DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
Following are the minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting
of October 21, 2002.
John R. Durbin, Secretary
The General Faculty
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR FACULTY COUNCIL
October 21, 2002
The second regular meeting of the Faculty Council for the academic
year 2002-2003 was held in Room 212 of the Main Building on Monday,
October 21, 2002, at 2:15 P.M.
Present: Lawrence D. Abraham,
Kamran S. Aghaie, Glen S. Baum, Gerard H. Béhague,
Daniela Bini, David G. Bogard, Teresa Graham Brett, Jennifer
S. Brodbelt, Neal M. Burns, Johnny S. Butler, Alan K. Cline,
Melba M. Crawford, Ann Cvetkovich, Donald G. Davis, John
R. Durbin, Sheldon Ekland-Olson, Linda Ferreira-Buckley,
Kenneth Flamm, Alan W. Friedman, James D. Garrison, Michael
H. Granof, Carl T. Haas, Marvin L. Hackert, Julie Hallmark,
James L. Hill, Archie L. Holmes, Sharon D. Horner, Raymond
Bert "Rusty" Ince III, Judith A. Jellison, Katherine
Ann King, Anastasia "Stacey" Kounelias, Elliott
W. Kruppa, William S. Livingston, Arthur B. Markman, Dean
P. Neikirk, Melvin E. L. Oakes, Edward W. (Ted) Odell, Patricia
C. Ohlendorf, Melissa L. Olive, Bruce P. Palka, Anna Coons
Pyeatt, Esther L. Raizen, Mary Ann R. Rankin, Linda E. Reichl,
Charles R. Rossman, Diane L. Schallert, Mark R. V. Southern,
David B. Spence, David W. Springer, Janet Staiger, Salomon
A. Stavchansky, Sarah Elizabeth Tierney, Janice S. Todd,
James W. Vick, Darlene C. Wiley.
Absent: Phyllis R. Akmal,
Urton L. Anderson, Begona Aretxaga, Harold W. Billings,
Daniel A. Bonevac, Joanna M. Brooks, Patricia L.
Clubb, Andrew P. Dillon, Edwin Dorn, Robert Freeman,
Lita A. Guerra, Donald A. Hale, Thomas M. Hatfield,
Kevin P. Hegarty, Kurt O. Heinzelman, Joseph M.
Horn, Julie R. Irwin, Richard W. Lariviere, Steven
W. Leslie, Amarante L. Lucero, Robert G. May, Eric
C. Opiela, David M. Parichy, Theodore E. Pfeifer,
Elmira Popova, William C. Powers, Johnnie D. Ray,
David J. Saltman, Juan M. Sanchez, Dolores Sands,
Frederick R. Steiner, Ben G. Streetman, Sharon
L. Strover, Daniel A. Updegrove, N. Bruce Walker,
Ellen A. Wartella, Mary F. Wheeler, Barbara W.
White, Michael P. Young, Brigitte L. Bauer (excused),
Michael J. Churgin (excused), John D. Downing (excused),
Larry R. Faulkner (excused), Charles N. Friedman
(excused), George W. Gau (excused), John C. (Jack)
Gilbert (excused), Sue A. Greninger (excused),
Barbara J. Harlow (excused), Manuel J. Justiz (excused),
Martin W. Kevorkian (excused), M. Michael Sharlot
(excused), John M. Weinstock (excused), James R.
| REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.
There were no questions about the written report (D
| APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
|| Minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting
of September 23, 2002 (D
2158-2176) were approved by voice vote.
| COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.
None. President Faulkner was out of town.
| REPORT OF THE CHAIR.
Chair Michael Granof (accounting) made several brief comments about
the president’s State of the University Address and the October
15 meeting of the General Faculty. For more information on both topics,
| REPORT OF THE CHAIR ELECT — None.
| UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None.
| REPORTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY, COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS,
AND COMMITTEES — None.
| NEW BUSINESS.
|| Draft Report of the President’s ad hoc Committee
on Non-Tenure-Track Teaching Faculty (D
Professor Judith Langlois (psychology), chair of the committee,
talked about the committee’s composition, conclusions,
and recommendations, and then opened the discussion for comments
Professor Kenneth Flamm (LBJ School) expressed concern about
the recommended commitment to multi-year contracts, given that
academic units might not be assured of having resources to cover
such a commitment for more than one year at a time. Professor
Langlois said the committee was concerned with establishing uniform
procedures, and realized there would have to be some flexibility.
Dr. Hillary Hart (senior lecturer, civil engineering), a member
of the committee, said that footnote 3 on D 2179 was included
to handle such problems: “In extraordinary circumstances,
the executive vice president and provost can approve an exception
and permit an appointment of less duration than normal.” Professor
Flamm later expressed concern that there might be reluctance
to promote lecturers because of the multi-year commitment of
resources it would imply, in spite of the footnote. Professor
Langlois said that was one of the reasons the committee had included
recommendations 17 and 18 (D 2182) of its report.
Dean Mary Ann Rankin (natural sciences) voiced two special concerns
about the recommendations. First, she did not see the rationale
for the third career step, that of distinguished senior lecturer.
Second, she believed the proposed requirement of mandatory consideration
for promotion after a specified number of years would lead to
problems. It would create an additional burden on department
chairs and others. And, in many cases, it would guarantee an
implication of rejection, which would be very unfortunate. This
|| especially true for many lecturers who are satisfactory
teachers but who do nothing beyond that. Professor Alan
Cline (computer sciences) expressed the same concern.
Dean Rankin said that the College of Natural Sciences
employed approximately 150 lecturers. She believed the
system now in place was satisfactory in most respects
and these specific recommendations would do more harm
Dr. Hart said the committee’s intention in creating a third
level for lecturers was to make the non-tenure-track more parallel
to the tenure-track. Specifically, it would give lecturers something
to aim for; after four or so years they could be rewarded with
promotion to senior lecturer, and then after another period of
extraordinary work they could be rewarded with another promotion.
Executive Vice Provost Stephen Monti suggested that the question
of mandatory review could be handled with language similar to
that in a provision for associate professors, who, if not considered
for promotion after a certain period of time, can ask for mandatory
consideration. He later added that the idea of three-year rolling,
non-tenure appointments was consistent with the Regents’ Rules.
This was different from “seven-year term tenure”,
which exists in some of the UT component institutions.
Professor Cline pointed out that, with regard to the committee’s
recommendation 12 (D 2181), the College of Natural Sciences does
give teaching awards to lecturers. He also brought up the fact
that, because of the difficulty of accurately predicting enrollment,
some lecturers are not hired until the beginning of classes.
Professor Langlois said nothing in the committee’s recommendations
would prevent that; it’s an unfortunate but unavoidable
problem. She said the committee concentrated more on “career
Professor Janet Staiger (radio-television-film) expressed concern
about the growing number of faculty members throughout the country
who are employed long term, without tenure. She said a large
proportion of such faculty members are women, influenced by family
and other career choices. She hoped there would be an effort
to track various relevant statistics for non-tenure-track teaching
Professor David Springer (social work) said his school employed
some part-time, non-tenured teachers for only one semester each
year, partly because many of the school’s students were
on internships during the spring semester. Professor Langlois
said the committee’s general principles could not cover
all cases. She added that some schools and colleges appoint faculty
as lecturers when they should be appointed as adjuncts.
Professor Esther Raizen (Middle Eastern language and cultures)
acknowledged that mandatory consideration for promotion might
be a burden for department chairs and others, but thought that
many lecturers would be reluctant to request such consideration
on their own. She also raised the question of whether the University
would be reluctant to hire lecturers for extended periods since
it might imply tenure. Professor Bruce Palka (mathematics) said
that to the extent the latter point might relate to medical schools
it should not be considered an issue, since faculty members there
generally raise their own money and often operate on a more-or-less
Professor Larry Abraham (curriculum and instruction) said that
a clear job description could help determine when a non-tenure-track
teaching faculty member might be promoted; the description might
specify only teaching and it might specify something more. He
also expressed concern about the rapidity of the review process,
and tended to believe that service under semester-by-semester
appointment should count toward eligibility. Professor Langlois
said she did not believe the committee had strong feelings about
the length of the terms.
|| Professor Daniela Bini (French and Italian) believed
that two levels, lecturer and senior lecturer, would
be sufficient. She believed that adding a third level,
on the pretence of making the tracks parallel to those
for tenure, would be a farce, since it would not in
fact lead to tenure.
Professor Archie Holmes (electrical and computer engineering)
asked if a lecturer could submit a proposal where he or she would
be the sole principal investigator. Professor Langlois said “yes”,
and that this had been in the proposal at one point. Professor
Holmes urged that it be put back in.
Returning to an earlier part of the discussion, Professor Marvin
Hackert (chemistry and biochemistry) urged the committee to keep
in mind that there is a difference between being reviewed, which
he thought everyone would favor, and mandatory review for promotion.
The draft was brought to the Council for its information and
comments, and not for action. Professor Langlois urged members
to send further comments to her or another member of the committee.
The committee will present its final version to the president,
who will then decide how to proceed with the recommendations.
|| ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENTS — None.
|| QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR — None.
|| The meeting adjourned at 3:34 P.M.