Click here to view document in portable document format (PDF)

1353


DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY

ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE GENERAL FACULTY FOR 2000-2001

The annual reports of the standing committees of the General Faculty for 2000-2001 received to date are reproduced below.


<signed>

John R. Durbin, Secretary
The Faculty Council


ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES OF THE GENERAL FACULTY FOR 2000-2001

A. FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEES

A-1 Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility

Committee Membership:

Alan Cline, computer sciences, chair
Janet Staiger, vice chair, radio-television-film
Katherine Arens, Germanic studies
Neal Armstrong, civil engineering
Ronald Barr, mechanical engineering

Gary Borich, educational psychology
Martha Hilley, music
David Saltman, mathematics
James Yates, educational administration

Meetings:
The committee had two formal meetings: September 18, 2000, and April 3, 2001. Other business was discussed through electronic mail. The two principle topics of discussion were the "Compliance Policy" and free speech policy.

Post-Tenure Review:
As in the past, a message was transmitted to the faculty regarding the procedures for post-tenure review (see the appendices to these annual reports, D 1374).

Compliance Brochure:
In 2000, the Office of the Provost requested the committee's comments on a draft document "designed to highlight key obligations and provide useful information concerning everyday standards of conduct that will ensure that all employees follow relevant laws, regulations and policies." The committee responded with comments (found in last year's report) and waited for succeeding drafts. None had been received by March 2001; thus, the committee explored the status of the University's progress with preparing a "Compliance Policy."

We learned that the task was restarted in mid-2000 under the direction of Mr. Lon Heuer. Unfortunately, it appears that Mr. Heuer was given none of our comments. In fact, Mr. Heuer may not have been told that we had been asked by the provost's office to be involved.

The committee began a page-by-page discussion of the new document. A catalog was begun of bad grammar, misleading and unclear statements, as well as questions about the necessity for the inclusion of certain material. The review process stopped when it became clear that we had too many objections of a basic nature.

 

1354


 

Whereas, the document that the committee viewed in 2000 was only several pages long, the new one has twenty-three pages. Although we did find objections with parts of the 2000 draft, we considered the basic idea of informing faculty of some ethical and legal issues acceptable.

The new document is objectionable in many ways. Not only is it very long, it is quite repetitive. Some sections come close to contradicting other sections. Parts are very hard to understand (including an eighty-six word sentence on intellectual property). Many sections are totally irrelevant to the tasks of most faculty (and many sections are totally irrelevant to many of the staff). The document is a mixture of federal law, state law, Regents' Rules, campus operating procedures, and random additional guidelines, possibly authored by Mr. Heuer and his staff. However, the sources of each of these items are unidentified; thus, a reader does not know what is federal law and what is campus procedure. Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the tone towards faculty and staff is negative – as if had they not been informed that fraud is to be avoided, they might have committed it. Although the document claims that all employees are seen as honest, the content may suggest that we are perceived as dishonest, unlawful, unethical or may become such.

The committee understands that a web-based system of instruction would be offered (perhaps required) for certification so that faculty members understand the guidelines. Such a program may be even more burdensome than simply having the faculty read the document, especially if the document were concise and avoided the redundancies. Furthermore, the question arises as to the meaning of being certified by having read web-based material (i.e., material that could have been altered an instant after it was viewed).

The committee contacted Mr. Heuer to emphasize the objection it had to a document of this sort. A meeting was held with a subcommittee, Mr. Heuer, and Ms. Linda Sorber. Unfortunately, that meeting did not result in agreement and, thus, the committee will return to the provost to present its position.

Free Speech Policy:
In a statement by President Faulkner the committee was asked to consider the "circumstances and events connected with the February 2001 Justice For All display on the plaza in front of Gregory Gym." More specifically:

"...Vice President Vick has created a special committee chaired by Dean Sharon Justice to consider the student-related policies bearing on questions like those identified above. I invite the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility to consider the issues in parallel with and in collaboration with the Sharon Justice Committee."

The committee received no more specific charge from the president. However, on April 26, 2001, the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council did request the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility "to examine the broader range of free speech issues that have arisen on our campus, particularly those that are faculty-related. It is recognized that this latter charge will be a longer-term effort." That examination will begin in the summer of 2001.

 
Alan Cline, chair

A-2 Faculty Advisory Committee on Budgets

The Faculty Advisory Committee on Budgets serves in an advisory capacity to the president and provost. Its charge is to review University budgets and make appropriate recommendations.

The committee met three times. Inasmuch as we are now in the second year of the budgetary biennium, the state's appropriation to the University for 2001-2002 will not be known for certain until the legislature passes its appropriation bill. This will most likely occur in late May. Accordingly, the committee was unable to make substantive recommendations as to the allocation of available resources.


1355


 

At our first meeting, Provost Ekland-Olson set forth several budgetary priorities for the year. These included increasing faculty, staff, and graduate student compensation by five percent per year and adding thirty new faculty positions each year. Some committee members raised questions as to whether the University had the fiscal capacity to absorb and support the thirty new faculty members per year that the administration has allocated funds to hire. They expressed concerns that although the administration would provide the resources for their salaries, the individual colleges and departments would have to use existing MO&E and similar funds to pay for recruiting and hiring costs, and ongoing miscellaneous costs, such as for computers, travel, postage, etc. Moreover, members questioned whether the colleges have adequate office space for new hires.

The discussion relating to new hires prompted committee members to note that in some departments the quality of academic life is already far below what could reasonably be considered adequate. Among their observations were that in some departments:

  • owing to a shortage of space new faculty were given only cell phones, no offices;
  • new faculty are not reimbursed for moving expenses;
  • faculty must pay for their own meals when entertaining prospective hires;
  • faculty must pay the postage on submissions of journal articles and applications for research grants;
  • faculty do not have long-distance phone call privileges;
  • departments are unable to pay for colloquium speakers;
  • owing to a shortage of main campus laboratory facilities, faculty must commute between the main campus and the Pickle campus.

To confirm and to measure the extent of these problems, the committee decided to obtain, by way of a survey, interviews or other means, information on policies and practices throughout the campus. However, a subcommittee appointed to conduct the research learned that the budget committee of five years ago had carried out a similar study. That committee deduced that "some departments on our campus do not have sufficient resources to live and work like professionals." It suggested that the "College of Liberal Arts appears to be in the worst shape in terms of basic support and it urged the administration to rectify such 'gross inequities in standards of living.'"

Our committee agreed that a new study would likely do little more than confirm the results of the previous study and hence we decided not to conduct one. Instead we provided a copy of the previous study to the provost and emphasized to him the importance we attach to assuring that faculty in all departments enjoy a minimum quality of academic life.

On April 16, 2001, at a meeting of the University's Leadership Council to which the committee was invited, President Faulkner presented an overview of the budget outlook for the next biennium. He indicated that based on bills pending before the legislature the prognosis is grim – the "bottom line" is that planned and committed expenditure increases exceed projected revenue increases by $28.8 million. He outlined several measures that the University was considering to address this gap and Provost Ekland-Olson requested a meeting with the committee (now scheduled for May 3) to discuss them.

  Michael H. Granof, chair

A-3 Faculty Committee on Committees

Over the course of the 2000-2001 academic year, the Committee on Committees (CoC) met twice, on September 11 and April 9.

At the September 11 organizational meeting, the CoC selected Janet Staiger to serve as chair and Bruce Palka as vice chair.


1356


  During early fall 2000, Staiger, in consultation with Palka, provided additional nominations to fill vacancies on the standing committees which occurred over the summer. In spring 2001, with the excellent assistance of Debbie Roberts and Christine Marcin from the Office of the General Faculty, the CoC solicited nominations from the faculty for individuals to serve on the various standing committees for 2001-2002. Over 200 nominations were reviewed at the April 9 meeting, and a list was compiled for submission for the president's final decision. The CoC submitted this list April 25, 2001. The CoC also nominated individuals for the Information Technology Advisory Committee, and submitted that list on April 26, 2001.

No further business was referred to the CoC during the 2000-2001 academic year.

  Janet Staiger, chair

A-4

Faculty Grievance Committee

This past year the Faculty Grievance Committee was involved with eight cases in four colleges. Two of these went to the formal hearing panel level; the others are either in the formal process or are still at an informal level. The cases have involved:

  • Alleged retaliation/discrimination
  • Denial of promotion to full professor
  • Denial of promotion and tenure
  • Salary disputes

The Grievance Committee waited until November 2000 to learn that its proposal for the creation of an Office of the Faculty Ombudsperson, passed by the Faculty Council on May 10, 2000, had been returned without approval. The committee was confused and disappointed in this response from the president.

Subsequently, mid-spring 2001, the Grievance Committee received from the Executive Committee of the Faculty Council a document outlining a "Proposed Structure for Faculty Mediation." This document was circulated to the members of the committee.

At the initial meeting following receipt of the document, discussion was both spirited and somewhat angry. While there was some support for the ideas expressed in the proposal, it seemed to the majority of the committee that it ignored the main point of the ombudsperson proposal, namely reducing the workload of the chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee. The proposed mediation process simply adds another layer, albeit a welcome one, to the process that is currently in place. It in no way relieves the committee chair of any involvement; in fact it makes her/him responsible for being the "gatekeeper" to mediation. This matter needs to be thoroughly explored by the Grievance Committee, with input from many constituencies, before a valid response can be sent to the Faculty Council.

All in all, this has been a frustrating year for this committee. We seem to have worked hard all year but have little to show for our efforts. However, as always, those members who served on subcommittees to examine cases did so with distinction and gave of their time freely for their peers. The chair wishes to recognize those members of the faculty who served on formal hearing panels and to thank them in this record for their energy, time, and fortitude in a most difficult cause.

Submitted on behalf of the members of the Faculty Grievance Committee:

Mark Alpert, marketing administration
Neal Armstrong, civil engineering
Matthew Bailey, Spanish and Portuguese
Gerard B³hague, music
Roger Bengtson, physics

Martha Hilley, music
Robert Koons, philosophy
Parker Lamb, mechanical engineering
Joseph Malina, civil engineering
Madeline Maxwell, speech communication


1357


   
Douglas Biow, French and Italian
Mercedes De Uriarte, journalism
Robert Duke, music, spring semester
Julius Getman, law

Martha Newman, history
Dorothy Van Soest, social work
Helena Woodard, English



David Nancarrow, chair

A-5 Faculty Welfare Committee

The Faculty Welfare Committee for the 2000-2001 year undertook the following four items on its agenda. Each one was raised by members of the faculty in the course of the year:

1. Follow-up on the Policy on Teaching Continuity: The committee was pleased to be able to assist the president's and provost's offices in finalizing the wording, presenting the final version to the Faculty Council, and implementing this policy under the expert guidance of Lucia Gilbert.

2. Development and implementation of the Faculty and Staff Benefits Satisfaction Survey: This has been the largest project undertaken by the Faculty Welfare Committee this year in coordination with Kyle Cavanaugh and the Office of Human Resources. Until present, there has been no systematic canvassing of the opinions of UT Austin employees about their priorities and opinions regarding health care and benefit options in the context of the current national health care climate.

Working with Dan Stewart from the UT System office and Kyle Cavanaugh, the Faculty Welfare Committee has drafted a preliminary survey to be administered to all UT faculty, staff, and benefits-eligible employed graduate students. The Welfare Committee looks forward to working with the newly-formed Staff Council to conduct the survey at the earliest suitable time. The projected timeframe is in the late autumn of 2001. The view of the committee was that UT Austin employees, including faculty, should be surveyed as a whole and that the information gained through this survey would be helpful in informing future benefits decisions for the UT System as a whole, and UT Austin in particular. Both Dan Stewart and Kyle Cavanaugh felt that the information derived from this survey would be very valuable as important and sometimes difficult decisions are made in the future about benefit options.

The method of administering the survey (over the web, by telephone, on paper, etc.) to maximize response and representation of the UT Austin employee population as a whole, is still under consideration. These decisions will be made early in the fall 2001 semester so that the survey can be administered in a timely manner after UT Austin employees have had a few months of experience with whatever benefit changes become effective during the annual enrollment period in July 2001. The Welfare Committee would especially like to acknowledge the invaluable and expert assistance of Kyle Cavanugh and the Office of Human Resources.

3. Follow-up on the question of domestic partner benefits: After researching the matter fully, the committee was assured that there is at present no legal way to offer such benefits. However, a question regarding interests in such benefits has been included in the overall benefits satisfaction survey to assess the extent of campus-wide UT Austin interest in such benefits.

4. Follow-up on the expansion of childcare facilities: This matter is still pending since there are several different proposals about where and how to expand this much-needed resource.

Following the initial inquiries and recommendations of the Welfare Committee, the status of lecturers and other non-tenure track faculty at UT Austin has been referred to a special ad hoc committee charged by President Faulkner.

No further items were brought to the attention of the Welfare Committee this year, but the committee continues to encourage all faculty to raise any matters of concern. As chair for 2000-2001, I would like to thank the members of the committee for their energy and commitment over the past year.


1358


  Following the initial inquiries and recommendations of the Welfare Committee, the status of lecturers and other non-tenure track faculty at UT Austin has been referred to a special ad hoc committee charged by President Faulkner.

No further items were brought to the attention of the Welfare Committee this year, but the committee continues to encourage all faculty to raise any matters of concern. As chair for 2000-2001, I would like to thank the members of the committee for their energy and commitment over the past year.

 
  Elizabeth Richmond-Garza, chair

A-6 Rules Committee of the General Faculty

The Rules Committee (RC) had its first meeting of the year convened by Anthony Ambler at 11:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 21, 2000, at ACES 5.120. Members present were John Durbin (ex officio), Robert Schmidt, Johnny Butler, and Pauline Strong. Gerard Béhague was not in attendance as he was unaware at that time that he had been appointed as a Faculty Council representative. With their consent, the attending members of the committee selected Robert Schmidt as chair and Pauline Strong as vice chair of the RC.

As there were no proposed changes or additions to the rules of procedure of the General Faculty or Faculty Council, no election disputes, and no questions of rule interpretation or jurisdiction, the RC has had no subsequent meetings during the 2000-2001 long term and has brought no proposals or recommendations forward to the Faculty Council.

  Robert N. Schmidt, chair

A-7 University of Texas Press Advisory Committee

The Faculty Advisory Committee of the University of Texas Press was convened on September 26, 2000, by Desley Deacon, Faculty Council appointee, to elect the chair and the three-person Executive Committee for the year. (The Executive Committee is empowered to act between meetings on urgent projects.) Victoria Rodriguez was elected as chair, and she, Brian Levack, and Beryl Simpson to the Executive Committee.

Seven meetings have been held so far this fiscal year, with three more scheduled before August 31. A total of fifty-eight book manuscripts have been presented by the staff and accepted by the committee, along with one new journal (Latin American Research Review).

  Victoria Rodriguez, chair

B. STUDENT SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES COMMITTEES

B-1 Committee on Financial Aid to Students

No report submitted.

  Hunter C. March, chair

B-2 Recreational Sports Committee

The Recreational Sports Committee is a standing committee of the University charged with advising on matters of policy, providing input on facility construction and expansion, hearing appeals from various councils, and promulgating regulations for participation in non-student programs. It also serves as a representative group of the campus providing input and advice to the division from its various colleagues. The committee met eight times during the fall and spring semesters of 2000-2001.


1359


In the area of facility construction and expansion, the committee participated in the ongoing discussion of the architecture, construction, and programming for the Gregory Gym Aquatics Complex. The committee also oversaw the renovation and reopening of Clark Field that had previously been closed because of the construction of a student housing project. The renovation resulted in a refurbished jogging track with four exercise stations, four new basketball courts, and a newly-developed, irrigated turf area. The committee also supported the RecSports decision to partially close Whitaker Fields. This was in response to significant deterioration and the need for turf treatment. The decision to close areas and reduce usage in the spring semester has allowed a growth period for the turf in preparation for the fall 2001 semester.

The committee once again expressed its support for keeping participation affordable for faculty and staff membership in Recreational Sports. To accomplish this goal the committee supported a legislative proposal that will allow payroll deduction as a method of payment for memberships. The UT System bill has successfully passed the legislature and is now awaiting the governor's signature. The committee has recommended that planning be geared toward a fall 2001 implementation if at all possible.

The committee reviewed and provided direction to the Division of Recreational Sports concerning its budget request for FY 2001-2002. After deliberation, the Recreational Sports budget, non-student membership fee schedules, and facility use fee schedules gained the committee's support and were forwarded to the student service fee committee and budget office, respectively.

The committee supports the Division of Recreational Sports' goal to be central to the mission of The University of Texas at Austin – to transform lives for the benefit of society – by providing education through recreation.

  John W. Brokaw, chair

B-3 Committee on Student Affairs

On behalf of the Committee and its chair, Dean Bredeson, James W. Vick submited the following report:

Several new projects or recent gains in well-established programs are worthy of mention when assessing the state of Student Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin over the 2000-2001 academic year.

Retention Data:
All first-time, full-time freshmen returning after year 1:
1996: 87.9%
1997: 88.0
1998: 89.3
1999: 90.3
Black first-time, full-time freshmen:
1996: 86.0%
1997: 88.8
1998: 94.9
1999: 91.5
Hispanic first-time, full-time freshmen:
1996: 84.2%
1997: 84.9
1998: 85.8
1999: 85.1

In terms of the percentages of minorities enrolled, the entering freshman class of 2000 was as diverse as the entering class of 1996. The percentage of whites fell from 65% to 63%, while African Americans held


1360


  steady at 4%. Hispanics fell slightly from 14% to 13%. Asian American and foreign students showed the greatest percentage increases.

Admissions:
The overwhelming increase in the number of provisional offers and enrollees over the past few years led to the modification of the Provisional Program for Summer 2001. We have now implemented a three level admission system: regular admission of no more than 6,400 students, conditional enrollment of another group who will take basic courses this summer, thereby alleviating pressure in the fall, and the off-campus provisional program that requires students to complete 30 specified hours with a 3.0 GPA in one year at one of our System campuses. A student who satisfies this requirement is then automatically admitted to UT Austin.

  FALL 2000

FALL 2001

APPLICATIONS:
21,121
20,047
ADMITS:

11,395
10,987
SUMMER:
   
SUMMER 2001 ADMIT OFFERS:
1,537
 
SUMMER 2001 ENROLLED:

876
 
OFF-CAMPUS PROVISIONAL ADMISSION:
OFFERS:
2,074
CONTRACTS RETURNED:

618
BREAKDOWN OF CONTRACTS RETURNED:
UTA:
250
UTSA: 334
UTEP: 18
UTPA: 9
UTPB: 7

FIGs:
In its third year, the Freshman Interest Groups (FIG) program continued to grow and expand in new directions. For 2000-2001, 105 FIG clusters were offered, representing all undergraduate colleges. The FIG office worked with 87 professional advisors and 105 peer mentors to deliver services to more than 2000 freshmen. The residential FIG program moved into the Living-Learning Halls to accommodate almost 100 students in special residential clusters. The program's continued success is marked by a third year of FIG GPA and retention rates out-ranking non-FIG participants. The pilot (Spring Interest Groups (SPRIG) program enrolled students in 26 roll-over clusters for the Spring. For 2001-2002, the program will expand its Fall, Spring, and Residential programs, while piloting a Transfer (TrIG) program. In 2002 we anticipate offering Summer Freshman Admit student FIGs and branching the Transfer Interest Groups (TrIGs) to both traditional transfer students and provisional students with transfer coursework from UT component schools.

San Jacinto Residence Hall
Last fall, 460 of the hall's beds were occupied; the remaining 400 beds were opened and assigned in January of 2001. The reaction to the new space has been extremely favorable, so much so that many incoming students are putting the new hall down as their only preference despite the higher cost of living there in comparison with the other residence halls on campus. Various campus constituencies are also making use of the hall's spacious meeting rooms.


1361


  Outdoor Pool Project
After legislation passed authorizing the Board of Regents to charge each student a fee for constructing, operating, and maintaining an outdoor aquatics center at the Gregory Gymnasium Complex, architect and contractor selection occurred and now a schematic design has been completed. The project is currently entering the design development phase with construction scheduled to commence in July 2002. The opening of both the renovated indoor pool at Gregory and the outdoor aquatics complex is projected to be August 2003.

Interactive Degree Audit
The IDA is a process by which students can monitor satisfaction of degree requirements on an individual basis. Use of the Interactive Degree Audit system has grown, allowing Deans' offices to reduce the funds spent on staff for this role. In January 2001, the use of IDA was offered to students at other campuses who plan to transfer to UT. January's total number of guest users was 83, and by April that number was up to 231. We anticipate off-campus access to continue to increase along with on-campus use by students and advisers.

Grants, Scholarships, and Endowments
Grant for Women Against Violence In October of 2000, the University of Texas was awarded a half million-dollar grant by the U.S. Department of Justice to combat violence against women on campus. The primary goals of the grant are to:
a) improve data collection related to violence against women
b) develop a system of comprehensive, coordinated services for victims of sexual assault, relationship violence, and stalking
c) create coordinated response to violence against women on campus to impact campus cultural norms regarding sexual assault and relationship violence and link campus efforts to the existing coordinated community response efforts in Austin-Travis County, and
d) review institutional responsibility, abuser accountability, and responsiveness to victim safety.
Grant staff has already begun campus education programs that will reach all new students and international students going through orientation programs this summer. A peer education program is being researched and developed this summer to begin in the fall of 2001. Counseling and advocacy services, along with a specific referral process, are currently being developed in order to begin providing services in August 2001. Concurrently, a comprehensive system of confidentially reporting incidents of sexual assault, relationship violence, and stalking is being developed. Data collection is designed to assist in the planning of programmatic initiatives and training and to give a better understanding of the violent incidents that impact our students before and after they come to UT. These are the first of multiple strategies developed by the grant staff in collaboration with several University departments as well as Austin Police Department's Victim Services and SafePlace.

Hispanic Scholarship Fund
135 UT students received more than $326,700 in scholarships from the Hispanic Scholarship Fund (HSF). That's the highest number of HSF recipients at any university in the country this year. In conjunction with that, the Goldman Sachs Foundation has given the HSF $1 million to launch a national program to improve college retention rates among Hispanic Americans. The initiative was announced by Governor Rick Perry and President Faulkner on April 9, 2001.


1362


  Bonfire Unity Scholarship
A & M's President Bowen presented a check for $50,000 to President Faulkner to establish an Endowed Presidential Scholarship called the "1999 Bonfire Unity Scholarship." It will be awarded each year to a UT student who exhibits the qualities witnessed during the days following the tragic collapse of the Aggie bonfire: demonstration of leadership and involvement with campus issues and a commitment to service. We are grateful for the opportunity to commemorate the compassionate efforts of our student community.

Delta Gamma Endowed Lectureship
Delta Gamma Fraternity recently donated $25,000 to the University for the establishment of an Endowed Lecture Fund in Values and Ethics. Funds are to be used to support a lecture series for the benefit of students, faculty, staff, and community. The series will invite speakers whose life contribution illustrates ethical conduct, personal honesty, and individual responsibility. A committee consisting of Delta Gamma representatives, the Vice President for Student Affairs, two faculty or staff members, and two members of the community at large will choose speakers to invite on a yearly basis. This philanthropic support should prove an entertaining way to enrich the experience of a large UT audience.

Texas Union
As a result of shrinking attendance at events, lack of competition for chairmanships, and criticism from student leaders on campus, the Union's Board of Directors determined a need to restructure the Texas Union Council, the student-run programming body of the Union. After conducting a peer review of the Council, and after deliberations within the Council itself, the Board of Directors dissolved the extant Council and created a more streamlined Texas Union Activities and Events Board. Currently, there is an interim president in place who is staffing various positions and working on new bylaws. In Spring of 2002, there will be a student referendum to elect the regular president of the Activities and Events Board, in the same way in which students elect the editor of the Daily Texan or the President of the Student Government.

Debit Card Program
Starting in Fall 2001, UT will offer its students a new option for making purchases both on and off campus. In an online survey, students preferred the name "Bevo Bucks" for the new debit card which will be kicked off this summer with a marketing campaign aimed at fall enrollees. The Student Government and residence hall representatives have been involved with the development of the program, which will be run through a "virtual office." Though not tied physically to the Division of Housing and Food Service, that department has been the driving force behind getting the program off the ground. Preliminary interest from off-campus bookstores, food vendors, and retail establishments has been very high. If all goes as planned, a website will be established June 30 allowing students to purchase Bevo Bucks online.

  Dean A. Bredeson, chair

C. INSTITUTIONAL POLICY OR GOVERNANCE COMMITTEES

C-1 Admissions and Registration Committee

Committee Members
Faculty: Daniel Bonevac, Larry Carver, David Laude, Martha Menchaca, Ted Pfeifer, Paula Poindexter, Joanne Richards, Cynthia Shelmerdine
Students: Sylvia Epps, Matthew Hammond, Daron Roberts

The Admissions and Registration Committee met four times this year, all in the fall semester, to address the Proposal to Control Enrollment by Redefining the Provisional Admission Program (D 793-796). This proposal involved a three-tiered freshman admission policy consisting of fall admission, summer enrollment plan, and a Provisional Program offered through UT Arlington.

In our first meeting, we considered SAT and GPA data by ethnicity, as well as details of the admissions process provided by Dr. Bruce Walker, director of admissions. Dr. Walker also discussed the problems caused by a forty-six percent increase in applicants in the last few years, the actual versus perceived effects of the top ten percent enrollment legislation, and desired goals for freshman enrollment.

The second meeting focused on the number of hours that might be taken by provisional students during the summer. Also in the second meeting, Marsha Moss of the Office of Institutional Studies provided us with projected enrollment numbers through the fall of 2004. She noted that a goal for the size of the


1363


 

undergraduate student body was 36,000 and that her projections for the fall of 2002 were approximately 36,833, if the proposed enrollment controls are adopted. By the fall of 2004, her projections showed 36,694.

In the third meeting, the committee unanimously agreed that the Provisional Program needed to be revised or eliminated. There was a motion that there be no Provisional Program at UT Austin that would guarantee admission, but it was defeated. During this third meeting, the committee formally voted that a Provisional Program, in some form, should be retained.

The fourth meeting began with a motion to phase out the Provisional Program at UT Austin, but to gradually phase in a Provisional Program at one or more System campuses. This motion failed. The fourth meeting ended with a motion to support the general form of proposed changes to the Provisional Program.

The following were the committee's final recommendations to the Faculty Council on the proposal:

  • The Provisional Program as currently structured needs to be revised or eliminated.
  • The Provisional Program should be retained in some form.
  • The Provisional Program should exist totally off the UT Austin campus.
  • The proposed three-tiered freshmen admission policy to control enrollments is recommended by the committee.
  • Provisional students should be required to complete thirty semester hours with a minimum GPA of 3.0 in order to be guaranteed admission to UT Austin.
  • Students in the summer enrollment plan should be required to take a minimum of twelve semester hours, but there should be a plan to monitor the actual number of hours taken.

These recommendations were presented to the Faculty Council on October 16, 2000.

  Dan L. Wheat, chair

C-2 Calendar Committee

Committee Members
Stefan Kostka, chair (music), Catharine Echols (psychology), Colleen Fairbanks (curriculum and instruction), David Maidment (civil engineering), Edward Odell (mathematics), Jack Robertson (accounting), David Saltman (mathematics), Daron Roberts (student), Paul Thompson (student), Carol Holmgreen (administrative advisor, Office of the Registrar).

Meetings
After the initial convening meeting, the committee met twice, once on November 7, 2000, and a second time on January 19, 2001. In addition, Stefan Kostka met on October 26 with Vice President James Vick and several members of the University staff to discuss the feasibility of a fall break.

At the November 7 meeting the committee discussed the options for a fall break. The student members favored extending the Thanksgiving vacation to a week by beginning classes two days earlier and by holding classes on Labor Day. While the majority of the committee favored a fall break in principle, various concerns were raised regarding the Thanksgiving week proposal. The central concerns included (1) the legislative requirement that a semester consist of fifteen weeks of classes, (2) the placement of the break so late in the semester, (3) day care problems that would be faced by students, faculty, and staff who have small children if classes were held on Labor Day, and (4) the importance of the Labor Day holiday to members of the staff.

This discussion was continued at the January 19 meeting, which was also attended by Vice President James Vick. The committee eventually agreed upon and passed unanimously the proposal and its rationale (D 1122), which were presented by Stefan Kostka at the meeting of the Faculty Council on February 19,


1364


  2001. Serious concerns were raised by the Colleges of Engineering and Natural Sciences, and by members of the chemistry and biochemistry faculty regarding how the new schedule would impact their lab courses. The debate was renewed at the meeting of the Faculty Council on March 19, 2001, and the motion to accept the proposal was defeated.

Approval of 2001-2002 calendar. The committee reviewed the proposed calendar for the long session 2002-2003 and the summer session 2003. No problems were identified. Consequently, the Calendar Committee recommends approval of the proposed 2002-2003 calendar.

  Stefan Kostka, chair

C-3 Commencement and Academic Ceremonies Committee

The Commencement and Academic Ceremonies Committee met in the fall of 2000; the members were asked to recommend and submit names to the chair of prospective speakers for 2001 and future commencement speakers. These were then forwarded to President Faulkner.

Ideas on changes, campus decorations, and the future configuration of the different groups (faculty, graduate school, the president's party) were asked for as well.

This committee does not call for frequent meetings since Vice President Clagett's office provides excellent support.

  R. R. Hinojosa-Smith, chair

C-4 Educational Policy Committee

Educational policy matters at The University of Texas at Austin are centered largely in the colleges and schools. The Educational Policy Committee considered two issues associated with aligning the school/college policies with university-wide concerns.

The first issue involves the fundamental structure of degree programs. We sought to create an administrative structure by which the wisdom of the whole university could beneficially and supportively review proposed revisions of degree programs. To that end we composed, and the Faculty Council passed, legislation to create a university-wide committee under the Faculty Council that would systematically review and comment on proposals for degree plan changes from the schools and colleges. The legislation can be found in the documents of the Faculty Council (D 1188).

The second issue considered by the Educational Policy Committee involved graduation rates. We believe that no single factor explains the preponderance of the problem. Instead, many factors contribute a little to UT's relatively low and slow graduation rates. These factors involve financial incentives or lack of incentives for students to graduate quickly, incentives or lack of incentives for faculty and departments to promote better graduation rates, non-academic work that students do, non-helpful features of UT student culture such as poor class attendance and low number of hours studying outside of class, difficulty in students adjusting to college life during their freshman year, specific rules and requirements that are obstacles to graduation, and other factors. Many groups around campus are working on many of these issues and progress is being made on several fronts.

The Educational Policy Committee decided to focus on students who were not admitted to the professional program of their choice and who may subsequently flounder in another college. Frequently, for example, students not admitted to the School of Business are in the College of Liberal Arts.

To help those students, we discussed a policy that would inform students early and definitively whether or not they can expect ever to be admitted to their preferred professional school or program. We considered a


1365


  policy that would state that each student would have one specific time to apply for transfer admission – perhaps after three semesters at UT. If that application were denied, then no further application would be considered from the student. Alternatively, this permanent denial could be given to most non-admitted applicants while leaving a few with some future hope for admission. This policy, however, was too broad and the professional programs were too varied in their habits and needs to have such a global rule be beneficial. Instead, we discussed this issue with individual professional schools – specifically, pharmacy and business – to encourage them to avoid leaving many students in a position of inappropriately hoping for admission that they will never receive.

Currently, when students are denied admission, pharmacy and business do inform them of their low chances for admission at a future time. So a no-reapplication policy would simply make that information more definitive, thus, forcing students to accept the fact that they will not be admitted later and to commit themselves to other plans. We encouraged the Schools of Business and Pharmacy to continue to strengthen their policies of discouraging vain hopes of later transfer admission.

Another desirable feature of transfer admission to any professional school is that the criteria for UT transfer admission could encourage students to take courses that are applicable to other degrees and could give preference to students who are making rapid progress; for example, students who take fifteen hours a semester. These features are largely in place for students attempting to transfer to the Colleges of Business Administration and Pharmacy.

Associate Deans Carver from liberal arts and Anderson from business are well aware of the graduation rate consequences of the internal transfer issue. They are developing advising aids and will consider the possibility of developing concentrations and degree programs in the College of Liberal Arts that would be attractive to students who are not admitted to the School of Business. These attractive alternatives to the professional program might use the students' early work toward the professional program as a good start toward a liberal arts degree. They are envisioned as residing in a variety of departments beyond the obvious Department of Economics. Special degree tracks in foreign languages, sociology, government, and other departments, or interdisciplinary degrees or concentrations that emphasize critical writing and communication skills could become attractive programs for students who want to develop their business-oriented strengths.

The College of Liberal Arts might invite potentially disappointed students who are not admitted to the School of Business to be part of a program that could be touted as even more interesting, fundamental, and valuable than the professional school path. This way, students would have a clear, inviting alternative when the professional school path does not work out. Deans Carver and Anderson have used their imagination and interest in student success to start the process of considering these intriguing possibilities in future semesters.

  Michael P. Starbird, chair

C-5 Faculty Building Advisory Committee

No report submitted.

  Austin Gleeson, chair

C-6 International Programs and Studies Committee

The International Programs and Studies Committee is asked to advise the Faculty Council and the associate vice president for international programs on policies and procedures related to international programs at the University.


1366


  The committee continued to take interest in the "Guidelines for Faculty-Led Study Abroad Programs" which were created to help in the development and operation of faculty-led programs. The committee discussed the expansion of the "Guidelines" into three distinct parts:
1. A tool that helps interested faculty members develop exchange programs. The following should be considered: needs assessment, program development, financial structure, risk assessment, approval process.
2. Operation manual along the lines of the existing "Guidelines," including risk management and emergency procedures.
3. Program evaluation and assessment matrix.

The most urgent problem in the opinion of most of the committee members is the issue of liability and liability insurance for faculty members who take student groups abroad. The absence of policy and the uncertainty of legal protection for such faculty members are of grave concern. The committee discussed liability issues and risk areas extensively and collected a list of legal questions that arise from the operation of exchange programs. The chair of the committee submitted this list of legal questions to UT System lawyers via Jerry Wilcox, director of the International Office, on March 9. So far, there has been no response to our questions. The committee will take up the issue again in fall 2001. The committee also is prepared to discuss solutions to legal problems in the context of risk management and crisis management issues.

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board established a rule that the number of exchange students hosted by a Texas university and the number hosted by foreign partner institutions should be in balance within a five-year time span. At the end of the third year of this policy, it has become apparent that the University will have to undertake serious efforts to keep in compliance at the end of five years. During the 2000-2001 academic year for instance, UT received 395 exchange students, while we sent only 348 to our partner institutions. The chair formed a subcommittee that was charged with studying the issue and to come up with recommendations on how to address the problem. The subcommittee presented a report to the committee at the May 2 meeting, entitled "Plan to Increase UT Student Participation in Reciprocal International Exchange Programs" (see the appendices to these annual reports, D 1375-1376 ). The report was approved unanimously. The subcommittee report is attached.

Here are some of the most important subcommittee recommendations:
1. Faculty should be encouraged to discuss international exchange opportunities with their students.
2. University administrators, deans, undergraduate advisors, and faculty committees in charge of curricula should be encouraged to more effectively integrate courses taken at partner institutions abroad into UT degree programs.
3. More financial resources for participation in international educational exchange must be found, and existing resources should be advertised more effectively.
4. The imbalance problem is primarily due to a couple of programs that are seriously imbalanced. Each program should find ways to balance their student numbers by creating incentives for UT students to study at partner institutions.

At the request of Associate Vice President Lawrence S. Graham, the committee agreed at its April 4 meeting to serve as a review committee for campus-wide agreements between UT, involving more than one college or school, and organizations with an international orientation, other than a single academic unit. The committee will review this policy at the end of the spring 2002 semester and decide whether to continue to serve in this review capacity. The first such cooperation agreement approved under this new policy at the May 2 meeting was the Educational Experience Affiliation Agreement with The Center for Democracy in Washington, D.C.

The committee will take an interest during the 2001-2002 academic year in the following issues, among others:
1. Completion of a liability advisory for directors of faculty-led programs and resolution of liability insurance issues.


1367


   
2. Risk management and crisis management issues for faculty directors of exchange programs.
3. Streamlining of the evaluation and approval process for new programs.
4. Assignment of credits for planned intersession programs.
5. The status of the language requirement at UT and possible consequences for international programs.
6. Broadening the participation in study abroad programs, particularly among ethnic minority students.

  Peter Hess, chair

C-7 Library Committee

The function of the University Library Committee is to inform itself of the functioning of the library sufficiently "to assist in developing operational procedures; to assist in development of both personnel and fiscal policies and procedures; to advise the Faculty Council and the president concerning the direction and growth of the library; to advise the president in the event it becomes necessary to appoint a new librarian."

The committee met three times in the fall, and three times in the spring. The committee's activity was split in character between hearing presentations of information from library staff, and investigation on its own initiative.

There were three major presentations to the committee by library staff:
1. A presentation on consortial contracts was given by Mrs. Phillips and Mr. Dillon. In conjunction with the digitalization of journals, such contracts are developing into a dominant force in the acquisition of library materials, already accounting for about a third of this budget. This is certainly an area requiring careful attention in coming years; even though our library is playing a major role in this arena, the potential for significant impact on library functioning is very high, through both the evolving digital form of library materials and the consequences of consortial contracts.
2. A presentation on progress since development of the strategic plan of the Undergraduate Library was given Mr. Jaggars.
3. A presentation was made by Mr. Billings of benchmark comparisons with libraries of peer institutions. The data, recently distributed to the administration, give disturbing evidence of long-term underfunding: the budget for library materials has, since 1987, consistently placed our library in ranking from between fifteenth and thirtieth in standing among our peers, with expenditures per student for 1999 at $236 as compared, for instance, with $468 at Michigan; and the extent of our serials collection has consistently ranked only about tenth among such institutions. Related data is available at http://www.lib.utexas.edu/cird/statistics.html. Our committee strongly supports increased funding of our library, as a major resource for both our teaching and research missions.

  The committee also performed one investigation, a survey sent to official departmental library liaisons to evaluate the state of the library function from the point of view of client departments. (This was a significant departure from the more traditional library focus on individual users.) Five questions were distributed to the liaisons of forty-two departments, eliciting a response from twenty-two. Aside from several suggestions of particular concern to special departments, there was only one general area that indicated a need for attention: half the respondents indicated they had insufficient input into library decisions on acquisitions of books and serials. This was subsequently discussed with the library's bibliographers, and an effort will be made to enhance their communication with departments.

  Charles Radin, chair


1368


C-8 Parking and Traffic Appeals Panel

During the fall semester, three panels of five people processed thirty-one appeals. The biggest problems were 1) getting members of the committee to respond to email messages and actually agree to serve on a panel, and 2) numerous appeals in which the story presented by the UT police officer and the ticketed person disagree as to exactly where the person was parked. I checked all parking sites for which appellants provided maps to aid in our decisions.

  Earl F. McBride, chair (fall semester)

During the spring semester, the committee reviewed 153+ traffic appeals, of which seventy-eight have been adjudicated, and seventy-three were sent out May 15 to the panels for adjudication. Six have requested an appearance for their appeals, and the committee is trying to arrange for those. This is a massive increase over past semesters, which ranged between twenty and forty. The committee is not sure why there has been such a tremendous increase. We will check with parking and transportation.

The committee recommends that eligibility to appeal tickets be set at some minimum dollar figure per ticket, because we have an amazing number of petitions over a $10-20 reduced fine. This creates a lot of work for tickets that have already been reduced and the amount is not of major consequence. The committee realizes that for some appellants it is the principle of the thing, but it expends a lot of work hours to process.

  Deane M. Willis, chair (spring semester)

C-9 Parking and Traffic Policies Committee

No report submitted.

  Randy B. Machemehl, chair

C-10 Recruitment and Retention Committee

Members
Margarita M. Arrellano, assistant dean of students
Alan Constant, program director, UT Learning Center
Darlene Grant, associate professor, social work
Emma G. Griffis, student development specialist II, graduate studies
Marie Harris, ex officio, program coordinator, UT Learning Center
Joni L. Jones, associate professor, speech communication
Martha N. Ovando, associate professor, educational administration
Angela Valenzuela, associate professor, Center for Mexican American Studies
Bruce N. Walker, ex officio, director, Office of Admissions

Faculty Council Appointees:
Marvin L. Hackert, professor, chemistry and biochemistry
David G. Bogard, professor, mechanical engineering

Administrative Advisers:
Robert R. Galvan, Hispanic Alumni Association
Garza, deputy director, Office of Admissions
James L. Hill, vice president for human resources and community relations
Crystal E. Kemp, Black Alumni Association
Gerald Torres, Gerald, vice provost, LLM


1369


  Discussion Highlights
Wednesday, September 27, 2000, discussion focused on various university-wide efforts to address recruitment and retention including: (1) the UT Pre-College English Program initiative, (2) Longhorn Opportunity schools and efforts in Dallas and Houston, and (3) the 1999-2000 Presidential Task Force on minority faculty recruitment, retention, and advancement. Robert Galvan provided much of this overview. The predominant concern discussed was the role this committee could play in collating the apparently large amount of disparate information on university-wide recruitment and retention efforts, and whether or not, and if so how, to expand the committee's purview (scope) to include graduate and faculty concerns. The first recommendation was that we revise the "duty" or "function" statement of this committee to reflect our concerns regarding undergraduate, graduate, and faculty recruitment, retention, and advancement efforts. A second recommendation was that the committee develop a retention and recruitment committee directory web page with links to all related efforts. Committee representatives from the Office of the Dean of Students, Graduate Studies, the Center for Mexican American Studies, the Hispanic Alumni Association, the Office of Admissions, and the Hispanic Alumni Association would provide significant resources for such a collaborative effort. The committee further decided to meet with Lucia Gilbert, vice provost, for her input regarding this idea of collating information, because of the wealth of information she has regarding undergraduate, graduate, and faculty recruitment, retention, and advancement efforts.

Wednesday, October 25, 2000, discussion focused on overview of retention programs including undergraduate programs including Freshmen Interest Groups (FIGs), Preview, Gateway, and the ACE programs, the graduate level Select Admission Program. The Select Admission Program focuses on keeping UT's best and brightest undergraduates for graduate studies. Augustine Garza provided an in-depth review of PENS and the role of SCOPRO for catching/detecting undergraduate students who are having problems at the end of their first fall semester for retention intervention.

Wednesday, November 15, 2000, discussion focused on continued negative perception, rumor, and conjecture about the Top 10% Rule and revisions in the Provisional Admission Program as evidenced by editorial statements in the Daily Texan, for example. Discussed President Faulkner's op-ed piece in the Austin American Statesman, November 6, 2000, as a model for educating the UT and general public regarding the University's efforts to continue addressing student body diversity in the aftermath of Hopwood. Augustine Garza presented undergraduate admissions office research findings regarding the impact of Hopwood and the Top 10% Rule and referred the committee to findings in presentation form at http://www.utexas.edu/student/research/reports/reports.html. The committee decided to draft a letter to President Faulkner encouraging an e-mail and/or other media based dissemination of the admission's office findings to address the rumor and conjecture that otherwise informed the general UT and broader public on these issues.

Wednesday, March 21, 2001, began the meeting by applauding Dr. Arellano for a well-attended, organized, interesting and informative "Student Success Conference," held March 2, 2001, and Recruitment and Retention Committee member Augustine Garza for his informative presentation (with Dr. Bruce Walker, associate vice president of student affairs) on the Top 10% Rule at the conference. This yearly conference is one venue for the dissemination of retention and recruitment information and ideals,

and deserves significant recognition and support from this committee and the broader University community. We also applauded Dr. Angela Valenzuela for her newly-published book entitled Subtractive Schooling: U.S. Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. Committee members were provided a hard copy of the report and referred to http://txtell.lib.utexas.edu/stories/m0002-full.html for a nice discussion of "Minority Enrollment at UT Austin: The Hopwood Ruling and Its Aftermath." The story is provided by Texas Alcalde. The primary task completed during this meeting was the drafting of a revision of the Retention and Recruitment Committee "FUNCTION" as presented in the Faculty Council literature under Committee Type C: Institutional Policy or Governance part C-10


1370


 

Actions/Recommendations
The 2000-2001 Retention and Recruitment Committee formally submits the following recommended revision of the committee's "Function" to the Faculty Council for a vote:

To (1) address the matter of recruitment, retention and advancement of undergraduate and graduate students from underrepresented populations; (2) collaborate with Faculty Council and other University committees established to address the issue of faculty/administrative staff recruitment, retention, and advancement; and (3) recommend to the Faculty Council and the president constructive solutions for enhancing diversity and the coordination and dissemination of information regarding these issues.

. The Retention and Recruitment Committee will further work to:

  • serve as a conduit for gathering, consolidating, and continually updating information regarding the numerous recruitment and retention efforts into one reference web-based site;
  • develop a Recruitment and Retention Fact Sheet for dissemination to every dean, department chair, counselor, and faculty member. The contents would provide a "map" of sorts for negotiating the numerous programs and web sites that provide information useful to this cause;
  • meeting with other Faculty Council policy and governance committee chairs regarding the above-noted fact sheet and any committee interface necessary to achieve the goal of having the UT faculty and student body reflect the diversity of Texas;
  • play a greater role in annual new faculty orientation efforts so that new faculty have an idea of University undergraduate, graduate, and faculty recruitment, retention, and advancement efforts;
  • invite Executive Vice President Lucia Gilbert, Provost Sheldon Ekland-Olson, and President Faulkner to the table to discuss the more concrete role this committee can play in advancing undergraduate, graduate, and faculty recruitment, retention, and advancement efforts.
  • maintain a log of Texas Senate House Bills and other legislative endeavors that address student and faculty recruitment, retention, and advancement efforts in institutions of higher education.

  Darlene Grant, chair

C-11 Research Policy Committee

The Research Policy Committee (RPC) met monthly (eight times, September-April) and considered the following issues during the 2000-2001 academic year.

I. Items continued from the previous year:
A. Publicity ideas
1. How to highlight research at UT (particularly on the web).
Ideas so far: HIGHLIGHTS UP FRONT ('What's hot') on UT homepage;
Abstracts of grants funded, by area?
B. Remodeling-decision policies
1. Could UT (physical plant / business office / departments) be convinced to make decisions regarding 'modest remodeling'?
2. It was suggested that this is more a matter for departments to deal with directly through a set of approved outside contractors (rather than physical plant).

II. New items brought to the committee during the current year:
A. Faculty Council motion on tuition remission for graduate research assistants (D 1202-1203). This motion was successfully presented to the Faculty Council on Monday, April 16 (originally scheduled for the March Council meeting). It was unanimously approved, by a show-of-hands vote. In remarks immediately following, at the same meeting, President Faulkner also voiced his approval of the motion as 'a very wise decision.'

1371


 
 
   
   
  The motion's wording can be found on the Faculty Council web site http://www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/2000-2001/legislation/rpc.html.

The motion represents the results of a great deal of collective and individual hard work by the committee over several months, identifying the existing problem of inequity, deciding exactly what needed to be changed and how, conducting comparative-external and UT-internal research, drafting and refining wording and arguments, securing written support from six UT college deans, and preparing a compelling visual presentation of the facts (including granting-agency figures provided by Dr. Sanchez, cost-of-living data for graduate students, and department-by-department figures supplied courtesy of Fred Friedrich, director of accounting, via Beth Dishman).

Prior to the Faculty Council vote to approve the motion, written support was solicited and received for this motion from the following deans: Mary Ann Rankin (College of Natural Sciences), Ben Streetman (College of Engineering), Randy Charbeneau (associate dean for research, College of Engineering), Richard W. Lariviere (College of Liberal Arts), Ellen A. Wartella (College of Communication), and William Powers (School of Law). The Graduate Student Assembly also strongly endorsed the motion at its March meeting.

B. Difficulties working budgets and accounts through Office of Sponsored Projects (OSP). Action:
Office of Sponsored Projects: Status report to RPC by Wayne Kuenstler, director, Office of Sponsored Projects, 4/9/01.

Wayne Kuenstler attended the April 9 RPC meeting, and gave the committee a status report on a number of initiatives currently in process involving OSP. The committee also offered some specific suggestions (relating to timely stage-by-stage e-mail updates copied to principal investigators (PIs), regarding a grant application's progress through each step of the process), potentially saving time and energy for both the OSP staff and the grant-writing faculty in general.

The discussion was also attended by Sharon Brown, new assistant vice president for research.

We had a very fruitful discussion of where OSP is heading in the future, especially regarding the grant application process, which is now mostly on-line (some last adjustments are waiting for the federal government to put its various grant-giving agencies' processes on-line).
C. Sources of matches for matching research grants.

D. Implications of change in budget: 70-80% research vs teaching.
Customers demand research, income is produced by research. What does this say about UT's avowed emphasis on teaching? Should we keep hiding behind a teaching-linked-to-research facade, or gradually change our image, like Stanford and MIT, and make research our formal objective?

Implications:

  • Rebalanced loads / TLC's, etc.
  • Educate students about what research does.

E. Institutional Review Board (IRB) for protection of human research subjects: resources and functioning.
(Including: Implementation of new human subjects' requirements as 'certified.')


1372


 
 
 

  Dr. Sanchez told the RPC in January that because the IRB is currently being restructured, much of what is related below is about to be realized.

Discussions in response to the following remarks from Lynn Crismon (RPC member):

"Historically UT has taken a minimalist attitude about IRB functions. This will just not be allowed in the future – particularly for biomedical and psychological research. The national standard (and international as well) is becoming increasingly high, and the University needs to make sure that it follows both the letter and the spirit of the guidelines. The IRB needs a full-time staff person to support its activities. Sandra is expected to perform IRB activities on a part-time basis. Ongoing review of human research is an expectation of IRB's, and UT has not adequately stepped forward to address this. Clarke Burnham is doing an excellent job as chair, but he also has full-time faculty responsibilities. Sandra is excellent, but she is part-time. Many major universities (including UT Health Science Center campuses) have an IRB administrator who has a human research and ethics background, and this person supervises IRB functions on at least a half-time basis. The individual performs pre-reviews of applications and provides feedback to faculty and graduate students. Also, serves as a teacher and resource to graduate students and faculty regarding human research ethics, etc. Some faculty at UT do not do a very good job in mentoring their graduate students regarding human research ethics, importance of the IRB, informed consent, etc. I perceive that some faculty view it as a hassle, and not as an important part of their research.

"We should not wait until NIH (National Institutes of Health) freezes all grant funds (as has happened at several other major universities) before we adequately address these issues. I would like to emphasize that I have been encouraged about the increased attention that has occurred regarding human research ethics since Sharon Brown became assistant vice president for research.

"We also need to carefully address the human research education requirement for all investigators (and significant research staff). This is another area where we should take the high road, and not take a minimalist position."

III. Research Policy Committee membership, 2000-2001
Administrative Advisers:
Sanchez, Juan M., vice president for research
Sullivan, Teresa A., vice president and dean of graduate studies
Committee members:
Carnes, Brian R., computational and applied mathematics (PhD candidate: appointed by the provost's office)
Crismon, Miles L., pharmacy
Geisler III, Wilson S., psychology
Heller, Adam, chemical engineering
Henderson, Linda D., art and art history (on leave, fall 2000)
Laycock, H. Douglas, law
Metcalfe, Travis S., astronomy (PhD candidate: appointed by the provost's office)
Reichl, Linda E., physics (Faculty Council appointee)
Rubin, Allen, social work Southern,
Mark R. V., Germanic studies (Faculty Council appointee)
Strover, Sharon L., radio-television-film
Stuifbergen, Alexa M., nursing
White, John M., chemistry and biochemistry

  Mark Southern, chair


1373


C-12 Committee on Responsibilities, Rights, and Welfare of Teaching Assistants and Assistant Instructors

The major activity of the Committee for the Responsibilities, Rights, and Welfare of TAs and AIs was to undertake an extensive survey of TAs and AIs at The University of Texas. The survey, largely prepared and administered by Logan Wilson Intern Mike Dailey in conjunction with the committee, focused on issues involving the financial compensation of TAs and AIs, the expected duties and time commitment, teaching evaluation procedures, the preparation and orientation of TAs and AIs, and the administrative procedures associated with TAs and AIs. The survey was publicized in February, and nearly 1000 responses were collected, representing virtually all departments and colleges across campus. Mike Dailey prepared a summary of the survey results (see the appendices to these annual reports, D 1377-1378).

Many results of the survey were positive. For example, 81% of respondents felt their departments followed fair and consistent procedures in selecting TA/AIs, and 93% felt they had a satisfactory working relationship with their supervising faculty or staff member. 96% would accept another TA/AI appointment. But there were some identifiable themes among the negative comments, specifically,
a) inadequate pay,
b) confusion concerning how TA/AIs are selected,
c) desire for more evaluation and guidance in teaching.

Concerning these, the committee makes the following recommendations:
a) The upper administration of The University of Texas should continue to strive to increase the financial compensation of TAs and AIs, making it a top priority for further action. Most TAs and AIs feel that they are underpaid, especially relative to the escalating cost of living in Austin. Lumping together the TA and AI salary data, one finds that on average the students holding these positions fall short of breaking even financially over the nine-month period of the award.
b) and c) A memo regarding issues related to the evaluation of TA/AIs and the procedures used to select/appoint TA/AIs will be sent from the Office of Graduate Studies to the chairmen, graduate advisers, and graduate coordinators of each department and graduate program. This memo will encourage departments to publicize the procedures used to select/appoint TA/AIs and the availability of formal teaching evaluations (see the appendices to these annual reports, D 1379).

Furthermore, although numerous informational materials relevant for TAs and AIs are currently available on the web, in practice, many TA/AIs are not aware of this fact. For example, few TA/AIs are aware that there exists a grievance procedure. The committee feels that the available information should be publicized in a more systematic and comprehensive manner at the beginning of each semester. To implement this, an announcement detailing the availability of these materials and the appropriate web addresses will be prepared and sent via e-mail to all TAs and AIs via the Office of the Graduate Studies. Relevant web materials include a Handbook for Teaching Assistants and Assistant Instructors, a past report compiled by the previous Committee for the Responsibilities, Rights, and Welfare of Teaching Assistants and Assistant Instructors, and relevant sections of the Handbook of Operating Procedures, such as the section on grievance procedures. It is recommended that each successive committee should be charged with the review and updating of these web materials early in the fall semester.

  Jennifer S. Brodbelt, chair

This document was posted on the Faculty Council web site, www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/ on July 24 , 2001. Paper copies are available on request from the Office of the General Faculty, FAC 22, F9500.


1374


APPENDICES

A-1 Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility
Message to faculty regarding post-tenure reviews:

To: Members of the General Faculty
From: The Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (CCAFR)

As the Committee responsible for having written and overseen the adoption of UT's Post-Tenure Review Policy (PTR), we felt it incumbent on us, as we did the last two years, to reiterate what it is and is not, and to inform you of our continuing responsibilities in this matter.

First, PTR applies to all tenured members of the faculty, regardless of the positions they currently hold. PTR affirms all current University and System commitments to tenure, academic freedom, due process, and good cause for dismissal. There is to be no linkage between PTR and review of tenured faculty for possible termination; the link, rather, is to professional rewards and to faculty development where appropriate. It is intended to build on what currently works, the annual reviews conducted by individual departments and schools, and thus, to minimize bureaucracy and the time spent evaluating and being evaluated, and to make the review process regular and routine. In the first instance, faculty promoted within the last six years are to be reviewed six years from their last promotion; the timing of the reviews of the remaining tenured faculty are to be chosen randomly or by any other legal means agreed to by the faculty of the department or school. Faculty are to be given six months notice to prepare for the review and sufficient opportunity to provide input. In addition, results of the review are to be given to faculty in writing, and they are to have opportunity to respond before any recommendation is made from the department or school to the next administrative level.

Finally, the process is to be monitored by CCAFR, which is charged to receive reports of faculty problems and concerns, and to recommend changes in PTR where, in its judgment, they are needed.

Electronic versions of all the major documents concerning post-tenure review are located on the World Wide Web at http://www.utexas.edu/admin/evpp/faculty/post.tenure/index.html. Included there are links to the Timetable for Annual Review and Post-Tenure Review, the section from the Handbook of Operating Procedures entitled Annual Review and Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty, and the UT System Guidelines for Periodic Evaluation of Tenured Faculty. You might also wish to consult an issue of "Academe" (September/October 1998, pp. 61-67), which contains the AAUP response to PTR. We believe that our version addresses their concerns. In addition to consulting these documents, please feel free to contact any member of CCAFR to express any concerns you have about the implementation of PTR. Thank you.

Alan Cline, Computer Sciences, Chair, cline@cs.utexas.edu
Katherine Arens, Germanic Studies, k.arens@mail.utexas.edu
Neal Armstrong, Civil Engineering, neal_armstrong@mail.utexas.edu
Ronald Barr, Mechanical Engineering, rbarr@mail.utexas.edu
Gary D. Borich, Educational Psychology, garyborich@mail.utexas.edu
Martha H. Hilley, Music, mfhilley@mail.utexas.edu
David J. Saltman, Mathematics, saltman@math.utexas.edu
Janet Staiger, Radio-Television-Film, jstaiger@uts.cc.utexas.edu
James R. Yates, Educational Administration, yates@mail.utexas.edu

cc: President Larry Faulkner,
Provost Sheldon Ekland Olson, the academic deans, and Patti Ohlendorf

Alan Kaylor Cline
Department of Computer Sciences, The University of Texas
512-471-9717 (office)          512-345-7645 (home)


1375


C-6 International Programs and Studies Committee
Report of the Special Subcommittee
Jonathan Brown (Chair), Larry Graham, Peter Hess, Ivy McQuiddy
Approved by the full committee on May 2, 2001

"Plan to Increase UT Student Participation in Reciprocal International Exchange Programs"

Preamble: The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board established a rule that the number of exchange students hosted by a Texas university and the number hosted by foreign partner institutions should be in balance within a five-year time span. At the end of the third year, it has become evident that The University of Texas at Austin faces a serious imbalance in its student exchange programs with foreign universities. Specifically, the number of international students coming to this University is greater than that of UT students going abroad for study. Therefore, the International Programs and Studies Committee proposes the implementation of the following plan to encourage greater UT student participation in reciprocal international exchanges. The plan consists of notifying administrators, faculty, and students of the academic and programmatic benefits of and financial resources for participation in the exchange program.

I. Leadership

A. All members of this committee will bring the contents of this plan to the attention of their colleagues in international studies through memoranda, flyers, and word of mouth. Committee members will:
1. discuss exchange opportunities in their undergraduate and graduate classes and encourage their colleagues to do likewise, and;
2. contact graduate advisers in their departments and in their area studies programs about the benefits of graduate students to participate in exchanges within the parameters of existing University regulations.
B. Associate Vice President Graham will notify the Deans of Graduate Studies, Liberal Arts, Engineering, Business Administration, and other colleges about the contents of this plan.
C. The chairperson of the International Programs and Studies Committee will seek to report to the University Faculty Council about the problems in UT's exchange program and the remedies suggested by this plan.

II. How Students Benefit from Participation in Exchange Programs

A. Students earn credit for graduation while studying abroad.
B. They experience living in a foreign culture and operating within its educational and professional systems.
C. They improve their ability to use a foreign language.
D. They create lasting friendships and future collaboration with foreign citizens.
E. They become culturally literate, thereby generating an even deeper understanding of their own US culture.
F. They acquire valuable references for graduate school and employment.

III. Incentives for Participation in Exchange Programs

A. Committee members will identify obstacles that keep students from studying abroad and devise strategies to remove them. In discussions with administrators and faculty, we will suggest:
1. that advisers seek to incorporate the foreign exchanges into the degree programs at the graduate and undergraduate levels. They might internationalize the curriculum by


1376


   
   
  establishing requirements for international studies, language study, study abroad, and internships;
2. that incentives be created for faculty members to become involved with study abroad like travel to partner institutions and guest professorships;
3. that students be recognized for their courses in international studies and for study abroad with special certificates.
B. Committee members will promote and enhance the financial incentives available to students for study abroad:
1. by gaining familiarity with existing scholarships such as the International Education Fee Scholarships, the Liberal Arts Study Abroad Scholarships, and Financial Aid for participants in exchange programs,
2. 2. by completing lists of financial support available from the Study Abroad Office, from the various colleges, and from the Office of Graduate Studies, and
3. by encouraging departments and colleges to establish scholarship programs for study abroad.

  Committee members will encourage language departments to promote study abroad more aggressively within their classes. They might offer specialized language courses for students who plan to participate in exchange programs in business, engineering, and the sciences.

IV. How Exchange Programs Might Achieve Balance

A. A statistical analysis shows that only a handful of exchange programs are seriously imbalanced. The Associate Vice President for International Programs and committee members should discuss the need for balance with directors and faculty sponsors of unbalanced exchange programs. We should suggest:
1. that each exchange program within the university should strive to balance the number of incoming foreign students with outgoing UT students;
2. Committee members should enlist supportive faculty and advisers to promote and recruit students for exchange programs.
3. We should "talk up" exchange programs with faculty colleagues.
4. Faculty should use their classrooms to notify students of the benefits of study abroad programs.


1377


C-12 Committee on Responsibilities, Rights, and Welfare of Teaching Assistants and Assistant Instructors
Brief Notes on TA/AI Survey Data
(Prepared by Mike Dailey)

A survey of experiences and perceptions of TA's and AI's at UT (all colleges represented) was conducted in the spring 2001 semester. Of approximately 2,500 graduate students who hold either a TA or AI appointment that were invited to participate in the online survey, just under 40% (968) completed the survey. While a full and comprehensive analysis of the data has not yet been conducted, a brief review of data from the recent survey of TA's and AI's reveals several themes of concern and shared experiences among graduate students who hold these appointments. The following summary is intended only to highlight issues for further analysis, not to serve as a complete analysis of these data.

In general, survey responses do not appear to be overwhelmingly negative or positive in nature. Responses tend to be very well presented with specific examples and recommendations included. Of the respondents, 78% hold a TA appointment and 21% an AI appointment (~1% did not report). Each of the colleges and most, if not all departments are represented in the respondent population. The survey respondents include first time TA's or AI's as well as those that have reached the maximum amount of semesters allowed.

Not surprisingly, financial issues appear to be one of the greatest concerns voiced in the survey responses. The level of frustration and dissatisfaction with pay rates range from general comments such as one graduate student reporting, "Although I am enthusiastic about teaching, I also would like to be paid enough money so I do not worry about my living conditions,' or another's "The financial compensation could be moreƒIt is nearly impossible to survive in Austin's economy on the salary of being a TA alone," to more specific comments such as "You do not pay us enough money. I net about $850 a month. There are many costs associated with being a graduate student (books, etc.) this is not enough income to live off of." Graduate students that work for the University in this capacity generally feel that: a) they are not paid in line with the value of the services provided; b) that the low stipends force them to work elsewhere or accumulate debt (each of which act as obstacles to completing degree); and, c) do not take into account the rising cost of living in Austin. Particular issues of concern are tuition costs and taxation of tuition support, payroll "glitches" that lead to non-payment or late payment of stipend, and wide discrepancies in support levels across and within departments. For over a third of the respondents (36%), the TA/AI stipend is their only source of financial support. Other sources range from the support of spouses to running up large credit card debt.

The relationship of quality and quantity of work expected from TA's and AI's and the wages received (as well as impacts on time to degree) is a difficult one for graduate students to reconcile. As one stated, "in some departmentsƒthe AI's are required to do inordinate amounts of teaching and grading while being supposedly employed for 20 hours a week. There should be regulations to prevent their department from exploiting their graduate students like that." Another student summarized the experiences of many very well, reporting, "I worry that the amount of time we have to spend teaching cuts into the time we have to spend on the things that hiring committees will pay attention to, like publications and conference papers. Given that the actual workload is upwards of thirty hours a week, and I have to work an outside job so that I can make ends meet, I don't have very much time for my own studies. Why not pay grad students for the hours we actually work?"

A second theme to emerge from the data is a concern over the lack of transparency in departmental appointments. TA's and AI's generally feel that there is no rhyme or reason to who is chosen, how they are chosen, and when they are notified (often at the last minute leading to a multitude of other problems). While only 16% of respondents indicated that they had experienced administrative obstacles to receiving their appointments, the qualitative data suggest that many students have learned to navigate the informal channels of their departments to address the obstacles. One student expressed the confusion well, stating, "I'm not sure what the ïprocedure' is. I've always been fortunate to be awarded a TAship but others have not. Sometimes it's a mystery why some people are chosen and others are not.K" Quite typical of the experiences of many TA's and AI's is finding out about their appointments too late, often leading to difficulties in scheduling (both for students and departments which then impacts undergraduate courses) and receiving funds from payroll. As one students relates, "For my appointment in fall 2000, we were supposed to find out our assignment by April 1 of


1378


the previous spring. However, we were told in August. This delay was annoying and professors became upset when they found out our class schedules couldn't be adjusted that late in the game to fit their needs."

Finally, many graduate TA's and AI's expressed a desire for a formal evaluation of their performance. Asking for both guidance at the beginning of a semester and helpful evaluation as a semester progresses as well as at the completion of a semester, students would like to use this opportunity to improve their teaching skills and position in the academic marketplace. Unfortunately, many respond that this is not the case. Over half (54%) of survey respondents indicate that they have not received feedback from a supervising faculty/staff member on their teaching performance. As one student complained, "I would like feedback on my teaching to help me improve. The only source of feedback available to me now is the student questionnaires, but four or five numeric ratings are not very helpful." While some students did report receiving some form of feedback such as this respondent who said, "Yes, the feedback from last semester was good. I was new, and unsure of my abilities. I enjoyed the feedback, although I wish I had received some suggestions to correct my difficulties as a TA," many more students responded that they wanted useful feedback to help them become better teachers themselves. In hand with feedback, many graduate students expressed a desire for greater professional training and preparation for their appointed duties. As one student put simply, "We definitely need more preparation before we teach for the first time. A two day workshop is not enough."

These are just a few of the main issues or concerns expressed by survey respondents. The data are generally quite explicit and consistent across departments and colleges. Several immediate suggestions include: insist on transparency of appointments by departments, prepare orientation material for TA's and AI's that outline expectations, duties, and university policies, and provide evaluation of performance that will help graduate students become better faculty.

While many TA's and AI's have had good experiences such as one who reported, "I want to continue this, I have fun," many more express a sense of futility, recognizing that they need the appointment for both financial and professional reasons and will do what is needed because they must. In the end, 96% of respondents indicated that they would accept another TA/AI appointment in the future. As one student expressed succinctly, "What else can I do?"


1379



DRAFT OF MEMORANDUM

To: Chairmen, Graduate Advisers, Graduate Coordinators
From: Vice President and Graduate Dean Teresa A. Sullivan
Re: Publicizing Procedures Regarding Selection/Appointment and Optional Formal Evaluation of TAs and AIs

Based on an extensive survey of TAs and AIs undertaken by the Committee of the Responsibilities, Rights and Welfare of TAs and AIs, the committee recommends that each department publicizes the procedures used to select and appoint TAs and AIs. Such a statement would clear up confusion among TAs and AIs and dispel myths and inaccuracies about the selection procedure. A suggested model statement is given below:

"The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry welcomes our many new and returning TAs and AIs. The selection and appointments of TAs and AIs is a time-intensive procedure and requires a fine balancing act between the availability of skilled TA/AIs, the avoidance of conflicts between the class schedules of the TA/AIs and the TA/AI assignments, the class enrollments which may require that certain sections be expanded or reduced on short notice, and the approved TA/AI budget each semester. Every effort is made to accommodate the special requests of faculty, TAs and AIs, but the appointments ultimately hinge on the balance of the variables listed above. All appointments are arranged through the graduate office in a process that requires up to six weeks as applications are collected, projected course needs and enrollments are estimated and revised, and experienced TA/AIs are matched with appropriate assignments in an iterative manner. Six weeks prior to the start of classes each semester and summer, applications are collected from prospective TA/AIs and faculty are asked to submit a list of the projected financial support for each of the graduate students in their groups (i.e. an accounting of which students will be supported as GRAs or TAs). A spreadsheet listing all the classes, the faculty assigned to each class, the projected enrollment of the classes, and the number of TA slots allocated is created. The graduate office begins to assign graduate students to specific TA positions based on past experience, the individual requests of faculty and graduate students, while avoiding conflicts among the courses in which the graduate students will enroll. A tentative assignment of TA positions will be posted approximately five days prior to the start of classes, but assignments may not be finalized until the second day of classes due to fluctuations in enrollments. Generally all graduate students who are making good progress in the graduate program and have satisfactory teaching evaluations can expect to be selected for teaching positions. Priority is given to full-time students in the doctoral program of the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry."

Moreover, the committee recommends that you establish a procedure for allowing TAs and AIs to request faculty evaluations of their teaching performance. The results of the committee's survey indicated that many TAs and AIs would greatly appreciate a protocol for a formal teaching evaluation, and I support this idea.