DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
Following are the minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting
of November 18, 2002.
John R. Durbin, Secretary
The General Faculty
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR FACULTY COUNCIL
November 18, 2002
The third regular meeting of the Faculty Council for the academic
year 2002-2003 was held in Room 212 of the Main Building on Monday,
November 18, 2002, at 2:15 P.M.
Present:Lawrence D. Abraham,
Urton L. Anderson, Daniela Bini, David G. Bogard, Daniel
A. Bonevac, Teresa Graham Brett, Jennifer S. Brodbelt,
Johnny S. Butler, Michael J. Churgin, Alan K. Cline,
Donald G. Davis, John D. Dollard, John R. Durbin, Sheldon
Ekland-Olson, Larry R. Faulkner, Alan W. Friedman, Charles
N. Friedman, James D. Garrison, Michael H. Granof, Sue
A. Greninger, Lita A. Guerra, Marvin L. Hackert, Kurt
O. Heinzelman, James L. Hill, Archie L. Holmes, Sharon
D. Horner, Raymond Bert "Rusty" Ince III, Julie
R. Irwin, Judith A. Jellison, Katherine Ann King, Anastasia "Stacey" Kounelias,
Elliott W. Kruppa, Arthur B. Markman, Dean P. Neikirk,
Melvin E. L. Oakes, Melissa L. Olive, Eric C. Opiela,
Bruce P. Palka, Theodore E. Pfeifer, Elmira Popova, Anna
Coons Pyeatt, Esther L. Raizen, Linda E. Reichl, David
J. Saltman, Diane L. Schallert, Mark R. V. Southern,
David B. Spence, David W. Springer, Janet Staiger, Sharon
L. Strover, Sarah Elizabeth Tierney, Janice S. Todd,
James W. Vick, John M. Weinstock, Michael P. Young.
Absent: Kamran S. Aghaie, Phyllis
R. Akmal, Begoña Aretxaga, Brigitte L. Bauer (excused),
Glen S. Baum, Gerard H. Béhague (excused), Harold
W. Billings, Joanna M. Brooks, Neal M. Burns (excused),
Patricia L. Clubb, Melba M. Crawford, Ann Cvetkovich
(excused), Andrew P. Dillon, Edwin Dorn, John D. Downing,
Linda Ferreira-Buckley, Kenneth Flamm (excused), Robert
Freeman, George W. Gau (excused), John C. (Jack) Gilbert
(excused), Carl T. Haas, Donald A. Hale, Julie Hallmark,
Barbara J. Harlow (excused), Thomas M. Hatfield, Kevin
P. Hegarty, Joseph M. Horn, Manuel J. Justiz (excused),
Martin W. Kevorkian (excused), Richard W. Lariviere,
Steven W. Leslie, William S. Livingston, Amarante L.
Lucero, Edward W. (Ted) Odell (excused), Patricia C.
Ohlendorf (excused), David M. Parichy, William C. Powers,
Mary Ann R. Rankin, Johnnie D. Ray, Charles R. Rossman
(excused), Juan M. Sanchez, Dolores Sands, M. Michael
Sharlot (excused), Salomon A. Stavchansky (excused),
Frederick R. Steiner, Ben G. Streetman, Daniel A. Updegrove,
N. Bruce Walker, Ellen A. Wartella, Mary F. Wheeler,
Barbara W. White, Darlene C. Wiley (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 October 21, 2002 (D
2199-2202) were approved by voice vote.
| COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.
| REPORT OF THE CHAIR.
| REPORT OF THE CHAIR ELECT.
Marvin Hackert reported on the meeting of Texas Council of Faculty
Senates held on October 25-26. Issues discussed included distance education
and research-track versus teaching-track faculty status.
| UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None.
| REPORTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY, COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS,
AND COMMITTEES — None.
| NEW BUSINESS.
|| Procedures for The University of Texas at Austin
Administrative Investigations of Policy Violations
Alleged Against Faculty Members (D
This legislation was introduced by Professor Janet Staiger (radio-television-film).
She said the intent was that faculty members have an opportunity
to respond to any allegation of a rule violation, that they be
given a hearing before their peers, and that no disciplinary
action be taken before a fair hearing was held.
The Council approved an amendment, introduced by Professor Alan
Friedman (English), to add the following statement immediately
after the fourth paragraph of the original proposal: “In
cases in which it may be appropriate to suspend with pay a faculty
member while an investigation or hearing is in process, procedures
for a faculty hearing tribunal prior to the suspension with pay
as outlined in Regents Rules Part One, Chapter 3, Section 6.33,
will be followed.”
Professor Sharon Stover (radio-television-film) asked how the
legislation originated and why it was considered necessary. She
also said that she believed the definition of “significant
policy violation” was extremely broad. Professor Staiger
said the discussions that led to the proposal originated from
several faculty grievance cases.
The secretary said he agreed with Professor Stover about the
definition of “significant policy violation.” He
believed the statement should indicate that most disputes should
be settled informally, with the process in the proposal being
used only in extreme circumstances. Professor Staiger said she
did not really disagree with that, but the committee believed
that the proposal as written was appropriate. The secretary pursued
the point, and Professor Friedman said the
|| committee was trying “to build a set of procedures
that would give the individual who has been charged
with certain professional violations a clear path for
appeal and would also protect the institution’s
rights to discipline where appropriate without looking
arbitrary or whimsical.”
Professor Archie Holmes (electrical and computer engineering)
said he believed the circumstances under which the procedure
in the proposal would be invoked should be stated very clearly.
He believed the proposal in its current form could put an undue
burden on faculty members selected to serve on grievance panels.
Professor Staiger said she did not share that concern.
The Council then approved the proposal by voice vote with none
voting against; there was no call for abstentions. 1
|| Narrative Report and General Recommendations from
the Task Force on Assembly and Expression, The University
of Texas at Austin (D
Professor Laycock (law), chair of the task force, led the Council
through the highlights of the report. He said the major changes
were relatively few; the report was mostly devoted to clarification
and organization. The task force believed that the rules should
be stated clearly and succinctly, and, to the extent possible,
they should be available in one place.
He said the recommendations would eliminate many of the current
advance permission requirements, and would emphasize areas for
amplified sound as opposed to free speech zones. The number of
areas for amplified sound would increase from three to eight
under the recommendations; each area would in some way be an
experiment, and the list might need revision if, for example,
an area leads to disruption of work in offices or classrooms.
He spoke at some length on rules regarding harassment and first
amendment rights, as they currently exist and as they would be
influenced by the recommendations.
Student Representative Rusty Ince (Senate of College Councils)
asked about rules relating to student Web sites, and Professor
Laycock said the report did not address that issue. In response
to a comment from Professor Bruce Palka (mathematics), Professor
Laycock said the report did not address teaching and research,
and that otherwise students, faculty, and staff were treated
essentially equally. Professor Linda Reichl (physics) asked about
outside reporters, and the answer was that there are no rules
limiting those who come to observe but not speak. Professor David
Spence (MSIS) asked why the task force rejected the idea of regulating
the time, place, and manner of rallies, since some were likely
to be disruptive. Professor Laycock said there would be a constitutional
problem with trying to limit activity just because it was likely
to be unpopular.
Professor Alan Cline (computer sciences) asked about recruiting
on the campus. After the meeting, Professor Laycock provided
a statement (quoted here in part) regarding his comments in the
meeting: “The question was, can an individual faculty member
or a student organization invite IBM on campus to recruit potential
employees from among our students. This would not be a prohibited
solicitation, because IBM would not be offering anything for
sale or lease. I said it would be a prohibited co-sponsorship,
because IBM would be controlling the event. The department could
co-sponsor, but an individual faculty member could not. That
is the existing Regents' Rule, and we have not proposed to change
it. The possibility I overlooked is that an IBM representative
could be a guest speaker. A department, or a student or faculty
organization, could invite a guest speaker. An individual faculty
member could not. But it takes only three people to form a student
or faculty organization. I think that an IBM rep giving a presentation
to an assembled group would be a wholly legitimate guest speaker.
He could not offer goods or services for sale or lease (solicitation),
but he could promote IBM as a good place to work. An IBM
1 Changed January 22, 2003
|| rep interviewing students one at a time would in
my view not be a guest speaker. The existing rules assume
that the meaning of guest speaker is self-evident.” President
Faulkner thanked the task force for its work and said
the report “was done in great detail and with
a very high level of thought.” He said how to
deal with the recommendations in the report would be
decided after December 1, a tentative deadline for public
comment. Chair Granof encouraged members to send questions
and comments to Professor Laycock, who offered to help
members draft amendments to the report for consideration
by the Council or the administration.
|| ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENTS — None.
|| QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR — None.
|| The meeting adjourned at 3:36 P.M.