DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
February 16, 2004
||COMMENTS — None.
||MEMORIAL RESOLUTION COMMITTEES APPOINTED BY THE
On December 8, 2003, President Faulkner appointed
the following committee to prepare a memorial resolution for
Paul David Gottlieb, professor, biological
sciences: Karen J. Artzt (chair), Ian J. Molineux, and Jaquelin
On January 30, 2004, President Faulkner appointed the following
committee to prepare a memorial resolution for Karl
K. Klein, professor emeritus, kinesiology and health
education: Charles Craven (chair), Roger P. Farrar, Rosemary
Slacks, and Waneen Spirduso.
On February 2, 2004, President Faulkner appointed the following
committee to prepare a memorial resolution for Chester
L. Chiles, professor emeritus, social work: Michael
L. Lauderdale (chair), Diana M. DiNitto, and Jim Schwab.
On February 9, 2004, President Faulkner appointed the following
committee to prepare a memorial resolution for Willis
A. Adcock, professor emeritus, electrical and computer
engineering: Sanjay K. Banerjee (chair), David F. Beer, and
Earl E. Swartzlander.
|| MEMORIAL RESOLUTIONS COMPLETED —
||CHANGES IN MEMBERSHIP OF THE FACULTY COUNCIL
||STATUS OF LEGISLATION APPROVED BY THE FACULTY COUNCIL OR
THE GENERAL FACULTY. |
||ITEMS COMPLETED SINCE THE LAST REPORT.
||Revision of Proposed Procedures
for The University of Texas at Austin Administrative
Investigations of Policy Violations Alleged Against
Faculty Members. Posted on the Faculty Council
Web site on April 30, 2003. Approved by the Faculty
Council at its meeting on May 5, 2003. The revision
resulted from discussions between the administration
and the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom
and Responsibility chair. Transmitted to the provost
on May 7, 2003. Transmitted to the president through
the provost in November 2003. (See D
2360-2362.) Disapproved by the president on
February 4, 2004., with the following comments:
proposed procedures are problematic in several
||The scope of the proposed policy is too
broad as written. In the second paragraph,
for example, “significant policy violations”
are defined as
“That appears to meet the intent of the
||…ones in which the property rights
of a faculty member might be taken away
or ones in which other disciplining would
occur to which the faculty member objects.
“Such an open-ended
definition could apply to almost any action
||The proposal calls for a hearing by a
faculty panel prior to disciplinary action.
This policy is unnecessarily cumbersome.
In addition, it is inadequate for circumstances
where there is an urgent need to act, such
as in the cases where another member of
the community is physically threatened or
students are not being taught. There is
not always time to carry out the prior consultation
envisioned here. The current policy allows
for necessary discipline to take place in
a timely manner, but also defines specific
procedures for the grievance of any action
||The proposal disregards the legitimate
academic structure of the University. The
normal recourse of a faculty member who
objects to an action taken at one level
(e.g., by a department chair) is to appeal
to the next level (e.g., the dean). For
many reasons, it is not in the interest
of the University community to set aside
such recourse and to channel all disputes
into a centralized process separate from
academic structure. No grievance should
be heard in any process like that contemplated
here until an appeal has been heard and
acted upon by the officer next in line who
has not participated in the action.
||The proposal implies a legalistic and
adversarial relationship between administration
and faculty. This undermines a collegial
approach, promoting instead adversarial
and protracted proceedings.
||The President should resolve any disagreement
about costs of discovery. The President
acts as the ultimate judge in these matters
and it is a judge’s responsibility
to set procedural conditions.
||Provision 12, relating to the presence
of observers in proceedings is unnecessary.
According to the current Handbook of Operating
Procedures (Section 3.18, Subsection V.B):
“All parties, at any level
of the grievance procedure, may be represented
or accompanied by a reasonable number of
personally chosen individuals, including
|| ITEMS UNDER REVIEW BY THE BOARD OF REGENTS —
||ITEMS UNDER REVIEW BY THE TEXAS HIGHER EDUCATION COORDINATING
||Proposal to Create a Bachelor of Science
Degree in Interdisciplinary Mathematics and Science,
||Middle Grades Teaching in the College
of Natural Sciences Chapter of The Undergraduate
Catalog, 2000-2002. Posted on the
Faculty Council Web site on February 21, 2001.
Approved by the Faculty Council on a no-protest
basis on March 9, 2001. Transmitted to the president
through the provost on March 12, 2001. Transmitted
to the executive vice chancellor for academic
affairs on June 11, 2001. Approved by the executive
vice chancellor and transmitted to the Texas Higher
Education Coordinating Board on November 30, 2001.
Disapproved on December 18, 2001, by the Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board because it
did not meet Coordinating Board requirements.
Notice of non-approval was received in the Office
of the General Faculty on January 15, 2003. A
copy of the letter with reasons for disapproval
is on file in the Office of the General Faculty.
On February 10, 2003, notice was received from
the College of Natural Sciences that the Coordinating
Board was reconsidering its disapproval. On the
Board's Web site, the proposal is listed as
||ITEMS UNDER REVIEW BY THE OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR
||ITEMS UNDER REVIEW BY THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT.
Changes in Policies Concerning Grades
Awarded with Credit by Examination.
Posted on the Faculty Council Web site on October
29, 1999. Approved by the Faculty Council on
November 15, 1999. Transmitted to the president
on November 16, 1999. Comment by the provost
on November 10, 2000: "The Office of the
Executive Vice President and Provost continues
to explore various options. A final decision
has not yet been reached." In a letter
dated October 12, 2001, President Faulkner made
the following comments:
" A close reading of our current credit
by examination policies, as well as the proposal,
raises several concerns.
"In supporting the removal of letter grades
earned in credit by examination from the UT
Austin grade-point average, the proposal itself
comments that credit by examination does not
reflect a student's performance in coursework
at UT Austin. Beyond that issue is a question
about inconsistency between the way in which
a final grade is normally determined in coursework
at UT Austin and the way in which the grade
is determined in credit by examination. In coursework,
the final grade is almost always the result
of multiple factors (tests, papers, attendance,
participation, etc.). In credit by examination,
the grade is the result of a single test.
"These and other issues still need to be
considered as regards the granting of credit by
examination. I am asking the Executive Vice President
and Provost to appoint a special committee to
address the issues and prepare a report. I will
hold the current proposal (Documents of the General
Faculty 77-81), pending the report of that committee."
In a memorandum dated August 19, 2002, the
provost made the following comments:
"Rather than convene a new committee,
a decision was made to refer this issue to the
Educational Policy Committee. Professor Robert
Duke, as chair of the Committee, was asked to
draft a proposal for consideration by the President
and Provost. The draft proposal is to be ready
for review in September 2002."
The committee returned the proposal to the president
and provost without change.
||ITEMS REFERRED BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE PROVOST FOR
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION.
||Recommendation for Change in the Residency
Requirements in The UT Austin Undergraduate
Catalog. Posted on the Faculty Council
Web site on March 4, 2003. Approved by the Faculty
Council on March 17, 2003. Transmitted to the
president through the provost on March 18, 2003.
||Proposed Changes in the Requirements
for the Bachelor of Science in Interdisciplinary
Science. Posted on the Faculty Council
Web site on a no-protest basis on May 7, 2003.
Approved by the Faculty Council on a no-protest
basis on May 16, 2003. Transmitted to the president
through the provost on May 20, 2003.
|| Proposed Changes in the Requirements
for Graduation with Special Honors in Art History
in the College of Fine Arts Chapter of The
Undergraduate Catalog, 2004-2006. Posted
on the Faculty Council Web site on January 15,
2004. Approved by the Faculty Council on a no-protest
basis on January 23, 2004. Transmitted to the
provost on January 28, 2004.
||LEGISLATION UNDER REVIEW BY THE GENERAL FACULTY
|| LEGISLATION UNDER REVIEW BY THE FACULTY COUNCIL.
||Summer Freshman Class Calendar (SFC).
Posted on the Faculty Council Web site on February 11,
2004. To be presented to the Faculty Council for discussion
at its meeting on February 16, 2004.
||Report on Fall Break. Posted on the
Faculty Council Web site on February 11, 2004. To be
presented to the Faculty Council for discussion at its
meeting on February 16, 2004.
||Educational Policy Committee Proposal for
Change in the University Honors Criteria. Posted
on the Faculty Council Web site on February 11, 2004.
To be presented to the Faculty Council for action at
its meeting on February 16, 2004.
||STATUS OF LEGISLATION NOT APPROVED BY THE FACULTY
COUNCIL OR THE GENERAL FACULTY.
||ITEMS DISAPPROVED, TABLED, OR WITHDRAWN — None.
||ITEMS UNDER REVIEW BY STANDING COMMITTEES —
||Recommendation for a Change in Regents'
Rules Concerning Suspension of a Faculty Member
with Pay. Approved by the Faculty Council
at its meeting on December 8, 1997, and transmitted
to the president on December 9, 1997. Transmitted
to the chancellor by the president on January
20, 1999, with these comments: "This legislation
was discussed among my office, the Office of the
Provost, and members of the Faculty Council Executive
Committee. It puts into the Regents' Rules what
has been the practice at The University of Texas
at Austin. Confidential consultation with a faculty
committee regarding a possible suspension is guaranteed,
but the final determination is made by the president.
This process has worked well on our campus. I
recommend your favorable consideration of the
proposed change.” On July 31, 2003, President
Faulkner wrote to then chair of the Faculty Council
Michael Granof, with comments based on an opinion
written by W. O. Schultz (general attorney and
associate general counsel of the University System)
on February 3, 2003. The president wrote as follows:
“His opinion is that the proposed amendment
to the Regents’ Rules and Regulations is
not necessary and that the current provisions
do not prevent the President from consulting with
the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and
Responsibility. They, of course, do not mandate
the consultation. He suggests that if The University
of Texas at Austin desires to have the President
seek the advice of the Committee of Counsel on
Academic Freedom and Responsibility in the situation
of a faculty member with pay, then an amendment
to our Handbook of Operating Procedures would
be sufficient. His comments seem sensible, particularly
since an amendment to the Regents’ Rules
and Regulations would affect all the UT System
it seems to me the best course of action is to
share W. O.’s comments with the Executive
Committee of the Faculty Council and ask them
to decide whether or not they wish to revisit
this issue and propose an amendment to UT-Austin’s
Handbook of Operating Procedures.”
Referred by Council Chair Marvin Hackert to the
Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility
on October 9, 2003.
||ITEMS UNDER REVIEW BY OTHER COMMITTEES — None.
||SPECIAL COMMITTEES APPOINTED — None.
Sue A. Greninger, Secretary
The Faculty Council
Posted on the Faculty
Council Web site on February 12, 2004. Paper copies are available
on request from the Office of the General Faculty, FAC 22, F9500.