DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
Following are the minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting
of January 24, 2005.
Sue Alexander Greninger, Secretary
The General Faculty
OF THE REGULAR FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING OF
January 24, 2005
The fourth regular meeting of the Faculty Council for the academic year 2004-2005 was held in the Main Building, Room 212, Monday, January 24, 2005, at 2:15 p.m.
Present: Lawrence D. Abraham,
Jacqueline L. Angel, Peter R. Antoniewicz, Efraim P. Armendariz, Matthew
J. Bailey, Gerard H. Béhague, Pascale R. Bos, Patrick L. Brockett,
Cynthia J. Buckley, Douglas C. Burger, Miles L. Crismon, Janet M. Davis,
John D. Dollard, Sheldon Ekland-Olson, Lester L. Faigley, Larry R.
Faulkner, Richard R. Flores, Jeanne H. Freeland-Graves, Wolfgang Frey,
John C. (Jack) Gilbert, William P. Glade, Linda L. Golden, Michael
H. Granof, Sue A. Greninger,* Marvin L. Hackert,* John J. Hasenbein, Susan S. Heinzelman,
James L. Hill, Neville Hoad, Archie L. Holmes, James O. Jirsa, Joni
L. Jones, Desiderio Kovar, Dominic L. Lasorsa, Desmond F. Lawler, Noah
S. Lowenstein, Erik D. Malmberg, Glenn Y. Masada, Kate Nanney, Paul
A. Navratil, Dean P. Neikirk, Edward W. (Ted) Odell, Patricia C. Ohlendorf,
Alba A. Ortiz, Irene Owens, Thomas G. Palaima, Bruce P. Palka, Linda
E. Reichl, Elizabeth Richmond-Garza, John J. Ruszkiewicz, M. Michael
Sharlot, Patrick N. Staha, Janet Staiger, Michael B. Stoff, Pauline
T. Strong, James W. Vick, N. Bruce Walker, Karin G. Wilkins.
Absent: Ricardo C. Ainslie, Dean J. Almy,
Patricia C. Avant (excused), Hans C. Boas, Teresa Graham Brett (excused),
Brent Chaney, Patricia L. Clubb, James W. Deitrick, Andrew P. Dillon,
James L. Erskine, Kenneth Flamm, Maria Franklin (excused), Robert Freeman,
Alan W. Friedman (excused), Thomas J. Garza (excused), George W. Gau,
Philip A. Guerrero, Donald A.
Hale, Roderick P. Hart, Thomas M. Hatfield, Fred M. Heath, Kevin P.
Hegarty, Martha F. Hilley (excused), Bobby R. Inman, Manuel J. Justiz
(excused), Martin W. Kevorkian, Robert D. King, Robert C. Koons, Nancy
P. Kwallek, Richard W. Lariviere, Steven W. Leslie, William S. Livingston,
Daniell J. MacDonald, Rachel C. McGinity, Marcus G. Pandy, Anthony
J. Petrosino, Theodore E. Pfeifer, William C. Powers, Mary Ann R. Rankin,
Victoria Rodriguez, Juan M. Sanchez, Dolores Sands, David W. Springer
(excused), Frederick R. Steiner, Ben G. Streetman, Daniel A. Updegrove,
Angela Valenzuela, Gwendolyn Webb-Johnson, Alexandria K. Wettlaufer
(excused), Barbara W. White, Paul B. Woodruff (excused).
* Attendance record corrected February 21, 2005.
||REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.
The written report appears in D 3687-3689. There were no questions or
||APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
The minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting of November 15, 2004
(D 3698-3709) were approved by voice vote.
|| COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.
||Comments by the President.
President Larry Faulkner welcomed Council members to the first
meeting of 2005 and expressed his wishes for a successful year.
He said it was impossible to know how higher education would fare
in the legislative session, but he was somewhat optimistic given
that the state was in relatively positive financial shape compared
to two years ago. He said higher education was a lower profile
item this session in comparison to public school finance reform
and other issues. Regarding the deregulated tuition environment,
he said he thought the University’s process involving the
Tuition Advisory Committee was working well. The committee had
recommended that a flat rate tuition and fee plan be adopted for
all undergraduate degree programs throughout the University given
the success experienced with this plan in the Colleges of Liberal
Arts and Natural Sciences over the past few years. He said his
recommendations to Chancellor Yudof included universal adoption
of the flat rate concept at UT Austin and a proposed 4.75% rate
increase; he expects the chancellor’s recommendations to
be presented to the Board of Regents for action at its March meeting.
Regarding the Jackson School of Geosciences, President Faulkner
said the committee established to develop a charter governance
document for the new unit had reported; its recommendations had
been reviewed by the administrative officers of the Jackson School
and referred to the school’s faculty at large. He said he
expected the recommendations to be presented to the Faculty Council
during the middle of the spring 2005 semester. President Faulkner
also reported that the ad hoc committee chaired by Dean Powers
to review the University’s core curriculum had met once.
He said he had asked the committee to make its recommendations
to him by the end of October.
||Question to the President.
Question: At the Experienced Faculty Colloquium, there was a session
entitled "Accreditation is Coming: Proving Your Students are
Learning." During the discussion, Neal Armstrong, vice provost
for faculty affairs, noted that the SACS accreditation for UT is
to take place in 2008. Given that this is coming in the near future,
we are interested in learning more about who will be in charge
of the accreditation process and what input faculty and students
will have in the overall process — Archie Holmes (associate
professor, electrical and computer engineering) and Dean Neikirk
(professor, electrical and computer engineering).
President Faulkner said the University’s leadership team
for accreditation renewal by the Southern Association of Colleges
and Schools (SACS) would be composed of himself, Provost Sheldon
Ekland-Olson, and Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Neal Armstrong.
Vice Provost Armstrong will serve as the accreditation liaison
and will coordinate the process. Committees comprised of faculty,
student, and staff representatives will be appointed by mid-2006
to address institutional and academic program review for accreditation
and the quality enhancement plan. Details about the process provided
by Vice Provost Armstrong are attached in Appendix
Provost Ekland-Olson said UT representatives had met with SACS representatives
in Atlanta. He said the accreditation renewal process would need
the participation of many individuals and requests for help would
be forthcoming. President Faulkner agreed, saying the ten-year renewal
cycle required a couple of years of lead time for preparation of
a self study that includes data
|| collection and development of a self-improvement plan. Provost Ekland-Olson
said there was a shift in emphasis toward measuring student outcomes.
He said the University was positioned reasonably well to report on
its writing and math program outcomes, but there would be a need to
discuss and develop measures in other areas. President Faulkner commented
that the process had moved away from its large list of “must” or
set criteria toward a more continuous improvement mode that would involve
a different style of review. He said that UT Austin was one of the
strongest institutions in the association and that he was confident
accreditation renewal would be successful even though it would involve
a good deal of work.
||REPORT OF THE CHAIR.
||Comments on the Task Force on Curriculum Reform.
Chair Linda Reichl (physics) thanked Council members for the 120-130
recommendations they had submitted nominating faculty members for
service on the task force regarding core curriculum reform. She
reported that the following Council members had been appointed:
Larry Abraham (curriculum and instruction; kinesiology and health
education), Archie Holmes (electrical and computer engineering),
Paul Woodruff (philosophy and Plan II), and Desmond Lawler (civil
||Update on the grievance process.
Chair Reichl reported that Professor
Stanley Roux, the Faculty Ombudsperson, had been working with twenty
faculty members. Although no new grievances have been filed, Professor
Roux said that he expected some would be. When asked for a progress
report by Chair Reichl, Professor Sue Heinzelman, chair of the Faculty
Grievance Committee, said the committee was still working on the
language for the proposed legislation regarding discovery of evidence
for grievance cases and disciplining of faculty. Professor Heinzelman
said she was optimistic that this legislation could be brought back
to the Council for the February meeting.
||REPORT OF THE CHAIR ELECT.
||Report on Joint Meeting of the UT Faculty Council and Texas
A&M Faculty Senate, Monday, March 28, 2005.
Chair Elect Alba Ortiz (special
education) reminded members that the Faculty Council is hosting
the joint meeting on March 28 from 11:30-4:00 at the UT Alumni
Center. She said the program this year would include a legislative
update, an overview report from the Texas Accountability System
for Public Institutions of Higher Education, and comments from
the presidents and provosts of the two institutions. Concurrent
sessions will be held on the following two topics: (1) faculty
grievance policies and procedures and (2) funding, fostering, and
managing interdisciplinary research. She said Council members would
be asked to indicate whether or not they planned to attend.
||Motion to change the title and function of the Responsibilities,
Rights, and Welfare of Teaching Assistants and Assistant Instructors
Committee (D 3690) — David Bogard, (professor, mechanical
engineering and committee chair).
Bogard reported there had been a slight modification to the proposed
title for the committee since the legislation was proposed in November
based on input from the Graduate Assembly. He moved adoption of the
change in name from its current name, Committee of Responsibilities,
Rights, and Welfare of Teaching Assistants and Assistant Instructors,
to the proposed new name, Committee on the Responsibilities, Rights,
and Welfare of Graduate Student Academic Employees, to expand the
committee’s oversight to include graduate research assistants
||(GRAs). Chair Reichl clarified that the proposed motion also broadened
the charge or function of the committee as follows: “to advise
the Faculty Council and the president on matters pertaining to the
responsibilities, rights, and welfare of graduate student employees.”
When asked by Professor Staiger (radio-television-film) why the
word “academic” had been added, Professor Bogard said
Dean Kahn had pointed out the word was needed to differentiate graduate
academic employees from graduate staff employees. Professor Larry
Abraham asked if the committee’s composition would require
that one of the three graduate student representatives be a GRA.
Professor Bogard said the committee felt this would be a good idea
but that a wording change was not required; he thought the wording
would be interpreted that student representation should include a
GRA along with a teaching assistant and an assistant instructor.
Paul Navratil (Graduate Student Assembly, doctoral student in computer
science) reported that the Graduate Student Assembly favored the
proposed change and thought the broadened scope of the committee
was appropriate. Chair Reich then called for the vote, saying that
two-thirds of those voting on the motion would be required for passage.
The proposal received unanimous approval by a show of hands of the
forty-five Council members who voted.
||REPORTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY, COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS, AND COMMITTEES.
||Report on the administrative structure of the Office of the
Provost — Sheldon Ekland-Olson (executive vice president
Provost Ekland-Olson reported the administrative structural changes
undertaken by his office reflected his and President Faulkner’s
interests in strengthening the position of the provost’s
office in terms of its role as chief academic officer and chief
operating officer. A summary of the PowerPoint slides presented
by the provost is attached as Appendix B.
Provost Ekland-Olson said Executive Vice Provost Steve Monti is
responsible for fiscal and facilities planning. The new vice provost
and dean of graduate studies position, now held by Dr. Victoria
Rodriquez, is the same as that formally held by the vice president
for graduate studies, but it now reports to the provost instead
of the president. The redefinition of the portfolio for the vice
provost for faculty affairs, now held by Dr. Neal Armstrong, is
designed to welcome, inform, and support faculty in an effort to
enhance the overall attractiveness of UT Austin as a place to work.
The new vice provost and director of libraries position, held by
Dr. Fred Heath, is a redefinition of the former director of libraries
position. The new vice provost for admissions is also a redefinition
of the former director of admissions position, with Dr. Bruce Walker
now reporting to the provost.
The vice provost for undergraduate studies, Dr. Lucia Gilbert,
is responsible for a focus on interdisciplinary studies and has
implemented the new Connexus program. The Bridging Disciplines
Program now allows students to focus on interdisciplinary concentrations,
by utilizing existing University resources. Provost Ekland-Olson
complimented Dr. Gilbert on the success of the Longhorn Scholars
Program, which he described as an honors program supporting students
from the Longhorn opportunity schools. He said the program was
very strong and had gained national attention as a model program.
He also mentioned the increased involvement of students in undergraduate
research through the EUREKA program directed by Dr. Gilbert. EUREKA
stands for Enhancing Undergraduate Research Experience, Knowledge,
Provost Ekland-Olson said that the establishment of the new Division
of Instructional Innovation and Assessment, directed by Associate
Vice President Judy Ashcroft, was initially driven by concerns
regarding distance education. The result was a decision to combine
the Center for Teaching Effectiveness, Center for Instructional
Technologies, and the Measurement and Evaluation Center into one
division in order to achieve improved coordination of activities.
||Report on the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA) (D
3691-3693) — Michael Granof (professor, accounting).
Professor Michael Granof said the Coalition On Intercollegiate Athletics
(COIA) was started in 2002 as a faculty effort to promote reform
in intercollegiate athletics, and UT Austin joined the coalition
shortly after its inception. There are currently forty members, all
from Division 1-A schools. Professor Granof is one of twelve members
on the group’s steering committee. There have been four meetings
of the coalition that included representatives of the NCAA, athletic
directors, and Association of Governing Boards representing regents
and trustees of universities.
Professor Granof said the coalition has approved a set of recommendations
pertaining to faculty governance and has another set regarding academic
integrity out for faculty review. These documents provide “best
practices” recommendations, but universities are under no compulsion
to adopt them. He said the primary theme is that day-to-day administration
of athletics is the responsibility of university athletic directors
and ultimate authority resides with the presidents of institutions.
The approved governing document deals with the need for the establishment
of independent campus athletic boards or councils and recommendations
regarding their formation. He said the most controversial recommendation
is that these faculty councils certify in writing to the NCAA that
they have received reports from the athletics councils on the status
of campus athletics.
Professor Granof said the academic integrity document currently
under review makes the following recommendations:
- faculty council review of admissions process and criteria for
- standards presuming scholarship renewal for athletes for a
period of five years or until graduation, with scholarships only
being revocable by the institution’s chief academic officer
- faculty council review of the academic performance of athletes
by course section
- change in NCAA bylaws eliminating divided competitive seasons
(fall and spring)
- academic athletic counseling offices reporting to the chief
academic officer rather than the athletic director or coach
Professor Granof reported that many of the recommendations of
the coalition were consistent with current practices at UT Austin,
but others were not. He asked Council members to review the documents
and proposed that the UT athletics councils review and compare
the recommendations on a point-by-point basis with current UT practice.
He said he did not think a formal Faculty Council resolution was
needed since he had talked with Professors Fowler and Ferria-Buckley,
who chair the respective councils here at UT, and they had both
agreed this needed to be done.
Professor Granof said the coalition is moving on to the tougher
issues of excessive cost and commercialization. He said coalition
members were pleased that Miles Brand, head of the NCAA, was in
the process of appointing a task force to address these issues.
He said coalition members see their role as encouraging university
presidents to support academic values and collectively implement
measures to “stop the athletics arms race.” However,
he said coalition members were “political realists” regarding
the pressures from alumni and trustees for victorious and profitable
athletic endeavors. Chair Reichl thanked Professor Granof for the
report and said she thought reports from the UT athletics councils
regarding the coalition recommendations would be forthcoming in
during the fall of 2005.
||Report on the charge and composition of currently existing campus-wide
committees devoted to information technology issues — Dan Updegrove
(vice president for information technology services).
Chair Reichl reported that Vice President Dan Updegrove was ill and
unable present his report, but she said she would invite him to a future
meeting. She said her research indicated that
||committees dealing with information technology all reported to
administrators, with no committee reporting to the Faculty Council
on this topic.
|| NEW BUSINESS.
||Motion to consider adding a new Standing Committee of the General
Faculty devoted to information technology issues (D
3694) — Desiderio
Kovar (associate professor, mechanical engineering).
Professor Desiderio Kovar moved
that the Faculty Council consider creating a new Standing Committee
of the General Faculty devoted to information technology. The motion
was seconded. Professor Kovar said he thought information technology
was so universally important in teaching and research that oversight
by a standing committee was appropriate.
When Professor Janet Staiger asked
the name of the committee for which faculty had been solicited
for nominations in the past, Professor Abraham responded he thought
the Committee on Committees had made the request regarding the
information technology committee during the past year or two. Professor
Kovar said his research of Web documents indicated there had been
a total of six committees dealing with information technology,
but the postings were not current and faculty representation was
not evident. When Professor Jack Gilbert (chemistry and biochemistry)
asked what a “yes” vote on this proposal indicated,
Chair Reichl said the proposal would be referred to the Committee
on Committees if the motion passed. When Professor Desmond Lawler
(civil engineering) asked if Chair Reichl knew what Vice President
Updegrove thought about the proposal, Chair Reichl responded she
did not but would invite him to make his presentation at the next
Council meeting. She said her own research had found nothing current
on the Web about existing committees. President Faulkner said he
did not think there was a mechanism that provided an interface
between faculty members and the information technology structure
on campus. He said he thought it was likely to be a good idea to
create such a committee, and a positive vote on the motion seemed
reasonable to him. He said that other review activities would take
place this spring regarding information technology and that involvement
of the Committee on Committees in the process was reasonable. When
Chair Reichl asked if someone wanted to amend the wording of the
motion to say “refer to the Committee on Committee” or
if the Council would just trust her to take care of that, there
was no amendment offered. She then called for a voice vote, the
motion passed, and she said she would refer the recommendation
to the Committee on Committees.
||Motion by the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility
to create an ad hoc University committee to study the issues around
and implications of changes in Course Instructor Survey ownership
(D 3695-3697) — Linda Golden (professor, marketing administration
and committee chair).
Professor Golden moved that an
ad hoc University committee be established to study the issues
around and implications of changes in Course Instructor Survey
ownership. The motion was seconded. Professor Golden then said
her committee had discussed on two occasions the implications of
the change in policy regarding university ownership of the Course
Instructor Survey for both faculty members and the University.
From these discussions, she said the committee had identified storage,
access and use, and protection of anonymity for students as major
issues and decided that an ad hoc university committee was needed
to more fully explore these issues and make recommendations. When
Professor Holmes asked why the recommendation was for an ad hoc
committee instead of a standing committee, Professor Golden said
that her committee had been charged to look into the implications
and issues of this specific change in policy. She said she could
envision a standing committee in the future with a broader charge,
but she thought an ad hoc committee was a better choice for the
specific charge issued in this situation. There being no further
questions or comments, Chair Reichl called for a voice vote. The
motion passed with only one no vote. Chair Reichl then requested
that Council members recommend names of faculty members they thought
would be good choices for service on this ad hoc committee.
||Recommendation by the Committee on Committees to amend the Faculty
Council rule governing eligibility for reappointment to standing
committees (Appendix C) —Larry Abraham (committee chair).
Chair Reichl then reported that the Professor Larry Abraham, chair
of the Committee on Committees, wanted to present a recommended change
in the bylaws regarding term limits for committee service. She said
the change required notice and would be acted upon at the February
Professor Abraham explained that differing term lengths had caused
confusion regarding eligibility for reappointment. He said that the
purpose of the proposed change was to make individuals who had served
terms equaling four or more years ineligible for reappointment to
a committee. Professor Staiger (radio, television, film) asked how
the change would impact the case where an individual had been elected
for two years, then appointed for one year by the Faculty Council,
and then elected again for another two-year term to the same committee.
Professor Abraham said that would be a case where the individual
would actually serve for five years but not be eligible after that
||ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENTS.
|| Request for General Faculty Standing Committee nominations – January
31 through February 18.
|| Nomination phase of the electronic elections of the General Faculty
to the Faculty Council – March 1 through March 11.
||UT Faculty Council and Texas A&M Faculty Senate – March
28, 2005, UT Alumni Center.
|| Final election phase of the General Faculty to the Faculty Council – March
29 through April 8.
|| Tentative move date for the Office of the General Faculty and
Faculty Council from FAC 22 to WMB 2.102 – April 11through
||QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR — None.
Adjourned at 3:30 p.m.
Distributed through the Faculty Council Web site (www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/)
on February 18, 2005. Copies are available on request from the Office of the
General Faculty, FAC 22, F9500.
Response to Question to the President
Neal Armstrong, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs
Faculty Council Meeting
January 24, 2005
The University of Texas at Austin is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), the regional accrediting organization for eleven states in the southeastern United States, including Texas. Reaffirmation of accreditation is on a ten-year schedule, and the University was last reaccredited in 1998 Thus, the University is planning for a spring 2008 reaccreditation visit with submittal of our Certification of Compliance document in August 2007 and our Quality Enhancement Plan later that year.
It should be noted that SACS has changed its accreditation criteria and process since our last review. For those involved in the last accreditation, you will be pleased to know that the new process is much less prescriptive and the list of requirements and standards much shorter and far more broadly stated than the former "must" statements. Also, the requirements for demonstrating compliance are far more flexible than was the case in the former process, and the University has a greater responsibility to demonstrate that it are in compliance. This does not necessarily mean that it will take any less effort, but the University, particularly the undergraduate and graduate academic programs, will benefit long-term more from the new process than the old.
The University’s leadership team will be made up of the President, Provost Sheldon Ekland-Olson, and SACS Accreditation Liaison, Neal Armstrong, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs. Representatives from across campus will be selected to serve on committees dealing with institutional and academic program review and accreditation and the Quality Enhancement Plan. These committees will be named by mid 2006. Dr. Armstrong, as Accreditation Liaison, will have a major role in leading the review process.
While some faculty will be asked to serve on the committees, their primary role has been and will continue to be in program assessment in accordance with the February 23, 2000, policy from Provost Ekland-Olson to the deans, namely:
The faculty in all departments will identify assessment
outcomes for their academic programs and, based on these criteria, carry out
the systematic review of their academic programs on a regular basis, in five
to six year intervals. Programs will be revised consistent with this review and
assessment. This systematic review and assessment will be carried out by the
appropriate curriculum committee and governance structure in each department.
It will include outcomes assessments based on a mixture of feedback from current
students, alumni, prospective employers, accreditation committees, visiting committees
and scholars, and advisory councils as deemed appropriate. On the basis of these
assessments, as well as their own professional sense of their disciplines, the
faculty will determine how well programs meet the evolving scholarly demands
of their disciplines and the shifting nature of the marketplace students will
enter. Program changes will be made as appropriate. The University will monitor
this systematic departmental review and assessment through the Compact and Performance
Based Instructional System (PBIS) procedures.
(Posted at http://www.utexas.edu/provost/planning/assessment/program/index.html
Students have an important role in outcomes-based assessment as they along with faculty and others are academic program stakeholders. They are involved in the assessment process as well as in the setting of program educational objectives and program outcomes.
The final determination of reaffirmation will be announced at the SACS annual meeting in December 2008.
SACS guidance documents state that an accredited institution engages in constant and continual self-assessment. The self-assessment is goal oriented and outcome based. This means that the institution has identified specific goals and established measures (outcomes) by which achievement of the goals may be assessed. Reaffirmation requires that the university prepare two documents, a Certification of Compliance and a Quality Enhancement Plan.
The Certification of Compliance will document the University’s compliance with the SACS Core Requirements, Comprehensive Standards, and Federal Mandates. Compliance with the Core Requirements is compulsory, and compliance with the Federal Mandates is a prerequisite to qualify for federal programs such as the Guaranteed Student Loan Program. Non-compliance or partial compliance with a Comprehensive Standard requires a statement of how the institution or unit plans to come into full compliance.
Core Requirement 12 calls for the University to prepare a Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP). The QEP is to be focused on improving some aspect of the educational component of the institution that enhances the quality of student learning. It will represent a commitment on the part of the University to identify an area for improvement, to develop a plan to meet specific, measurable goals, and to engage in ongoing assessment of progress toward completion of the plan. The University must submit an impact report five years following the initiation of the QEP in which it demonstrates with measurable results the impact of the QEP on student learning, as defined in the plan.
The QEP will be broad-based, impacting as many units of the University as possible, including both academic and support components. Efforts will be made to engage as many stakeholder groups as possible in the selection of the plan focus and its implementation. The first task will be to devise a plan for soliciting input from such groups as students, faculty, administration, staff, alumni, and other interested individuals and groups. The QEP focus may be a currently identified planning initiative, or it may be a new emphasis that has not previously been identified. Whatever focus is finally selected, it should be capable of successful implementation within the limits of the disposable resources of the University.
More information about SACS, its criteria and expectations, and the University’s response will be available soon on the Provost’s web site.
Report to the Faculty Council
on the Administrative Structure of the Office of the Provost
Executive Vice President and Provost
January 24, 2005
Changes in Reporting Lines
- VP and Dean of Graduate Studies Reported to President
- General Libraries, HRC, Center for Amer. History, UT Press, International
Studies Reported to VP and Dean of Graduate Studies
- Director of Admissions Office Reported to VP for Student Affairs
Vice Provost Portfolios
- Units report to the Executive Vice President and Provost
Units Created and Combined
- Executive Vice Provost -- Steve Monti
- Vice Provost and Dean for Graduate Studies -- Victoria Rodriguez
- Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies -- Lucia Gilbert
- Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs -- Neal Armstrong
- Vice Provost and Director of Libraries -- Fred Heath
- Vice Provost and Director of Admissions -- Bruce Walker
- Vice Provost for Inclusion and Cross-cultural Effectiveness -- Recruiting
- Longhorn Scholars Program
- Bridging Disciplines Program
- Vice Provost Lucia Gilbert is the Director
Division of Instructional Innovation and Assessment (DIIA)
- Center for Teaching Effectiveness
- Center of Instructional Technologies
- Measurement Evaluation Center
- Associate Vice President Judy Ashcroft is the Director
RECOMMENDATION TO AMEND THE FACULTY COUNCIL RULE GOVERNING ELIGIBILITY FOR REAPPOINTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEES
January 24, 2005
Submitted by Lawrence Abraham, Chair of Committee on Committees
Chapter 1: Faculty Governance, Section III: Faculty Council
Except where otherwise provided by the Council, terms of office for faculty members of standing committees shall be two years, commencing on the first class day of the fall semester, with half the faculty membership appointed each year. Members are eligible for reappointment once and may serve a maximum of four consecutive years; after serving four consecutive years, faculty members must be off a committee for at least one year before becoming eligible to serve again on that committee.
Except where otherwise provided by the Council, terms of office for faculty members of standing committees shall be two years, commencing on the first class day of the fall semester, with half the faculty membership appointed each year. Members are eligible for reappointment; however, after serving four or more consecutive years, faculty members must be off a committee for at least one year before becoming eligible to serve again on that committee.
Typically standing committee members are appointed by the President to two-year terms of service, based on recommendations from the Committee on Committees. In a few cases longer terms (three – five years) are prescribed. In addition, each year the Chair of the Faculty Council appoints two Council members to one-year terms on each standing committee. The rule for reappointment eligibility is based on a presumption that all terms of service are for two years. The rule does not clearly address a situation in which a committee member has not yet served four consecutive years but a reappointment would extend membership beyond four years. Nor does it clearly address whether an individual appointed twice to one-year terms would be eligible to be immediately appointed to a two-year term. The proposed change clarifies eligibility in these situations.