View in portable document format.

2390 DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY Following are the minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting of November 18, 2002. <signed> John R. Durbin, Secretary The General Faculty MINUTES OF THE REGULAR FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING OF 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. ATTENDANCE. 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. Yates (excused). Voting Members: 48 present, 26 absent, 74 total. Non-Voting Members: 7 present, 27 absent, 34 total. Total Members: 55 present, 53 absent, 108 total. 2391 I. REPORT OF THE SECRETARY. There were no questions about the written report (D 2195-2198). II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. A. Minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting of October 21, 2002 (D 2199-2202) were approved by voice vote. III. COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT. None. IV. REPORT OF THE CHAIR. None. V. 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. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS — None. VII. REPORTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY, COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS, AND COMMITTEES — None. VIII. NEW BUSINESS. A. Procedures for The University of Texas at Austin Administrative Investigations of Policy Violations Alleged Against Faculty Members (D 2360-2362). 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 2392     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 B. Narrative Report and General Recommendations from the Task Force on Assembly and Expression, The University of Texas at Austin (D 2203-2359). 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 2393     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.   IX. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENTS — None. X. QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR — None. XI. ADJOURNMENT.   The meeting adjourned at 3:36 P.M.