our System.

Fair chaired Sam Houston State University’s committee on PTR. The policy meets the letter of the law, but doesn’t 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.

Survey results: 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.

Forward: 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.

Hilley: It almost seems too early to do the survey some of the questions you wouldn’t really have answers yet for. Are you going to redo the survey to better judge the impact of PTR?

Fair: If 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.

Teale: If you are collecting numbers on those who chose early retirement rather than go through PTR?

Fair: I think those numbers are important too, but we haven’t 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.

Travis: This is very important. In 1996 when Ratliff presented the idea of PTR, his goal was to get rid of the deadwood.

Bartlett: 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 freedom?

Fair: PTR hasn’t really bothered us at all because of the way the systems were designed to operate. It does have the potential to do harm—PTR could evolve in several directions. It is not clear where it is going and that is why I fear revisiting. If we can’t 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 practitioners—we need peer review to discuss what we are doing professionally. Incompetency is the language of the law.

Bartlett: When people talk about making PTR more meaningful, you are not talking about incompetency anymore.

Charles Lackey (UT-Brownsville): Have you come across follow-up studies from other states?

Fair: No I am going to an AAG sponsored conference in March in Washington. There are systems that do peer review in different ways, like UNC.

Virginia 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.

Andres-Barnett: 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.

Dunnington: 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.

Chrzanowski: It doesn’t take away from your research or teaching time, it takes away from your personal time.

Grimes: 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 haven’t 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.

Kellner: 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 for development.

8. CommitteeReports

Academic Affairs Committee - Martha Hilley

Attendance: Martha Hilley, Co-Chair, Sue Mottinger, Patricia Harris, Virginia Beidelman, Linda Montgomery, Josefina Tinajero, Charles Lackey

Guests: Ray Rodrigues, Betty Travis, Jim Bartlett

The following is a summary of Thursday and Friday meetings of the Academic Affairs Committee:

The primary 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.

Key Points:

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 components

Discussion 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.

Assessment should use a representative sample.

Embedded assessment across the disciplines could be a desirable vehicle.

Embedded assessment would impact faculty time less in terms of their teaching, professional achievement and service.

The committee 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.

The committee 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.

Points Discussed 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.
  • Faculty 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?


Nelsen: I can’t 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.

Hilley: Ed—I got the idea from Ray that something needs to be system wide.

Sharpe: 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 on—this is the process. We want your honest input.

Harris: 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.

William 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 assess—the more important for them.

Sharpe: You don’t have to worry about a document coming against you or taking a firm stand—we have said that we want the FAC’s 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.

El-Kikhia: Your plans have to considered very carefully by all of us because UT-Austin is the flagship university.

Hilley: UT-Austin feels very strongly toward embededness being the only way to go.

Nelsen: What about student portfolios?

Hilley: That is dealing with a major, and right now we are dealing with general education.

Nelsen: I worry about having this in our minutes, because it could be construed as a position.

Bartlett: Could you review for me how this assessment should be used? You have said how it should not be used.

Hilley: That comes under the section that there are too many unanswered questions.

Bartlett: No one has articulated any clear goals with this process. That became very clear when we were at ETS. If we don’t develop the goals, someone else will. We could take the leadership role in defining this.

Sharpe: The goals are in the draft document on accountability.

Hilley: 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.

Andres-Barnett: What were Rodriguez’s goals articulated to the local campuses?

Hilley: That goes back to what Nelsen was saying—it needs to stay at the local campus level.

Andres-Barnett: Let’s go back to SACS and see what each campus has in place.

Beidelman: No one cares what is in place. This has been said explicitly.

Sharpe: 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 won’t 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 don’t 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 level?

Nelsen: 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.

El-Kikhia: 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.

Harris: 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 can’t do your real work on which you will be evaluated.

Faculty Quality Committee—James 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.

Harris: What do you mean by feedback from the PTR process?

Bartlett: Whatever your policy says it is. Also the procedures—are they following what the policy says.

Chrzanowski: 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 haven’t heard anything from the dean, provost, anything.

Health Affairs Committee--Kevin Oeffinger (UT Southwestern)

Members: Richard Rahr (UTMB), Joel Dunnington (MDACC), Marvin Chasen (MDACC), Amy Simpson (UTT-Houston)

JB Pace, Special Assistant to Dr. Mullins:

  • Several of the health institutions are evaluating incentive plans for clinical productivity
  • Regional Teaching Centers in South Texas – buildings should be complete within two years
  • Legislative Issues:
    • Requested 6%/year salary increase for faculty
    • HIPAA issues
    • Bill to mandate that all medical and dental students to have health insurance (financial aid will be available for students with financial need)
    • Texas Nursing Association has requested funding to increase the enrollment of nurses at the bachelor and masters level
    • A 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.

Dan Stewart, Director of Employee Group Insurance:

  • UTSystem requested almost $300 million for the biennium for support for faculty insurance. The legislature will likely approve around $280 million.
  • Costs 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 – 60/month.
  • Pharmacy 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.

    Travis: Did he indicate a cost for the long-term insurance?

    Oeffinger: That depends on your age. It does not depend on any previous medical condition. You can include a parent on this—don’t 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.

    Simpson: You are not locked into this price. It can change.

    Oeffinger: EGI is working to standardize the plans across the campuses.

    Dunnington: 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 plans.

  • Domestic Partner Insurance – discussed within the committee. This is not a local or ate issue.
  • Resolution: 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.


Barbara Boucher (UTHSC-SA): Why the resolution?

Oeffinger: The resolution is an attempt to highlight the issue and hold the administrators accountable.

Travis: Where does this go?

Dunnington: Send it to both the Chancellor and Exec Vice Chancellor Mullins

Governance Committee—Robert Nelsen

Co-Chairs:Robert Nelsen and Cheryl Staats

Members: Jon Williamson, Zafer Hatahet, Hans Kellner, Gregory Rocha, Judy Teale, Monsour El-Kikhia, Wendy James-Aldridge, Bill Harris

Senate Representation at Administrative Levels

Survey of Faculty Advisory Council members concerning Faculty Senate representation on Deans’ Councils and/or Executive Committees (President’s Council):

  • 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 President’s Council
  • Ten (10) institutions do not have representatives on the President’s Council

Senate representation and membership on Executive Committee or President’s 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.

Resolution: 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.


Dunnington: I think you really should try to have someone on the highest level—the President’s advisory board. That’s where we at MDACC stopped the rifts. The problem is you don’t know what the agenda is until you are there.

Nelsen: We are recommending that people be at the highest level. We could take out the “or if you would prefer.

Dunnington: I recommend that you amend the “or

Resolution 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.

Resolution passes unanimously.

Budget Committee

Governance Committee requests that the FAC Executive Committee consider that the bylaws of the FAC be amended to include a Budget Committee.


Nelsen: This is not a watch dog committee. It is one that could help educate us, give us answers when we have budget questions, etc.

Action: sent to FAC Executive Committee for consideration.

Governance Committee

Establish reasons for a budget committee at FAC and on campuses at the local level

Termination without reasons

Open Records Act

  • Recommend 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.
  • Uniform annual reviews of administrators with a reporting mechanism
  • Abandonment policies

Draft Model for an Academic Receivership Policy


In the case of the invoking of academic receivership in any unit within the University of Texas at______________ (or _____________Health Science Center), the institution shall abide by the following policy and procedures to ensure due process.

Academic Receivership 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 advancement.

Academic Receivership may include but does not require:

  • removal and/or replacement of Deans and Department Chairs,
  • suspension of faculty governance,
  • dispersal of faculty to other academic units, elimination of a portion of an academic unit, dismissal of two or more faculty from an academic unit,
  • appointment 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)

Academic Receivership may also include the invocation of Regent’s Rules, Part One, Chapter 2, Section 14.3, 15.2, 15.3 and shall be consistent with the procedures established within the Regent’s Rule Chapter III, Section 6 (11), 6.111, 6.112 and 6.113 and 6.12, 6.12(1), 6.12(2), and 6.12(3).

Academic 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.

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

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:

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

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

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


Nelsen: Clarified Regents Rules quoted in the proposed policy.

Kellner: There are different levels to faculty governance. It could be at the department or senate level.

Harris: You are not asking this body to take it back to your campus and have it passed by OGC for all to use?

Nelsen: 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.

Motion: This policy be given to each senate with the recommendation to review it and determine if they would like to adapt fotion.

Meeting adjourned at 1421.

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