DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
Following are the minutes of the regular
Faculty Council meeting of January 28, 2002.
John R. Durbin, Secretary
The General Faculty
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR FACULTY COUNCIL
January 28, 2002
The fourth regular meeting of the Faculty
Council for the academic year 2001-2002 was held in Room 212 of the Main
Building on Monday, January 28, 2002, at 2:15 P.M.
Present: Mark I. Alpert, Katherine M. Arens, Neal E. Armstrong,
Matthew J. Bailey, Joyce L. Banks, Glen S. Baum, Gerard H. Bþhague, David
G. Bogard, Dean A. Bredeson, Kathryn E. Brown, Cindy I. Carlson, Richard
L. Cleary, Donald G. Davis, Patrick J. Davis, Lesley A. Dean-Jones, Thomas
W. Dison, John R. Durbin, Larry R. Faulkner, Alan W. Friedman, John C.
(Jack) Gilbert, Michael H. Granof, Lita A. Guerra, Marvin L. Hackert,
Kevin P. Hegarty, James L. Hill, Sharon D. Horner, Julie R. Irwin, Judith
A. Jellison, Ward W. Keeler, Karrol A. Kitt, Stefan M. Kostka, David
Kracman, Steven W. Leslie, William S. Livingston, Glenn Y. Masada, Francis
L. Miksa, Melvin E. L. Oakes, Melissa L. Olive, Alba A. Ortiz, Thomas
G. Palaima, Bruce P. Palka, Esther L. Raizen, Linda E. Reichl, Elizabeth
Richmond-Garza, Victoria Rodriguez, David J. Saltman, Juan M. Sanchez,
Cynthia W. Shelmerdine, Janet Staiger, Michael P. Starbird, Teresa A.
Sullivan, Frances Elizabeth Valdez, James W. Vick, James R. Yates.
Absent: Anthony P. Ambler (excused), Efraim P. Armendariz,
Victor L. Arnold, Brigitte L. Bauer (excused), Harold W. Billings, Douglas
G. Biow, Lynn E. Blais, Daniel A. Bonevac, Joanna M. Brooks (excused),
Michael J. Churgin (excused), Dana L. Cloud (excused), Patricia L. Clubb,
Andrew P. Dillon, John D. Dollard, Edwin Dorn, John D. Downing, Minette
E. Drumwright, Sheldon Ekland-Olson, Robert Freeman, Omer R. Galle (excused),
Dorie J. Gilbert (excused), Nell H. Gottleib (excused), Donald A. Hale
(excused),* Von Matthew (Matt) Hammond, Barbara J. Harlow (excused), Thomas
M. Hatfield, Manuel J. Justiz (excused), Martin W. Kevorkian, Robert C.
Koons (excused), Richard W. Lariviere, David A. Laude (excused), David
R. Maidment, Robert G. May, Patricia C. Ohlendorf (excused), David M.
Parichy, Theodore E. Pfeifer, Elmira Popova, William C. Powers, Mary Ann
R. Rankin, Johnnie D. Ray, Kevin Robnett, Dolores Sands, Mark R. V. Southern
(excused), Salomon A. Stavchansky (excused), Frederick R. Steiner, Ben
G. Streetman, Janice S. Todd (excused), Jarrad Allen Toussant, Daniel
A. Updegrove, Phyllis Boyd Waelder, N. Bruce Walker, Ellen A. Wartella,
Mary F. Wheeler, Barbara W. White, Michael P. Young.
*Correction made on April 22, 2002, to reflect excused absence.
|REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.
There were no questions about the written report (D
|APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
|| The minutes of the Faculty Council
meeting of December 10, 2001, were approved by voice vote (D
||COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.
||Comments by the President.
President Faulkner introduced Kevin Hegarty, vice president
and chief financial officer, who made a special report on the
UT Austin budget picture and the need for a proposed new infrastructure
fee. [Secretary's remark: After the January 28 meeting, and
before the proposal was to be presented to the Board of Regents,
the proposal went through several changes. One of those was
a change in the name, from an "infrastructure fee" to an "infrastructure
charge." The changes, as well as the ultimate action taken,
are outside the scope of these minutes.]
Vice President Hegarty began by summarizing why current sources
of revenue will not support the maintenance or enhancement of
the University and its mission. (The supporting figures referred
to below are in Appendix A of these
Figure 1 shows a decline in state financial support. In the
1960s the real growth (allowing for inflation) in state support
increased by 10.8%, while in the 1990s it decreased by 0.8%.
Figure 2 shows that for other UT System academic institutions
the real growth in the 1990s was 2.9%, and for statewide academic
institutions, excluding UT Austin and Texas A&M, the real growth
in the 1990s was 1.7%.
Figure 3 displays the resources available from appropriations
plus tuition and fees, on a per-student basis, at six national
leaders in public higher education, including UT Austin. For
UT Austin, Available University Fund income is included in the
total. These resources are those that support the core academic
enterprise at each institution. The figure shows that both the
total resources per student and the amount per student from
state appropriations are notably less at UT Austin than at the
other five institutions.
Vice President Hegarty said the University has been able to
maintain itself as a leading institution by deferring plant
maintenance, repair, and renovation; by increasing student fees;
by granting below-market salary increases to faculty and staff;
by expanding research grants and contracts; and by an increasing
reliance on gifts and endowments.
Figure 4 shows how student fees have helped. Since 1990, there
is a total gap of $702 million between the actual funding of
the University from general revenue and the funding that would
have been realized if UT Austin had received the average for
higher education in Texas as a whole. Over that same period,
UT Austin has instituted and collected $346 million in student
The vice president then gave an overview of a six-year projection
for the core university budget (which excludes research projects
by grants and contracts, and budgets for auxiliary enterprises
such as housing and food, parking, and intercollegiate athletics).
He divided the core budget into three parts: essential operating
budget, essential repair and renovation budget, and essential
capital budget. He concentrated on the repair and renovation
budget, which is related closely to the proposed new infrastructure
fee. He pointed out that a large fraction of UT Austin's space
was built in the '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s, with a particularly
large portion built in the '60s and '70s. The University is
facing rising costs associated with the maintenance of facilities
in their third to sixth decades, especially those entering their
fourth and fifth decades.
The six-year projection for the core university
budget exposes some of the consequences if the University
does not obtain substantial additional funding. The consequences
include a remaining deficit in the core operating budget,
a failure to remain nationally competitive in faculty salaries,
a reduction in services and programs, buildings deteriorated
or vacated, cancellation or deferral of essential building
and safety projects, a continuing failure to compete satisfactorily
with staff salaries in the local market, an inability to reduce
the student/faculty ratio, a shortage of start-up funds for
new faculty, and an inability to introduce program initiatives
to cope with a changing world.
Vice President Hegarty said the administration's immediate
plans to meet these challenges had three components: the adoption
of an infrastructure fee; aim for full recovery of indirect
costs and a real growth of 1% or better in legislatively-appropriated
funds in the next legislative session; and a continuation
to address other possible sources of savings and revenue.
The plan for the proposed infrastructure fee, as presented
at the meeting, follows:
- Flat fee, charged for fall and spring semesters
only, to all students beginning in FY 2002-03
- FY 2002-03 proposed fee:
- $230 per semester for students enrolled
in 7 or more hours
- $115 per semester for students enrolled
in 1 to 6 hours
- FY 2002-03 budget impact of $21.4 million,
which would grow each year
- Proposed uses:
- Repair and renovation
- Bonding for essential capital budget
- Scholarships: TA/AI and graduate fellowship
tuition benefits and 15% to cover costs for students
The proposal was to be presented to the members
of the Board of Regents at their February meeting.
Following Vice President Hegarty's presentation, President
Faulkner made some general comments about the budget and the
University's future. He said that to project the University
forward in a responsible way, and to participate among the
leaders in higher education, the University would require
$150 million in a combination of new recurring funding or
recurring budget reductions over the next five years.
||Questions to the President.
John C. Gilbert (chemistry and biochemistry) asked the president
where the proposed infrastructure fee would place the University
relative to its peer institutions, in terms of total cost to
each student. The president said that UT Austin is somewhat
below the mean of leading peer institutions now, and believed
it would come closer to the mean at the end of five years.
President Faulkner also said that in putting a financial picture
together "the object is not to terrorize you, or to make people
feel desperate about the future." He said it is "to look in
a clear-eyed way at what it will take for this institution
advance itself and to compete effectively on the national stage."
| REPORT OF THE CHAIR.
Chair Bruce Palka (mathematics) reminded members that President Faulkner
would give a presentation of UT @ 2015 the following day. The presentation
would cover possibilities and problems the University is likely to
meet in the years to come.
The chair said the Faculty Council Executive Committee was considering
possible action in response to the UT System's rejection of the University's
Policy on Teaching Continuity and Restructured Faculty Workload upon
the Birth or Adoption of a Child (D
|REPORT OF THE CHAIR ELECT None.
|SPECIAL ORDERS None.
|UNFINISHED BUSINESS None.
|REPORTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY, COLLEGES AND
SCHOOLS, AND COMMITTEES None.
||Resolution in Support of the Creation of
an Infrastructure Fee at The University of Texas at Austin
(D 1665). See Appendix
The resolution was introduced by Michael
Granof (accounting), chair of the Faculty Budget Advisory
Committee. He said that in response to student requests,
resolution asked that at least part of the student fees be
directed toward aid, to assure that no student would be
from attending the University due to the proposed increase
There was no discussion, and the resolution was approved by
voice vote without dissent.
||Resolution in Support of International Studies
at The University of Texas at Austin (D
This was introduced by Peter Hess (Germanic languages), chair
of the International Programs and Studies Committee. He said
that the resolution was motivated by the events of September
11, which had revealed that the nation is unprepared to deal
with events of that magnitude. He said that because English
has emerged as a global language, we have become so dependent
on others speaking English that we have become unable to engage
with foreigners in their native languages and unable to understand
The Council approved an amendment introduced by Francis Miksa
(library and information science) to replace, in the first
sentence of the resolution, "producing informed global citizens"
by "education that includes an awareness of global issues."
Professor Gilbert believed that an administrator could interpret
the resolution as saying, among other things, that the Council
was in favor of an increased foreign language requirement
for undergraduates. Professor Hess said the committee had
tried to avoid language that specific, and was trying to raise
points for future debate.
Glenn Masada (mechanical engineering) said he was opposed
to the resolution because it called for strengthening foreign
language learning, international area studies, and experiences
abroad. He believed many faculty members would consider those
issues important, but not critical.
Cindy Carlson (educational psychology) said that although
she supported international studies, she was opposed to the
resolution. She would prefer something more specific, so the
Council would know exactly what was being proposed.
Joyce Banks (graduate student assembly) said it was her understanding
that the International Education Fee scholarship already covered
some of the items in the resolution, and she feared endorsing
the resolution would imply endorsement of an increase in that
||Esther Raizen (Middle Eastern languages and
cultures) said she supported a strengthening of international
studies, but was concerned about the safety of students studying
abroad. She mentioned specifically a decision by the University
in recent months to cancel an exchange program with Israel.
Professor Hess said the committee was also concerned with
such issues and had been trying to address them. Professor
Raizen said she could not support the resolution, because
it ignored this important question.
James Yates (educational administration) believed that because
the resolution dealt with curricular issues, such as foreign
languages, it should be referred to the Educational Policy
Elizabeth Richmond-Garza (English) asked Professor Hess whether
the intent was to be a curricular resolution or an articulation
of opinion, policy, and guiding principles. Professor Hess
said that it was meant to be the latter. In light of that,
Professor Richmond-Garza said she would favor referring the
resolution back to the International Programs and Studies
Committee. Thomas Palaima (classics) agreed.
The secretary agreed that the resolution should not be referred
to the Educational Policy Committee, but said he was surprised
by the opposition to the resolution as it was. He had interpreted
the resolution as being a statement of general feeling, and
not one that was prescribing specific changes in policy or
Professor Yates said he believed the language was too specific
to allow for the secretary's interpretation. But he was convinced
by others that it would be better to refer the resolution
back to the original committee rather than the Educational
Policy Committee. Thus, he withdrew his motion.
Professor Hess agreed to convey the Council's comments to
his committee, and it was understood that some form of the
resolution would be introduced at a later meeting. Professor
Carlson urged the committee to aim for something that was
||Proposal from the Faculty Grievance Committee
to Create an Office of the Faculty Ombudspersons (D
The proposal was introduced by Martha Hilley (music), chair
of the Faculty Faculty Grievance Committee. She said a similar
17040-17043) had been approved by the Council on May 20,
2000, but was not approved by the president. This new proposal
was drafted by an ad hoc committee whose members were Alan
Friedman (English), Julius G. Getman (law), David Nancarrow
(theatre and dance), Alba Ortiz (special education), and Janet
Staiger (radio-television-film), all but one of whom was a
former chair of the Faculty Grievance Committee. This committee
had met a number of times with the provost and appropriate
members of his staff, and also with the secretary.
Professor Gilbert inquired about the exact nature of the appointment
and the compensation, including salary and relief from teaching.
Professor Friedman said the wording was the result of negotiations
with the provost.
Professor Gilbert also asked about the relationship between
the ombudsperson and the Center for Public Policy Dispute
Resolution. He wondered if it would be possible to use that
center until it was established clearly that an ombudsperson,
as recommended in the proposal, was needed. Professor Hilley
discussed the history and experience behind the proposal,
and said she felt that it was important that faculty grievances
be dealt with by a member of the faculty. Professor Staiger
reinforced those comments.
||The secretary pursued the question raised
by Professor Gilbert about the compensation, and said he doubted
the load for the ombudsperson would be as heavy as the load
for a department chairperson. Professor Ortiz said it was
important that the compensation be sufficient to attract someone
well qualified for the job, and said the level of compensation
was intended to be flexible and subject to negotiation.
Michael Starbird (mathematics) said he opposed the proposal,
because he believed there were more important uses for the
funds, and we had heard earlier in the meeting about the financial
problems the University now faces.
Professor Palaima said it was important the proposed position
be sufficiently well supported to attract someone well qualified,
but perhaps the proposal should be referred back to the committee
to clarify what the cost would be.
Mark Alpert (marketing administration) said that, based on
his experience on the Faculty Grievance Committee, he supported
Linda Reichl (physics) said that she had also served on the
Faculty Grievance Committee, and she supported the resolution
strongly. She said we had heard earlier in the meeting about
how much the University would need to spend on buildings,
and she believed that the relatively small amount this proposal
might cost could have a huge impact on improving the climate
for faculty and students.
Professor Gilbert moved that, because of the dwindling number
in attendance, the motion be tabled until the next meeting.
That motion did not receive a second, so he asked if there
was a quorum. There was not.
|ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENTS None.
|QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR None.
The meeting adjourned at 3:47 P.M.
Distributed through the Faculty Council
web site (www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/) on February 12, 2002. Copies
are available on request from the Office of the General Faculty, FAC
DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CREATION OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE FEE
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Michael H. Granof (professor, accounting)
submitted the following resolution on behalf of the Faculty Budget
Advisory Committee. The secretary has classified this resolution
as general legislation. The Faculty Council will take action on
the resolution at its meeting on January 28, 2002.
John R. Durbin, Secretary
The General Faculty
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE CREATION
OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE FEE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
The Faculty Council endorses the administration's
proposal to create an infrastructure fee to be charged to students
beginning with the academic year 2002-2003.
Distributed through the Faculty Council web site (www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/)
on February 12, 2002. Copies are available on request from the Office
of the General Faculty, FAC 22, F9500.
We note that in the past decade The University of Texas revenues have
decreased substantially when adjusted for the impact of inflation.
Our level of state funding has lagged not only behind our peer institutions
throughout the country, but also behind other colleges and universities
within Texas. The consequences have been an inability of the University
perform routine maintenance and
renovation of classrooms, laboratories and other teaching facilities;
- reduce the student-teacher ratio to below what is an
unacceptably high level;
- maintain a salary structure that enables us to attract
and retain top-notch faculty and staff and keeps us competitive with
other universities both within the United States and abroad.
We emphasize that even with the added fees, the tuition
and fees charged to our students will be considerably lower than those
charged by our peer institutions in other states. We further note that
a portion of the fee will be used to cover the additional costs of students
This fee increase will benefit not only the university-at-large, but the
students in particular. The economic value of the students' education
depends upon the present and future reputation of the institution from
which they receive it. The University of Texas cannot expect to achieve
its constitutionally mandated objective of becoming a university of the
first-class without adequate financial resources.
This legislation was posted on the Faculty Council web site (http://www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/)
on January 23, 2002. Paper copies are available on request from the Office
of the General Faculty, FAC 22, F9500.