Home

Guidelines

Committees

Membership

Meetings

Minutes

Travel for FAC

Academic Affairs

Employee
Advisory Council

Student
Advisory Council

New People Orientation (October 3, 2002 at 9:00am)
Robert Nelsen, Chairman of the FAC, began the orientation at 9:00AM.

Robert provided a background on the FAC indicating that we serve as advisors to the Chancellor and the Board of Regents. He emphasized that we must establish a relationship with the new Chancellor and his staff.

The committee chairs gave a brief description of their committee responsibilities and current activities. The chairs and their corresponding committees were:

Lisa-Ann Wuermser for Health Affairs;
Bill Harris for Governance;
Tom Chrzanowski for Faculty Welfare; and,
Cynthia Brown for Academic Affairs.

Robert stressed the importance of campus reports and the "to do list" as a means to share information across the various UT components.

The meeting concluded at 10:00AM.

General Meeting (10:00am)
Robert introduced Chancellor Mark Yudof at 10:00AM.

Chancellor Yudof began his remarks with an assurance that the FAC will always get a sympathetic hearing from his office. He also suggested, "most of the university systems in this country have not worked very well" and that it was his job "to get blood flowing through the marble." One of his goals is to ensure "cooperation among the campuses to create synergies" among "multiple classes of customers." He indicated that the UT System is "non-profit but not by design." He affirmed that the "accountability revolution is here" and that "faculty will have to grapple with it." He later stressed that "we are all accountable." He summarized his message into three words-accountability, synergy, and cooperation. Chancellor Yudof described the relationship between the UT System and the state of Texas noting each component of the System may not necessarily meet the needs of the state, but the entire system should. For each individual component institution, he stated, "(O)nce the mission is defined, become the very best at that mission."

The Chancellor introduced his new appointments:

Teresa A. Sullivan as Executive Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs;
Tonya Moten Brown as Vice-Chancellor for Administration;
Geri Malandra as Executive Associate Chancellor for Accountability and
Performance;
Edwin Sharpe as Vice-Chancellor for Educational System Alignment;
Tom Scott as Associate Vice-Chancellor for Governmental Relations; and,
Amy Shaw Thomas as Vice-Chancellor for Health Affairs.

Mr. Yudof also indicated that James Guckian will remain as acting Executive Vice-Chancellor for Health Affairs until a search is completed. The Chancellor suggested that the health affairs responsibilities may be separated into two distinct positions.

Mr. Yudof also announced the formation of the new "Campus Life Committee." The committee, consisting of faculty, staff and students, will supplement the existing System advisory committees. The creation of this committee will "ensure (that there is) a place for all issues not normally covered by the other committees." Regent Kraven will chair the committee.

The Chancellor stated that the number of criminal background checks will be reduced. He indicated that some positions, including "high level" administrative positions, will be held to the existing standards. However, he is working to create a "much more constrained policy."

Mr. Yudof stated that we can expect a very hard legislative session. He suggested the System needed a new approach to legislative requests. The Chancellor mentioned that we should establish trust, promote stewardship, and "emphasize the positive things that we do," adding that compelling arguments can be made on our current programs.

Mr. Yudof stated that the System will continue "closing the gaps," referring to the Coordinating Board initiative. He also addressed the issue of "flagship institutions". He indicated that he will examine the questions "should there be more?" and "where should they be?"

Due to his immediate departure for San Antonio, he postponed questions, but did agree to email the various presidents at the campuses he would be visiting to ask to meet with faculty, student, and staff representatives.

The meeting adjourned into committee meetings.

Lunch - Campus Reports (12:00 noon - 2:00pm)
(The following is a summary of the Campus Reports. Complete reports are presented in Appendix A.)

Selected Topics
Hottest Topics on Campus

Brownsville
1. Salary and workload inequities
2. Evaluation of the administration
3. Receivership

Austin
1. Budget crisis
2. Use of university logo by student groups
3. Shortage of classroom space

Brownsville
1. Resource availability and allocation
2. Gap between salaries of new faculty and existing faculty.
3. Parking

Dallas
1. Threat of reduced funding or insufficient funding
2. Support for research
3. System Policy on Criminal Background Checks.

El Paso
1. Enrollment growth and the associated problems
2. State funding inequities
3. Salary compression and inversion

Houston
1. Faculty salaries and incentives
2. Consolidation of the basic science departments
3. Faculty-Administration communications

Pan American
1. Faculty salaries, compression and inversion
2. Faculty resources to respond to rapid growth in enrollment

Southwestern
1. Faculty compensation with regard to the TFA study
2. Funding of Graduate Medical Education
3. Promotion and Tenure of non-tenured faculty

San Antonio HS
1. Faculty development
2. Faculty development leave funding
3. Communication between administrators and faculty

Tyler HC
1. New President
2. Honorarium policy
3. Salaries scales for new faculty hires

Tyler
1. Parking
2. Student Media Advisory Board

Galveston
1. Women and minority equity/equality status
2. Representation on the Institutional Budget Committee
3. Development of UTMB's Faculty Club.

Chuck Hempstead, TACT, Legislative Agenda (2:00pm)

Chuck Hempstead, Executive Director of the Texas Association of College Teachers (TACT) spoke on their upcoming legislative agenda. Faculty compensation was the first issue mentioned. Specifically, he noted that the compensation structure in Texas is "not competitive" with the structures in other states. The current mandate is that Texas should be competitive with other states in salary structure. To ensure compensation competitiveness, the Coordinating Board must supply institutional governing boards with statistics on salary in a timely manner.

Also on the legislative agenda are specific issues with the optional retirement program. Mr. Hempstead stated that the current ORP program contained an 8.5 percent match that is less than the national average of 9.5 percent. Also, new hires since 1995 are only matched at a 6 percent rate. A new bill sponsored by Fred Brown from College Station will address these issues. He also held out hope that faculty members may be given another window to convert from TRS to ORP.

Mr. Hempstead added that more and better college education should improve everyone's status in education "unless we are asked to do more with less." He continued that the state should step up to cover the cost of higher education. He also questioned whether student costs of education should be capped or allowed to rise to meet the market.

A handout provided points that TACT wants to sustain.

Mr. Hempstead invited everyone to attend the Conference (see flier). I also pointed out the "ebulletin" on the TACT website (www.tact.org).

Charles Zucker, TFA, Faculty Rights and Salary Discrepancies (2:45pm)

Charles Zucker from the Texas Faculty Association spoke on the role of his organization-to support faculty rights through lobbying and lawsuits. He stated that the legislature was extremely conservative in 1988, but it is more so now. One current issue that TFA is pursuing is to reaffirm the rights of those subject to tenure review to have due process. Specifically, TFA wants to ensure that the faculty member has the right to present his or her case to the institution's administration.

A second issue that will be reconsidered is the faculty members right of prior notification when called for review before an administrator. Mr. Zucker indicated that two bills on salary and retirement issues will be refiled with the Legislature. One of these bills will reestablish a line item in each institution's budget for salary adjustments and merit pay.

Finally he stressed that college professors are not prohibited from contacting their state legislature representatives. Higher education institutions cannot lobby, but individual faculty can.

Theresa Sullivan, Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (3:30 pm)

Terri Sullivan, the newly appointed Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, conducted a general conversation of her new responsibilities and challenges. She still considers herself as a faculty member and believes that "universities are great only to the extent that the faculties are great." Further, she believes that there is no greater resource on any campus. Chancellor Sullivan suggested that the graduate deanship at UT Austin prepared her for her current position because graduate schools have no faculty and exist through building relationships between organizations. She believes in "shared governance" and wants to get an idea of what it's like to be a faculty member at each of the component institutions.

As to future funding, Chancellor Sullivan stated, "we need to quit thinking in terms of the next legislature." She emphasized that we must develop a longer-term plan, adding, "(F)or the collective good of higher education, we cannot be another mouth around the table….(E)verybody thinks that they pay for higher education"-the parents and students, the Legislature, and the funding agencies.

One of her charges is to develop "more robust measures of accountability." Issues to be specifically addressed include: "Is the University doing what it should be doing?" and "How would I know?" She closed her comments stressing that "accountability is not a threat to faculty autonomy."

Daniel Hamermesh - Salary Compression (4:15pm)

Dr. Daniel Hamermesh, a labor economist from UT Austin, presented the results of American Association of University Professors (AAUP) studies of faculty salaries. The results were based on annual salary surveys (not samples) with salaries stratified by rank and research activity. The results indicate that across the entire nation, the "ratio of full salaries to assistants has remained constant." Some comparisons suggest that "inequality is rising" and "slight compression is occurring".

Adjournment (5:15pm)

Richard Armenta, Community Colleges Relations (October 4 at 8:00am)

Dr. Armenta was appointed as liaison to between the state's community colleges and the major university systems. He holds a joint appointment with University of Texas, Texas A&M University and the community colleges. He noted that the seventy-one community colleges across the state are the principal feeders into the UT System. He also stated that the number of transfers into the System institutions in increasing; thus, concerns about the academic preparations of transfers is also increasing. The Transfer Committee has offered these conclusions: (1) transfers are "well-prepared for university courses," and (2) differences in levels of preparations can not be distinguished between transfers and system students. Dr. Armenta characterized the "transfer problem" as one of determining "transfer credit" and the "alignment of expectations"

Dr. Armenta provided a handout showing the website for further information on transfer issues. The website is www.thecb.state.us/ctc/ip/core11_00/index.htm

Committee Meetings (9:00am - 11:30 am)

Chair Report (11:30am)

Robert Nelsen began the session asking whether the FAC should propose system-wide surveys concerning salary compression. Two lines of reasoning were offered. One was the prevailing need to recognize the salary inequities in the academic institutions. Campus reports suggested that "salary issues" were universally important alluding to a faculty "morale problem." The opposing view suggested a salary survey would be time consuming and unproductive. Also, an examination of salary structure across campuses could be meaningless due to qualitative differences in individual faculty. Several FAC members spoke in favor of looking beyond the compression issue and focusing on the budgetary process.

On a voice vote, the motion to conduct salary surveys on each of the System campuses failed.

Walter Tenery, Chair, Employment Advisory Council (EAC) (12:00 noon)

Mr. Tenery, Chairman of the Employment Advisory Council, provided information to the FAC on the development and accomplishments of the EAC. The UT Arlington model serves as the pattern for the other System employee councils as well as the EAC. Common issues among the employee councils are staff development and childcare issues. The EAC has worked to create subsidized transportation and scholarship programs for their members. Other issues include a fee waiver process and wellness programs. An on-going discussion centers on the possibility of establishing a flextime program on the various campuses. Also, the EAC is in the process of creating a "Best Practices" manual to serve as a system-wide template for establishing and maintaining programs.

Committee Reports (1:00pm)

REPORT FROM THE HEALTH AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

REPORT FROM THE ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE (October 2002)

The Academic Affairs Committee held discussions on five issues, only one of which led to an item that called for immediate action by the FAC:

1. Every child, every advantage
2. The campus excellence statements
3. NIH ethics training for survey research
4. Assessment/accountability
5. Resolution concerning participation of the FAC in activities related to assessment

Item 1. The main outcome of this discussion was to encourage the faculty governance body at each of the component institutions (including the health institutions) to invite the campus K-16 Coordinator to address the Senate and answer questions concerning the System's "Every Child, Every Advantage" initiative. As soon as he gets this information, Robert Nelsen will communicate to each of the FAC members the identity of the K-16 coordinator on his or her campus.

Item 2. The committee reviewed the report "Institution-Specific Excellence Statements" that was presented to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Regents in April 2002. The two key points that emerged from our discussion are these: (1) the excellence statements appear to represent responses to accountability pressures (the need to show that excellence money was well spent), and are not truly indicative of efforts to build excellence at component institutions; (2) there was little faculty involvement in either decisions concerning the allocation of excellence funds or the preparation of the report. This raises the question: Are the goals and priorities for excellence funding being set in partnership with the faculty? The committee urges the Senates at the component institutions to press for a strong voice in the formation of policies governing excellence funding.

Item 3. Committee co-chair Bruce Palka discussed with the cognizant authorities at NIH the issue of whether individuals doing "non-intrusive" survey research with NIH funding are required to complete the full-blown ethics-training module for research involving human subjects that NIH makes available. The short answer: yes. IRBs (or, at some campuses, the Vice President for Research) are entitled to request exceptions to this rule, but in practice they have been extremely reluctant to do so. Indeed, according to the office of the Vice President for Research at UT-Austin, the growing tendency seems to be for IRBs to require individuals who conduct research that involves human subjects but who receive their funding from agencies other than NIH to complete the NIH training. Thus, in most instances, this will continue to be a compliance issue with which faculty have to deal.

Item 4. The committee had a free-flowing, wide-ranging, and largely reassuring conversation with Dr. Geri Malandra, the UT-System's new assessment/accountability tzarina, and Mike Kerker, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, on the System's assessment/accountability initiative. Dr. Malandra seems very much inclined to adopt a faculty viewpoint on assessment issues: she agrees with the FAC resolution that we should wait to see what kind results come out of the writing and mathematics assessments before moving ahead with assessment of the core curriculum; in her view, the objective of this venture is to assess and then improve programs, not to take punitive measures against individual faculty members whose students perform poorly relative to a particular assessment instrument; she looks at assessment as an important component of the general accountability process, but not necessarily as the centerpiece thereof. One possible step backward: Mike Kerker suggested that Regent Miller would like to see "critical thinking" put back on the assessment table, despite the fact that neither Regent Miller nor anyone else can provide an adequate definition of the term.

The committee reviewed Ray Rodrigues's report covering 2001-2002 assessment activities. We agreed that it is a thoughtful document, whose contents by and large represent a faculty viewpoint. (This came as something of a surprise.) It is even somewhat restrained in its recommendations about assessing the core curriculum.

Item 5. The rationale for the following resolution is an item brought to the committee's attention by Robert Nelsen: SACS will soon be hosting a major meeting on assessment to which the UT-System will send representatives, none of whom is currently slated to be a faculty member. Given the heavy load that faculty must bear in the assessment process, we find it highly appropriate for faculty to be included in this activity (and other assessment-related activities akin to it).

Whereas, direct FAC involvement in the formation of policy affecting the UT System assessment/accountability process is critical,

Be it resolved, that representation from the FAC be included in any and all discussions including professional meetings pertaining to the development, implementation and evaluation of that policy.

The resolution was unanimously approved by the FAC.

REPORT FROM THE FACULTY QUALITY COMMITTEE

Summary of discussions occurring during 3, 4 October.

Faculty Satisfaction Survey
· Met with representatives of Digital Research, Inc.
· Well attended session and the discussion ranged over a wide variety of issues that the new FSS should cover.

Honoraria
· We had a brief discussion of the situation at UTHSC-Tyler (where funds received for professional services must be returned to the university) and decided to review HOPs at the next meeting with the intent of establishing a comparator of policies among the campuses. This action may lead us to suggest a uniform policy.

Sexual Harassment
· Focus issue: Is it incumbent upon a faculty member to report sexual harassment situations brought to their attention by others. Lengthy, informative discussions were held with Helen Bright, Ester Hajdar and John Poole. Suggested action: Phone and alert the administrator on campus responsible for harassment issues that you are sending someone over to report a problem. Additionally, everyone should check with the compliance officer to make sure the "What to do if……" sequence is spelled out in compliance training.

Regents Committee on Campus Life
· After a brief discussion the committee, decided it would probably be best to be reactive to this committee since its function is, as of yet, not fully defined.

REPORT FROM GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE

The Governance Committee brought forth the following resolutions.

Resolutions and Recommendations

1. Faculty Committee to Oversee the Office Of Sponsored Projects
And Grants and Contracts

The UT System FAC hereby resolves that each campus governance organization consider the creation of an oversight committee for the office(s) of sponsored projects and grants and contracts. The functions of this committee should include the following:

a) monitoring the responsiveness of the offices to faculty research efforts:
b) ensuring the application of due process in evaluating the non-compliance of faculty to research protocols.

2. Resolution Regarding Faculty Representation on Campus Executive Councils

Whereas, enhanced communication between faculty and administrators is one of the primary advantages to the shared governance to which the University of Texas System is
committed,

Be it Resolved that it is the firm conviction of the members of the Faculty Advisory Council that each component campus of the University of Texas System should include governance representation on the executive decision making body (such as the President's Council or Executive Committee) which typically includes senior administration and the campus President.

3. Resolution on Hiring Procedures for Full-time Non-Tenure Track Faculty

In view of the increasing reliance on full-time non-tenure track faculty, it is the recommendation of the Faculty Advisory Council that efforts should be made to bring the hiring and review procedures for full-time non-tenure track faculty within the framework of peer review.

4. Resolution Regarding Notification Procedures for Allegations of Non-Compliance with Grants, Contracts, and State or Federal Law

Bodies concerned with enforcement of compliance policies should notify faculty promptly of issues concerning compliance as they arise.

5. Resolution Regarding Criminal Investigations and Background Checks

Whereas, the Faculty Advisory Council of the University of Texas
System strongly supports the Chancellor of the UT System's current efforts to revise the policies and procedures having to do with criminal investigations and background checks for employees of the University of Texas System

Be it Resolved, that the Faculty Advisory Council urges the Chancellor to include in his revisions provisions to ensure that rights to due process of affected parties, be they faculty or staff, are protected by making certain that individuals subject to these checks are informed, in writing, that the process has been initiated and providing said parties with a timely opportunity to respond to the results of any such investigations before personnel actions are taken.

Resolutions 1, 2, 4, and 5 passed a voice vote of the FAC. Resolution 3 was returned to the Committee for further consideration.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:00 PM.

Campus Reports

Arlington
Thomas H. Chrzanowski, Dennis Reinhartz

Enrollment us up 12.5%.

Bricks and Mortar: Construction of two new housing facilities has been completed. They are fully occupied. Two additional new housing projects are in the works with construction scheduled to begin immediately. Construction of a Fine Arts Annex will begin this year. Construction of a new science building will begin next fall.

The Dean of Architecture was fired this fall after less than one year in the position. This has been the source of much discussion around campus. The interim Dean is a past faculty member who has come out of retirement to take the position

The President has our receivership policy and wishes to work with us on some modifications.

Senate issues: We will revise our Periodic Review of Academic Administrators this year. Several difficulties have been revealed by letting the policy work: We are reviewing way too many people who only marginally impact the teaching/research mission of the faculty and the current policy is silent on how to handle the review clock for such things as title changes and changes in job description.

We will also be looking into the recent trends in changes in Administrative positions/salaries in comparison to changes in faculty positions/salaries

Three hottest items on campus:

a. Salary and workload inequities (campus, local, regional and national)
b. Evaluation of the administration
c. Receivership

Changes in compliance:

We no longer participate in the 'Training Post' made available by UT-Tyler. We have our own compliance training web site. It is very simplistic.

Faculty on Development Leaves. 15 on leave, ~560 Faculty members.

New Travel Policy: no problems brought to the attention of the Senate

Follow-ups:

We have not created a committee to advise the Office of Grants and Contracts. The Senate did not meet between the time this recommendation was made and now.

Committee requests:
Faculty Quality:
On honoraria….nothing specific here. Faculty are expected to follow System Guidelines on this issue.

Governance:
a. Review of Lecturers. These are appointments without commitment to long-term employment. Promotion, review and hiring all take place at the departmental level with departmental policy governing.

b. Notification of faculty non-compliance. This is usually done by the appropriate review committee or by post-award administration specialists in the Office of Grants and Contracts. Procedures are not codified.

c. Name and titles of overseers of Grants and Contracts: Dr. Marianne R. Woods
Assistant Vice President for Research and Director, Office of Research and she reports to Dr. Keith McDowell Vice President for Research and Information Technology

Health Affairs:
Intellectual property rights:
This falls under the Office of Research. The organizational unit within the Office of Research is termed Technology Transfer. An extensive policy exists along with an Intellectual Policy Committee. The IPC is composed of members of the administration, Deans, Chairs, community, local industry, the on campus technology incubator, and a couple of faculty members. Thirteen members, two may be faculty.

"Assists faculty, staff and students who have invented or created intellectual property and works directly with university inventions and inventors in obtaining patents, copyrights, trademarks or in maintaining trade secrets. This area also searches for marketing opportunities and develops confidentiality and licensing agreements with businesses for the manufacture and sale of new products and processes"

Austin


The University of Texas at Austin is attempting to deal with a profound budget crisis. As explained in a report prepared by our Vice President of Finance, if there are no new sources of revenue or major new initiatives, then the University faces a deficit of $15.7 million in fiscal 2003-2004 and $28.1 million in 2004-2005. Taking into account critical needs, such as faculty salary adjustments, reduction of student-faculty ratios, and faculty "start-up" costs, this deficit balloons to $50.7 million in 2003-2004 and $75.1 million in 2004-2005. Moreover, for the next three years, in the absence of additional funding, there will be $243.4 million in unmet capital requirements.

To meet the shortfall, the University proposed to levy an "infrastructure fee" upon all students. Opponents of the fee, however, challenged the legal right of the University to impose such a fee without legislative approval. In mid-summer, the Attorney General issued a complex opinion which appeared to give the University the go-ahead to levy the fee. Nevertheless, the administration, fearful of provoking a legislative backlash, opted to withdraw its proposal. Instead, the University will work with the governor and legislature to develop a long-term plan to put it on sound fiscal footing. In light of the state's own fiscal difficulties, the most promising steps the legislature could take would be to grant the University greater flexibility is setting tuition rates and fees and in permitting it to keep indirect cost reimbursements.

In the meantime, the Administration is undertaking several steps to alleviate the fiscal crisis:

It is committing two-thirds of its cash reserves to crucial capital projects and is dedicating $8 million per year for debt service on bonds that will be issued to finance capital projects.

It is placing on hold other important but noncritical projects. Among the projects to be continued are the Blanton Museum, renovation of certain classrooms and offices, various fire and life safety improvements and completion of biology wet lab and experimental science buildings.

It will delay needed repairs and maintenance, thereby "saving" $20 million per year.It has established a Task Force on Efficiency, composed of a small group of administrators and faculty, to identify ways in which the University can cut costs.As a result of the task force's deliberations, the University is about to sign a contract with a leading office supply company. This company will now become the University's main source of office supplies. Individual units will be able to order supplies "on-line" with guaranteed next morning delivery. As a result of better prices and the "outsourcing" of certain services currently performed internally, the University expects to save over 2 million dollars annually. In addition, the University will likely sign an agreement with a major credit card company that will enable the University to accept credit card payments from students without having to bear the cost of the standard credit card charges.

It has developed a five-year fiscal plan.

The first returns on the University's Coordinated Admissions Program are now in. Under the terms of this program - a successor to the previous Provisional Admission Program, a student is offered admission to UT Austin upon completion of 30 hours of course work with a minimum grade point average of 3.0, at a participating UT component. In the summer of 2001, approximately 500 students enrolled in this program, mainly at UT Arlington and UT San Antonio. Of those enrollees, about 170 transferred to the Austin campus this fall.
To improve the University's four-year graduation rate, the Colleges of Liberal Arts and Natural Science adopted a pilot program in which students will not be charged tuition for any hours above 12 for which they register in a particular semester. The expectation is that students will register for a greater number of hours and thereby speed their progress toward a degree.
The University has long had a problem with freshman retention. Owing to improved counseling, a program of freshmen seminars and numerous orientation programs, the freshmen retention rate has now increased to 92 percent - a rate better than that at most leading public universities.
At its September meeting, the Faculty Council endorsed a proposal by the Graduate School of Library and Information Science to change its name to the "School of Information." This name change emphasizes the schools broadened vision and is consistent with a nation-wide trend.

1. As previously reported, the University has established a committee on non-tenure-track faculty. The committee has circularized its report and is responding to comments from deans and other administrators. A second committee, that on expression and assembly ("free speech"), is still deliberating and is unlikely to issue its report until late Fall.

2. The President has established a Commission of 125. This group of 125 prominent and influential citizens is to conduct a two-year study of the current state of the University and advise the administration on goals and priorities for the next two decades.

3. Faculty salaries increases averaged 4 percent for the current academic year. Of this amount 3.25 percent was provided from a central university fund and the balance from "local" sources. The 4 percent average increase most likely exceeded the median increase as it includes adjustments to a selected few faculty to correct gross inequities and to match outside offers.

4. The President will shortly appoint a committee to study ways of controlling enrollments.

1. Three hottest items on campus

· Budget crisis and problems caused by the Attorney's General ruling on infrastructure fee (see discussion as part of campus report)

· Use of university logo by student groups. A department of licensing controls the use of the "longhorn" logo and has notified bone fide student organizations that they are prohibited from applying the logo on T-shirts and other items. All of the royalties for licensing the logo are directed to Intercollegiate Athletics. Student groups complained to the administration, which has now appointed a committee to study the issue.

· Shortage of classroom space, especially in light of the construction of "the bubble" (a balloon like structure that enables the football practice field to be air conditioned) and the record enrollment of 52,000 students.

2. List of items mandated by the Legislature that seem to be inefficient or overly expensive

The most costly item to the University is the "tax" that we must pay on research grants. At present all indirect costs reimbursements are recovered by the State, rather than the University. Similarly, the legislature limits the extent to which the University can assess fees to students or establish equitable and reasonable tuition rates. The University is now working with the System on a deregulation package to be presented to the legislature.

3. List of items mandated by the UT System that seem to be inefficient or overly expensive

· Accountability/assessment procedures
· Criminal background checks
· Post-tenure reviews

4. Changes or problems with compliance training/office (to be reported only if there have been changes or problems)

No changes or new problems since last report

5. Number of individuals on faculty development leaves

Using "Dean Fellows," Faculty Research Assignments, and curriculum development leaves approved by deans using their budgetary allocations, we have an estimated 145 leaves annually, which is approximately 8% of our 1,741 tenured and tenure track faculty.

6. Problems (if any) with new student travel procedures
None, the administration has issued a new policy, which is reported working well.

FOLLOW-UP ON RESOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETINGS

Status of creation of a local/Senate committee to monitor/advise the Office of Sponsored Projects/Contracts and Grant Accounting
Our established Research Policy standing committee serves this function.

COMMITTEE REQUESTS

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

1. Status and nature of math accountability procedures at academic institutions
The Math department is continuing to evaluate assessment methods and is carrying out a pilot study.

FACULTY QUALITY

2. Copy of policy (if any) governing honoraria

Our consulting policy is in the Handbook of Operating Procedures, Section 3.19. Our current annual limit for University payments to our employees in $15,000. See appendix.

GOVERNANCE

3. Promotion, review, and hiring procedures for [a] Senior Lecturers, [b] non-medical Clinical Professors (under the recently expanded Regent Rules definitions of "clinical faculty"), and [c] adjunct/part-time instructors
A committee composed of tenured, tenure track and non-tenure track faculty and administrators has studied this issue for over a year and has drafted a proposal that would provide non-tenure track faculty with long-term contracts after they have been with the university for a specified period of time. Similarly, the administration is reviewing existing policies with respect to clinical and research faculty but does not contemplate any significant policy changes.

4. Notification procedures (if any) for faculty in non-compliance with contracts, grants, state or federal laws, etc.
Both the Office of Sponsored Projects and the Grants and Contracts division notify faculty in noncompliance.

5. Name and title of person or persons who oversee and/or direct the Office of Sponsored Projects/Contracts and Grant Accounting plus name, title, and office of person to whom OSP/CGA reports

OSP Director is Wayne Kuenstler and he reports to the Vice President for Research, Juan Sanchez. The Contracts and Grant Accounting division is headed by a Manager, Jason Richter, and he reports to Fred Friedrich, Director of Accounting.

HEALTH AFFAIRS

6. Organization and responsibilities of Intellectual Property Rights Committee, especially with regard to faculty input and representation

Our faculty intellectual property committee screens all intellectual property developed by faculty and staff and recommends what action the University should take.

Appendix

Handbook of Operating Procedures -- Section3.19, Faculty Consulting and Other Professional Activities, Including Outside Employment

II. Consulting, Lecturing, or Other Professional Activities within UT Austin

A. Consulting with students and colleagues, occasional lectures to University groups, and assistance with certain professional activities are recognized as part of the normal obligations of faculty and professional staff for which no additional compensation is required. On occasion, obligations may be accepted that are in addition to those associated with full-time employment and that justify additional compensation. The following rules govern such additional compensation from University funds, including grants and contracts, extension and correspondence teaching, participation in workshops, symposia, etc.; and editing or proofreading for the UT Press or other scholarly publications.

B. Normally, fees for consulting, lecturing, or other professional services, in addition to full-time salaries, will not be paid to faculty or professional or other similar staff in the same department or administrative unit (e.g., non-departmentalized school, college, or organized research unit.)

C. Prior approval, in writing, by the department chairman and the Dean of the College or School in which the faculty or staff are appointed, and by the President or Vice President, is required for receipt of payment from any UT Austin funds (including sponsored projects) for consulting within the University. (See Policy Memorandum 7.205 for procedures.) In the case of faculty or staff appointed to units that do not report through a dean, prior approval should be by the appropriate vice president. The prior approval request will include (1) source and amount of funding, (2) services to be provided, (3) period of time and (C) justification for special payment. The payment of consulting fees from University funds, either to University faculty and staff or to persons not regularly employed by the University, must be in accord with provisions of Policy Memorandum 7.205.

D. In all cases, the rate of compensation cannot exceed the established University rate, and the total of any additional compensation for full-time employees from University controlled funds cannot be greater than $7,500 per year. Payment of consulting fees to full-time UT Austin employees from federal grant and contract funds is permissible in unusual cases where consultation is across departmental lines or involves a separate or remote operation and the work is in addition to the regular departmental load, provided that such consulting arrangements are specifically provided for in the approved grant or contract or approved in writing by the sponsoring agency.

E. Payments for consulting, lecturing or other professional services within UT Austin are treated as salary payments and are paid with departmental payroll vouchers. Procedures for payments are found in Policy Memorandum 7.205.

III. Outside Employment, Consulting and Other Professional Activities

A. Outside employment regulations for the University System appear in the Regents' Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter III, Section 13. Other regulations relating to U.T. Austin recommended by the 1972 Faculty Committee on Outside Employment and by the University Council are as follows:

1. No member of the faculty or professional staff shall undertake any form of outside employment or activity, whether remunerative or not, whether regular or sporadic, which prevents the performance of those primary responsibilities expected of a full-time faculty or staff member of the University as provided in the Regents' Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter III, Section 8; but outside employment and activities which do not affect the individual's compliance with the highest standard of ethics in the proper discharge of these duties are not prohibited.

2. Appropriate outside employment for a faculty member which enhances the performance of duties as described in Section 8 of the Rules and Regulations is encouraged as furthering the interest of both the individual and the University. Consulting, professional performance and other appropriate outside employment or activities can contribute to the effectiveness of the faculty member as a teacher and as a productive scholar, and can meet the individual's and the institution's obligation of public service.

3. A faculty member may hold other nonelective offices or positions of honor, trust, or profit with the State of Texas or the United States as provided by Article 6252-9a, Section 1, V.C.S., and subject to the other provisions of this memorandum and of Part One, Chapter III, Sections 8 and 13 of the Rules and Regulations.

4. Conflict of interest should be avoided. As provided in Article 6252-9, Section 1, V.C.S., a member of an institutional faculty shall have no interest of any kind, direct or indirect, or engage in any business transaction or professional activity, or incur any obligation of any nature which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of the individual's duties as a faculty member. See Regents' Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter III, Section 4, for a listing of the specific conflicts of interest prohibited by the State statute; see also Part One, Chapter III, Section 13.3 of the Rules and Regulations.

B. Outside employment is defined as any remunerative activity such as, but not necessarily limited to, consulting, advising, testing or assaying, performing analyses or examinations, the practice of one's profession, or similar work performed in addition to the official responsibilities of a full-time employee.

C. Each school, college, or division shall submit to the President a statement of outside employment practices which reflects any special considerations appropriate for the particular area under the policies and conditions of outside employment and activities. Such statements shall be subject to review and final approval by the President.

D. During the period of full-time employment with UT Austin, members of the faculty and professional staff may engage in outside employment so long as it does not reduce the full-time obligation to the University. The outside employment is considered an overload and must not exceed 20 percent of the full-time obligation. Faculty and staff may not receive grant funds directly nor enter into contracts that conflict with the individual's obligations to the University.

E. Before any faculty member or professional staff member of an institution may engage in outside employment, approval of the department chairman or equivalent supervisor and of the Dean is required. For continuing employment, approval of the President is also required. For short term or ad hoc employment, the Vice President for Academic Affairs and Research must be notified after approval of the Dean. Requests for approval should describe the nature of the employment, including compensation where required by Regents' Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter III, Section 13. Recommendations for approval, and approval, shall be based upon an affirmative showing that the proposed employment would be in accord with the policies stated in this memorandum and with the applicable statement of outside employment practices approved for the school, college, or division. When Regental approval is required, such approval shall be obtained prior to engaging in any activity.

F. Outside employment and consulting under the appropriate rules and procedures usually require an absence from the campus. Even though there is no cost to the University, absence from the campus or other regular place of work for periods of half a day or more during the normal working period must be preceded by an approved Travel Authorization.

Brownsville

As the FAC is aware, UTB has recently expanded through the acquisition of the former Amigoland Mall, just around the corner from the old Brownsville and Matamoros (B&M) Bridge and from the acquisition of the Fort Brown Hotel properties just between the main campus and the Friendship Bridge. These properties were purchased by TSC at bargain prices but are in need of serious renovation. As a consequence, during the summer, TSC began preparing a general obligation bond issue to put before the community college taxing district. The bond was intended to raise $97,000,000 for the purpose of expanding our infrastructure and renovating the newly acquired properties. On September 14, the bond issue was defeated.

The bitterly contested bond issue served to highlight community perceptions of our institution and both its strengths and weaknesses. The proposed bond issue would have raised taxes in Brownsville and outlying communities by approximately 5.9 cents per assessed $100.00 of valuation, and our community, amongst the poorest in the United States, simply couldn't handle it. The ball is now back in the administrative court as the TSC Board contemplates whether to try again and what kind of "restructuring" might make the general obligation bond more palatable to Cameron county taxpayers. This continues to be a highly sensitive topic that subjects our campus to intense public scrutiny with all that implies. Failure to pass some kind of a bond issue will most dramatically affect attempts to renovate the recently acquired properties and get them into functional condition. The fear is that, as it does in most matters regarding the border region and its increasingly restive minority population, the state will continue to practice the policy of benign neglect and refuse to help local taxing entities. In Brownsville, it is very true that if we don't do it ourselves, it doesn't get done.

Related to the general uproar surrounding the bond issue was the closing out of a year of festivities recognizing and honoring the 75th anniversary of Texas Southmost College. Cynics in our community wonder if this renewed fascination with what is now little more than a local taxing district is sincere or politically motivated, but there is little doubt that faculty and staff morale have benefited from the year long series of events designed to showcase the links between Texas Southmost College and the community of Brownsville. Receptions and displays have focused on people and their contributions rather than matters of brick and mortar, and those portions of the campus that have felt neglected as the University of Texas supplanted the old TSC with a radically different kind of campus culture have felt somewhat mollified as they looked proudly back on a campus whose community roots grow deep.

One last point worth mentioning is that, amidst perennial debates on parking and faculty salaries, it was recently necessary to remind campus administration that they are committed to bringing UTB salaries into parity with the UT system. Our existing agreement is that parity for traditional academic ranks is to be judged against the system excepting Austin, Dallas and Arlington. At a recent meeting, the Provost suggested that the agreement was predicated on Carnegie classifications, which would, of course, have taken a number of other schools off the table. Needless to say, the Senate took vehement exception to this interpretation of things, and we believe all are now clear that our agreement extended only to those three schools whose stratospheric salaries are beyond our aspirations in the lowly border region. Still, while we may not have the greatest salaries in the system, we are confident that we retain bragging rights to the most onerous workloads and working conditions in the system.

This is the "to do" list from UTB

The hottest items on campus continue to be resource availability and allocation. There is a large gap between salaries of new faculty compared to those that have years with the institution. The other major problem seems to be parking. Where most school average about 2.5 students per parking place, we average over 5 students per parking place on campus.

We have just recently hired a Compliance Officer (in September 2002)

There is only one individual on faculty development leave this year.

Student Affairs has been working with the new requirements for about a year and concurs that they do increase the safety of students. The one issue that they brought up was the 15 passenger vans are not being used with only 9 students including the driver. It requires the use of more vehicles, but the students are safer.

On follow-up resolutions and recommendation from previous faculty advisory council meetings:

There is and Animal Subjects and Human Subjects committee with the hope of setting up a Research Council in the future from the Office of Sponsored Programs.

Academic Affairs:

Math accountability, if it's refereeing to general ed math assessment is being handled by
the Dean of Development and General Ed. The General Education Advisory Committee is developing a math assessment to be implemented in the spring.

Faculty Quality:

There is not a policy governing honoraria at this time.

Governance:

The policy governing promotion, review, and hiring procedures for Senior Lecturers is part of the hiring policy for all faculty. A Lecturer does not have the option of promotion and being awarded merit increases. They are hired by administration and can teach up to three years.

When faculty is in non-compliance with a grant, it would first be noted in the Technical Report that goes to the Director of Sponsored programs. Only after the Technical report is submitted would the Business Office become aware of the non-compliance.

The individual that oversees sponsored programs is Dr. Bill Strong, Vice President for Institutional Advancement.

Dallas
Murray J Leaf, Speaker

Three hottest items of concern on campus.

By "hot" I assume we mean that which gets people upset.

The greatest concern of the moment is the threat of reduced funding or insufficient funding, which is at the moment in an especially noisy collision with our ability to maintain or increase our graduate programs in general and our research programs as their underlying foundation in particular. The consequence is that the needs of established faculty have often conflicted with the promises made to new faculty, and we have some rather serious problems with the issues prominent on this agenda: salary compression, inversion, and inequity.

Another major concern involves support for research through the office of our Vice President for Research and Graduate Education. In this, there are several areas of serious faculty dissatisfaction: human subjects reviews, patent and overhead cost returns to the investigators, and policies regarding intellectual property, particularly as applied to cooperative research with industry rather than research funded through the more traditional grants from federal and other non-profit agencies.

Between these two issues, it appears that we have lost at least three important members of our faculty in science and engineering.

The main ameliorative measures have been a change to the UTD policy on returns for patent income, a slight restructuring of the committee concerned with evaluating patent applications, and a fairly important reorientation of that committee so that it now understands its duties to include the development of technology transfer policies. At the same time, we have set up an entirely new Senate committee, the Advisory Committee on Research, to develop policies and advise the Office of the VP for Research and Graduate Education on all aspects of their interaction with the faculty. Now, all we need are the policies themselves. The committees have only been appointed and are arranging to meet. We cannot at this point foresee an outcome, although we can see that it will involve a lot of work.

The third hottest item at the moment is the system Policy on Criminal Background Checks. There was an apparent discrepancy between what the FAC was told about the general status of this policy at the meeting last June and what the administration was told through administrative channels subsequently. The FAC was told that this was only system level policy and that it was up to each campus to make its own interpretation. The administration has apparently been told it is policy for everyone and must be implemented as it stands. About a month ago everyone on the faculty received an email from our Human Resources director giving a link to the system policy as our own policy. The email was unambiguous that it was to be followed-although, off the email the faculty was told that it was at that point only for staff and that we had until November before it would be implemented for faculty, in which time there would be some discussions. Although we recognize that these discussions have intensified and that the mischievousness of the present policy is being recognized at the System level, there is still very substantial concern. The last action of our Academic Senate was to establish a subcommittee of the Senate to work with the Provost to be ready to respond when we might have an opportunity to do so.

List of items mandated by the Legislature that seem to be inefficient or overly expensive

Who mandated the Post Tenure Review? The legislature in general, but for us it was mainly the System. In any case, this would probably be highest on most people's list.

The second is probably the required de facto abandonment of "objective" measures of preparedness in admissions. Although we never relied wholly on numerical cutoffs and the like in the first place, the workload for admissions and scholarship review committees has grown enormously, and certainly this legislative requirement is at least partly responsible because of the way it preclude the use of generally (if not precisely) reliable quantitative measures in initial sortings.

The third would probably be the minimum teaching load requirement-not, of course, because it requires a minimum teaching load but because it does so in such a relatively inflexible way at the individual level, which militates against trading off tasks in response to shifting conditions.

Finally (although on reflection this might be first), it seems clear that a major cause of at least perplexity, and probably also record keeping expense and internal budging difficulties, is the hugely complicated fee structure that results from the legislative control of tuition and other allowable fees.

It is probably not possible to demonstrate clearly that legislative efforts to force faculty to standardize curricula across the state has caused inefficiency or waste in a financial sense, but it certainly has militated against faculty efforts to design programs that make the best possible use of our own particular resources to put together a well integrated program within the University. In fact, I was recently told at meeting of the directors of the undergraduate programs of our several schools that the idea of such a unified program reflecting a campus-developed teaching philosophy was obsolete. Perhaps it is obsolete here, but not at any leading university or college elsewhere.

Finally, I should mention that the faculty are currently quite concerned that the Legislature may eliminate a program they very much appreciate. This is TexShare. This seems to them an extremely sensible way to multiply our resources at very little marginal cost, adding very substantially to journal access and, thereby, greatly decreasing the sense of intellectual isolation that until not very long ago was an unavoidable aspect of a faculty position almost anywhere in the state but a UT or Rice.

List of items mandated by the UT System that seem to be inefficient or overly expensive

The first on the faculty list of such items would doubtless be the teaching assessment program. Again, this is not because the faculty objects to assessment, but rather because the mandated assessment for the designated courses adds substantial cost in time and some not inconsiderable cost in funds to the program we already have in place for these courses along with all other courses we teach, with no gain in value.

The second is probably the compliance program. The web-based "courses" are the main irritant, although the increasing burden of detailed system requirements (admittedly often originating in state law) is probably actually more costly. The faculty do not need to be forced to appear to accept simplistic and often questionable legal advice or advice contrary to their legal rights and interests regarding what to do in specific hypothetical situations. They would, however, probably like more attention to be paid to making the actual laws available in a form that could be adverted to when needed.

With respect to actual regulations, for example in areas like radiation and chemical hazards or the above noted criminal background/criminal history checks, the problem with the system policies is again not with their intent or even really with their substance, but rather with the way they tend to stand between the campus agencies charged with enforcement and the laws and other governmental regulations that the policies are supposed to reflect. The effect, commonly, is that instead of assisting the campus in meeting those legal and administrative requirements, they interpose an additional level of bureaucracy to comply with that has the effect of making compliance more difficult.

Changes or problems with compliance training/office (to be reported only if there have been changes or problems)

No changes to speak of.

Number of individuals on faculty development leaves and overall percentage of faculty that that number indicates

I neglected to get our numbers for this year. For the previous few years it was about ten per year for a faculty of 276, or about 3.6%. Last year, I believe it was increased to about 15 and this year to twenty for a faculty of 300, or about 6.7%.

Problems (if any) with new student travel procedures

None.

FOLLOW-UP ON RESOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETINGS

Status of creation of a local/Senate committee to monitor/advise the Office of Sponsored Projects/Contracts and Grant Accounting
Done. Appendix A.

Appendix A.

POLICY MEMORANDUM 02-III.27-86 Issued: June 12, 2002

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

The Advisory Committee on Research is a Standing, Concurrent Committee of the Academic Senate of The University of Texas at Dallas.

The Committee is charged with recommending policies to promote and facilitate the research activities of the faculty of the University. These policies may include, but are not limited to, long term research planning, communication and contracting with research sponsors, publicity for the University's research activities, internal policies to assure that returns to the university from patents and overhead are applied in such a way as to encourage and promote additional research, the identification of new and potentially important research areas and activities, the University's physical facilities for research, the use of internal grants to initiate promising research programs, and the operations of the Office of the Vice President for Research and Graduate Education.

The concerns of the Committee include all aspects of the interface between faculty and the administration relating to pre-award and post-award services. These include strategies for administrative staffing, communication with the faculty regarding possible funding sources, the establishment of guidelines, where feasible, regarding internal submission deadlines, turnaround time for specific actions, expectations for the times within which faculty may expect monies received by the University to be credited to accounts allocated for their research, procedures for allowing faculty to monitor such accounts, and assuring that clearances from internal review committees are obtained in a systematic and efficient manner.

The Committee shall have at least eleven voting members appointed by the President upon recommendation by the Committee on Committees. Seven of the members, including the Chair, shall be from the general faculty and will be selected to represent the areas of activity with the most involvement with, and dependence on, external funding. Appointments will be for two-year terms, and members may be reappointed for additional terms. The Deans of the Schools of Engineering and Computer Science, Human Development, and Natural Sciences and Mathematics, or their designated representatives, shall serve as voting members, ex-officio. The Dean of one of the remaining schools shall be appointed each year for a one-year term, with vote. The Committee may recommend that the President appoint additional members of the faculty as voting members for terms of up to one year, and may form specific working groups or subcommittees to consider and report on special questions of research policy that may arise from time to time. The Responsible University Official shall be the Vice President for Research and Graduate Education.

To ensure continuity, appointments of general faculty Committee members, who have two-year terms, will be for staggered terms. Initial appointments of three members from the general faculty will be for one-year terms, and the appointments of the remaining four general faculty members will be for two-year terms. One-half of the appointments expire August 31 of each academic year. The Chair of the Committee shall be appointed by the President annually.

The Committee shall maintain a section of the governance website to which faculty members may easily direct questions, complaints, and suggestions. The Committee shall meet at least twice a year, once each long semester. Notice of the times of the meeting shall be provided to the general faculty at least thirty days in advance. The Chair shall provide the Senate with minutes of each meeting and an annual report.

COMMITTEE REQUESTS
GOVERNANCE
1. Promotion, review, and hiring procedures for [a] Senior Lecturers, [b] non-medical Clinical Professors (under the recently expanded Regent Rules definitions of "clinical faculty"), and [c] adjunct/part-time instructors

We haven't any procedures formalized except those for hiring as such. At this point it is left to the discretion of Deans, and not under peer review. We have just started talking about formalizing it and involving faculty.

2. Notification procedures (if any) for faculty in non-compliance with contracts, grants, state or federal laws, etc.
I don't believe we have anything formalized. It is generally the P.I's responsibility, although the office is supposed to keep in touch and serve as liaison, but his has been one of the areas we have been having trouble with.

3. Name and title of person or persons who oversee and/or direct the Office of Sponsored Projects/Contracts and Grant Accounting plus name, title, and office of person to whom OSP/CGA reports
Vice President for Research and Graduate Education, Da Chuan Feng. He reports directly to the President.

HEALTH AFFAIRS

1. Promotion and tenure criteria for all health science centers, especially with regard to promotion and tenure of clinical faculty
Not applicable.

2. Organization and responsibilities of Intellectual Property Rights Committee, especially with regard to faculty input and representation

Our policy is attached, Appendix B.

Appendix B:

POLICY MEMORANDUM 79-III.27-36 Issued: December 18, l979
Revised: March 1, l980
Revised: June 30, 1983
Revised: September 1, l989
Revised: October 24, 1989
Revised: June 15, 1994
Revised: May 23, 1996
Revised: June 4, 1996
Editorial Amendments: October 29, 1998
Editorial Amendments: September 1, 2000

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY POLICY

The Intellectual Property Policy of The University of Texas is governed by Part Two, Chapter XII of the Rules and Regulations (http://www.utsystem.edu/bor/tocrrr.htm) of the Board of Regents of The University of Texas System, as implemented in this memorandum. To the extent that provisions herein may vary from the Rules and Regulations, the latter shall govern. An Intellectual Property Handbook, bearing the approval of the President, will provide auxiliary information and procedural details related to implementation.

I. Definition of Intellectual Property

As used in this Policy, the term "intellectual property" includes any invention, discovery, trade secret, technology, scientific or technological development, or computer software, regardless of whether such property is subject to protection under the patent, trademark or copyright laws except as may be excluded below.

II. Applicability of Policy

A. This policy shall apply to:

1. All persons employed by U. T. Dallas

2. All persons, including students, using the facilities of U. T. Dallas under the supervision of its employees.

3. Candidates for masters' and doctoral degrees.
4. Postdoctoral and predoctoral fellows.

5. Intellectual property that has resulted either from activities performed by the individual on U. T. Dallas time, or with support by State funds, or from using U. T. Dallas facilities.

B. This policy shall not apply to:

1. Faculty authored, scholarly works, art works, musical compositions and dramatic and non-dramatic literary works related to the faculty member's professional field, regardless of the medium of expression, unless such work is commissioned by or produced as a work for hire by the U. T. System or U. T. Dallas. Such work is owned by the creator.

2. Intellectual property produced by an employee of an outside firm under contract to U. T. Dallas as a work for hire in the performance of a contract with U. T. Dallas or as a part of an employee's assigned work responsibilities. Such property is owned solely by the Board of Regents and the division of royalties does not apply.

3. Intellectual property unrelated to an individual's employment responsibility that is developed on the individual's own time and without U. T. Dallas support or the use of U. T. Dallas facilities. Such property is owned by the creator.

III. Advisory Bodies

A. The President of U. T. Dallas shall appoint an Intellectual Property Advisory Committee to help administer intellectual property policy and make recommendations on such related matters as may be requested. The President shall also appoint a Chair to direct and coordinate the activities of the Intellectual Property Advisory Committee.

B. The Intellectual Property Advisory Committee shall recommend to the President as to whether and how U. T. Dallas and the System should assert and protect rights in intellectual property covered by this policy.

C. Where the U. T. System rights have been asserted on an item of intellectual property, the President shall appoint a Business Advisory Committee to advise him or her on decisions about this protection and its exploitation. This Committee shall consist of the Executive Vice President and Provost (Provost), the Senior Vice President for Business Affairs, the Dean of Graduate Studies (ex-officio), the Director of Research Administration and Sponsored Projects, the appropriate School Dean, inventor, and such other individuals within or outside the University as may seem advisable.

IV. Submission of Intellectual Property and Assignment of Rights

A. All individuals carrying out University activities (including persons using University facilities) which might result in creating intellectual properties are obliged to maintain and make available adequate records of their work and to follow the guidelines for disclosure and internal reporting of such properties as described in the current issue of the University's Intellectual Property Handbook.

B. Before intellectual property covered by this policy is disclosed either to the public or for commercial purposes, and before publishing same, the creator shall submit a disclosure of such intellectual property as prescribed in the current Intellectual Property Handbook for review by the Intellectual Property Advisory Committee.

C. The Intellectual Property Advisory Committee will review the disclosure of intellectual property submitted by the creator, and will recommend one of the following:

1. That U. T. Dallas and the System assert rights of ownership in the intellectual property on behalf of the Board of Regents and obtain such protection for it as may be appropriate.

2. That the Board of Regents release rights of ownership in the intellectual property to the creator subject to such terms and conditions as may be appropriate.

D. Where U. T. Dallas and the System assert rights of ownership on behalf of the Board of Regents in intellectual property covered by this policy, it shall be mandatory that persons covered by this policy assign all rights in such property and any patents or other protection to the Board.

E. Any person who as a result of his or her activities creates intellectual property that is subject to this policy, other than on government agreements or other sponsored research projects where the grant agreements provide otherwise, should have a major role in the ultimate determination of how it is to be made public, whether by publication, by development and commercialization after securing available protection for the creation, or both.

V. Licensing and Distribution of Income

A. In those instances where rights in intellectual property are licensed by the Board of Regents to third parties, the costs of licensing and obtaining a patent or other protection for the property shall first be recaptured from any royalties received.

B. The remainder of such royalty income (including license fees, prepaid royalties and minimum royalties) shall be divided as follows:
1. Fifty percent (50%) to the creator, and
2. Fifty percent (50%) to U. T. Dallas.

C. That portion of the System's share of licensing income that is allocated to U. T. Dallas shall be further allocated by the President for research purposes. The Intellectual Property Advisory Committee may recommend ways in which such income may be applied to further develop and support the intellectual property interests of U. T. Dallas.

D. With the prior written permission of the President, future royalties payable to a faculty member pursuant to Section V. of this policy may be assigned to U. T. Dallas by the faculty member and designated for use in research to be conducted by such a faculty member.

VI. Equity Interests

A. In agreements with business entities relating to rights in intellectual property owned by the Board of Regents, U. T. Dallas may receive equity interests as partial or total compensation for rights conveyed.

B. Consistent with Section 51.912, Texas Education Code, and subject to review and approval by the President, the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, the Chancellor, and the Board, employees of U. T. Dallas who conceive, create, discover, invent or develop intellectual property may hold an equity interest in a business entity that has an agreement with the University and System relating to the research, development, licensing or exploitation of that intellectual property.

C. The University may negotiate, but shall not be obligated to negotiate, an equity interest on behalf of any employee as a part of an agreement between the University, Board and a business entity relating to intellectual property conceived, created, discovered, invented or developed by the employee and owned by the Board. An employee shall request in writing, using guidelines specified in the Intellectual Property Handbook, that the University negotiate on his or her behalf.

D. Dividend income and income from the sale or disposition of equity interests held by the Board shall belong to the System. U. T. Dallas may use the net income in accordance with Section V.C. of this policy.

E. Dividend income and income from the sale or disposition of an equity interest held by an employee pursuant to an agreement between U. T. Dallas or System and a business entity relating to rights in intellectual property conceived, created, discovered, invented or developed by such employee shall belong to the employee.

VII. Business Participation

A. Any U. T. Dallas employee who conceives, creates, discovers, invents or develops intellectual property shall not serve as a member of the board of directors or other governing board or as an officer or any employee (other than as a consultant) of a business entity that has an agreement with the University or System relating to research, development, licensing, or exploitation of that intellectual property without prior review and approval by the President, the Chancellor and the Board as an agenda item.

B. When requested and authorized by the Board, an employee may serve on behalf of the Board as a member of the board of directors or other governing board of a business entity that has an agreement with the System relating to the research, development, licensing or exploitation of intellectual property.

El Paso

1. Three hottest items of concern on campus

a. enrollment growth and the associated problems (serving more students without sacrificing academic quality, class size, cost associated with adding faculty and TAs)

b. state funding inequities

c. salary compression and inversion

2. Changes or problems with compliance training/office (to be reported only if there have been changes or problems)

Sandy Vasquez, Director of Institutional Compliance

Every fiscal year the training requirements are determined by the Compliance Committee. For fiscal year 2002-2003, the following seven training modules have been assigned to all faculty, staff and student employees:

· UTEP Compliance Program
· Confidential Information and Records Management
· Fraud, Errors, and Omissions
· Sexual Harassment and Misconduct and EEO
· Use of State Property
· Strengthening Internal Controls
· Inventory Control

We have also created a job specific module to include information pertaining to the University's Disclosure Statement and Cost Accounting Standards. An announcement was sent to all employees notifying them of the training requirement and a marketing item was included to publicize the Compliance Helpline number.
A new MySQL database has been designed to work with the web-based training modules which include new functionality and report options. The testing format has changed from the power point presentation to a web- based testing format in which the employees use radial buttons to answer the questions and a single certificate prints upon the completion of all modules assigned.
The Office of Institutional Compliance is now staffed by four employees, a Director, Compliance Coordinator, Training Specialist and Administrative Assistant.

3. Number of individuals on faculty development leaves and overall percentage of faculty that that number indicates.

Mary Wolfe, Adm. Asst. VPAA - 8 represents 2% of the full-time faculty

FOLLOW-UP ON RESOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS FACULTY ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETINGS

1. Status of creation of a local/Senate committee to monitor/advise the Office of Sponsored Projects/Contracts and Grant Accounting
Faculty Senate Executive Council - A Faculty Senate Standing Committee called the Research Committee has the following charge:
To develop and express Faculty opinion concerning the operations of administrative units directly concerning Faculty research; such as the Office of Contract and Grants, the Schellenger Research Laboratory, and the Computation Center.
Steve Johnson, Faculty Senate President will ask the committee to submit a plan for reviewing the effectiveness of the ORSP procedures.

COMMITTEE REQUESTS

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
Status and nature of math accountability procedures at academic institutions
Pablo Arenaz, Assoc. VPAA - The math department is working on developing an assessment tool for assessing student competency in math 1320 (college algebra).

GOVERNANCE
1. Promotion, review, and hiring procedures for [a] Senior Lecturers, [b] non-medical Clinical Professors (under the recently expanded Regent Rules definitions of "clinical faculty"), and [c] adjunct/part-time instructors
Mary Wolfe, Adm. Asst. VPAA - See attached policy on Senior Lecturers. There isn't a UTEP policy at this time on Clinical Professors. We are still checking on adjunct/part-time instructors. Jack Conway, Dean of the College of Health Sciences
[b] non-medical Clinical Professors
o Promotion is not possible under the current College operating procedures.
o Review and renewal is yearly by the Program Coordinator, School Director, and Dean.
o Hiring is initiated by the Program Coordinator or School Director, recommended by the Dean, and approved by the Provost.
[c] adjunct/part-time instructors
o Promotion is not possible under the current College operating procedures.
o Review and renewal is yearly by the Program Coordinator, School Director, and Dean.
o Hiring is initiated by the Program Coordinator or School Director, recommended by the Dean, and approved by the Provost.
2. Notification procedures (if any) for faculty in non-compliance with contracts, grants, state or federal laws, etc.
Jim Holcomb, ORSP - Person will receive a phone call from party who catches the problem. If serious problem, call will come from Jim, Paul or president.
3. Name and title of person or persons who oversee and/or direct the Office of Sponsored Projects/Contracts and Grant Accounting plus name, title, and office of person to whom OSP/CGA reports
Paul Maxwell, VP for Research and Sponsored Projects; Diana Natalicio, President

HEALTH AFFAIRS
1. Promotion and tenure criteria for all health science centers, especially with regard to promotion and tenure of clinical faculty
Jack Conway, Dean of the College of Health Sciences
o Promotion and tenure of clinical faculty isn't possible at the current time. Clinical faculty are reviewed and reappointed on a yearly basis.
o Promotion and tenure criteria for UTEP are used for tenure track faculty in the College of Health Sciences (these criteria are enclosed).
2. Organization and responsibilities of Intellectual Property Rights Committee, especially with regard to faculty input and representation [NB: this applies to academic components as well as health science centers]
Jack Conway, Dean of the College of Health Sciences
o We have no such committee in the College. The College follows the general guidelines, policies, and procedures detailed in the UTEP Faculty Manual. As stated on page 18 of this Manual:
"Intellectual Property
General Guidelines, policies, and procedures pertaining to intellectual property, e.g., patents, copyrights, trademarks, confidentiality, are set forth in the UTEP Intellectual Property Handbook and in the Regents Rules and Regulations. Call the Office of Sponsored Projects for a copy of the Intellectual Property Handbook."

UT-Houston

Three hottest items of concern on campus
· Faculty salaries and incentives
· Consolidation of the UT-Houston Health Science Center basic science departments
· Faculty-Administration communications

List of items mandated by the Legislature that seem to be inefficient or overly expensive
· Dept. of Information Resources Biennial Operating Plan
· DIR Information Technology Strategic Plan for UT-H
· DIR/LBB "enforced" usage of the West Texas Disaster Recovery Operations Center (WTDROC)

List of items mandated by the UT System that seem to be inefficient or overly expensive
See above

Changes or problems with compliance training/office (to be reported only if there have been changes or problems)
None to report

Number of individuals on faculty development leaves and overall percentage of faculty that that number indicates
Currently, there are five faculty members who have been approved for Leave by the Faculty Development Leave Committee. Not many more than this apply each year. No more than six percent of faculty members may be on faculty development leave at any one time. Possibly, there eight leaves granted in each school independent of the UT-Houston Committee. The next round of applications begins on November 1 (See Guidelines)

Problems (if any) with new student travel procedures
Travel agency (Navigant) policies and fees and their impact on obtaining low-cost tickets, particularly for students

FOLLOW-UP ON RESOLUTION