University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council
APPROVED MINUTES: October 11-12, 2007
Ted Pate-Chair
UTHSC Houston
James Bartlett-Secretary
UT Dallas
John Sargent
UT Pan American
Danika Brown
UT Pan American
Murray Leaf
UT Dallas
Doug Hale
UT Permian Basin
James Eldridge
UT Permian Basin
Joel Dunnington
UT MD Anderson
Jim Klostergaard
UT MD Anderson
Thursday,
October 11,
2007
10:05 AM
FAC Chair
Dr. Ted Pate,
Board of
Regents
Meeting and
orientation of
new FAC
members
Dennis Reinhartz-Past
Chair
UT Arlington
Larry Ellzey
UT El Paso
Barbara Haas
UT Tyler
William Engle
UT Southwestern
Kieth Krolick
UT San Antonio
Douglas Burger
UT Austin
Amy Jaspersan
UT San Antonio
Pierre Neuenschwander
UTHSC Tyler
Bola Olusola
UTHSC Tyler
Mansour O. El-Kikhia-Chair
elect
UT San Antonio
Sandy Norman
UT San Antonio
Karen Fuss-Sommer
UT Brownsville
Marilyn Kaplan
UT Dallas
Emily Robinson
UTHSC Houston
Daniel Formanowicz
UT Arlington
Thomas Albrecht
UTMB Galveston
Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) Chair Ted Pate reviewed actions and events at
the BOR meeting of August 22-23 and entertained questions. He reported that
he met with two Regents and two legislators, as well as Chancellor Yudof and
other UT System administrators. The meeting itself included presentations on a
range of issues including phased retirement and maintenance of tenure when
going part time, as well as the Leadership Academy, currently aimed at training
department chairs.
In the subsequent discussion, it was suggested that the Executive Committees of
the Staff, Student and Faculty councils could meet once a year.
The annual orientation session covered what the FAC is, what the FAC
committees are, and the current leadership of the FAC. A Chair of each standing
subcommittee described the current subcommittee initiatives and goals, and the
FAC Secretary explained his duties and philosophy of minute-taking (involving
paraphrasing to get at the gist of discussions)..
October 11-12, 2007
1
University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council
APPROVED MINUTES: October 11-12, 2007
There followed a wider discussion of current initiatives and goals, including that
of having a Faculty Regent.
11:30 AM
Dr. Kieth
McDowell,
Executive
Vice
Chancellor of
Research and
Technology
The FAC Chair introduced Dr. McDowell (hmcdowell@utsystem.edu),
Executive Vice Chancelor of Research and Technology, who gave a Powerpointenhanced presentation on the functions of his office. The following are some of
the key points made, along with Questions (Q) and comments (C) from FAC
members, and Dr. McDowell’s answers (A). These are paraphrased and should
not be taken as direct quotes.
The office has Associate Vice Chancellors for technology transfer, and for
technology commercialization, and we are looking for an Associate Vice
Chancellor for research administration and compliance.
The office also has a RTT Council and RTT Managers’ Council, and under the
former there is a administrative/compliance working group, an environmental
and health and safety committee and a contract specialist working group. The
office also has an external advisory committee on Research and Technology
Transfer (with Michael Dell as a member) reporting directly to Dr. McDowell
Q: How have these committees improved our rate of licensing? A: The group
that has worked most on this is the Technology Managers Council, which has
been focused on best practices at the UT campuses. We want to shift the focus
more to the business side. Our achievements as a System include being first in
biotech patents and 4th in total patents issued.
Dr. McDowell then turned to discussion of major goals of his office.
1. Research collaboration initiative. There are five recommendations
involving mechanisms and incentives for collaborations. We have started some
institutes for collaborations including the nanoelectronics initiative, and a drug
delivery institute, and we want to have others. These are not institutes that
report to a the Associate Vice Chancellor. Rather, they are system institutes thar
are funded through operational dollars.
Another collaboration initiative is the Sandia National Laboratory Initiative
(handout). This will offer training opportunities for Sandia scientists, and
develop a pipeline for UT System graduates. One goal is to transform
engineering education. Current collaborations with Sandia include: (a) modeling
and simulation, (b) healthcare modeling, (c) bioengineering for biodefense and
emerging infectious disease, and (d) nano-engineering. We are interested in
speeding up these activities with Sandia, but there have been problems with
funding.
We are also working on a Texas Alliance for Nanotechnology. This is a
October 11-12, 2007
2
University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council
APPROVED MINUTES: October 11-12, 2007
government-industry-university partnership involving the UT System and the
Texas A&M System. A committee of 8 will be working on this, and the .
Intellectual Property Task Force is also involved. One need is for a business
plan.
2. Research Administration Compliance. We have an IRB (Institutional
Review Board) task force that will have 18 months to create a report. One issue
we will address is IRB “mission-creep” (where more and more activities come
under the purview of IRBs). We also are working on time and effort reporting
(one problem being that of avoiding contradictions with the payroll system),
electronic research administration (concerning government grants),
environmental health and safety, institutional biosafety, and conflicts of interest.
The IRB task force is the only one that currently active.
In discussion, several FAC members voiced complaints that time and effort
reporting does not deal with the fact that many of us work much more than 40
hours per week. Dr. McDowell pointed out that time and effort reporting is,
technically, concerned with percentages of hours worked, not total numbers of
hours worked. He also pointed out that federal agencies are very serious about
this matter, going so far to look at laboratory notebooks.
3.Technology Commercialization. Dr. McDowell reported that we are starting
regional operations and partnerships with the business community. He discussed
a model of technology transfer involving a grant getting channel and other
activities involving graduate students. He noted that in the future, universities
will be more and more involved in technology transfer and commercialization.
He also noted that we have been successful getting funding from the Texas
Emerging Technologies fund, and that we are extending the UT Arlington
faculty profile system, which serves as a gateway to campus data bases.
Q: What is the percentage of Texas-owned patents that have been licensed? Are
such data being monitored?
A: We don’t have data on this yet, but want to build a data base for this purpose.
We will have such information in a year or so.
In response to another question, dr. McDowell noted the Research
Collaborations Task Force will be examining reported barriers to collaborations,
including IRB problems, and the ability to move money back and forth between
components. In response to other questions, Mr. McDowell stated that the UT
System is 100% behind this effort, and he, personally, is entirely committed to
the problem.
The session closed with a comment from the floor that Dr. McDowell had been
hitting all that right points and that we wish him well in his efforts.
October 11-12, 2007
3
University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council
APPROVED MINUTES: October 11-12, 2007
1:10 PM
Barry McBee,
ViceChancellor for
Governmental
Relations
Mr. McBee began by noting that he would send the FAC an electronic version of
his comments, which are paraphrased below:
Reporting on the outcome of the legislative session, Mr. McBee noted that
funding for higher education rose 12%, that TRBs (tuition revenue bonds) were
fully funded, and that formula funding also was up. The HEAF was funded with
$75 million more, and there was $140 million for financial aid and $190 million
in research funding
The $220 million increase in formula funding for higher education is good news.
But the true funding level is still not close to 2003 funding levels on an inflationadjusted-per-student basis. The same is true for financial aid, and there is no
new money for be-on-time student loans. Individual campuses will have to
cover the cover these costs.
There is a new fund targeted toward rewarding campuses with $50 million in
external research funding (i.e., only UT Austin at this point). This may evolve
into an additional type of formula funding, but the future is not clear on this
point.
The governor vetoed $570 million in funding, including $190 million for higher
education (especially employee health insurance). The Legislative Budget
Board may need to deal with this, but Mr. McBee thinks this is politically tricky
because the LBB includes the Speaker and two candidates for Speaker and they
would not want a meeting where they could not control the outcome.
The governor also vetoed $37 million in special items, including three UT
System items, as well as bills that would allow two institutions in the state to
become full fledged four-year institutions.
Mr. McBee then reported that the Governmental Relations office is focused on
what happens next. The legislature is working on research funding and policies
on research in higher education, as well as strategic planning on how institutions
should develop.
Two select bodies are involved in these efforts. One is the House committee on
higher education finance. The chair of this committee wants to focus on
flagships, but also wants the legislature to pass on a new flagship before moving
in that direction. Prepaid tuition programs and health insurance also being
considered.
The second select body is a special commission on higher education and global
competitiveness which will write the next strategic plan for higher education.
There has been much discussion of relationships between institutions and localregion needs, and some believe the state needs a West Texas University System.
The commission is also considering the role of the Texas Higher Education
October 11-12, 2007
4
University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council
APPROVED MINUTES: October 11-12, 2007
Coordinating Board (THECB). One idea is to replace THECB with a kind of
super Coordinating Board that might, for example, have the power to name the
next flagship university in the state. This commission might include a prior
academic such as Dr. Larry Faulkner.
Answering a question, Mr. McBee reported that there has been some discussion
of nursing programs. The goal is to have more nursing graduates, but there is no
recognition of the best w ay to do this. For example, there is no real recognition
that programs in Texas need to meet requirements of accrediting agencies.
Thus, we cannot yet say that a solution on the way.
In response to other comments and questions, Mr. McBee reported that we
should know the identities of the new Regents by the November Board of
Regents meeting, that there have been no dramatic changes on the Formula
Funding Advisory Committee (though there has been some discussing of using
different formulas for institutions with different missions), and there are strong
feelings in the legislature that the things we request as Special Items should be
funded through the formula.
Mr. McBee also noted that the Comptroller found one and one half billion
dollars so that the state might have a large surplus. However, the consquences
of such a surplus (if it happens) are unclear as there will be pressure from
business entities to lower their tax burden. .
When asked about his current activities, Mr. McBee reported that his office has
offered names for the Select Commission on Higher Education, and has been
working on incentive funding for higher education, as well as a scholarship
program for students in the top 10% of their classes.
Finally, Mr. McBee kindly offered to send a electronic copy of his report.
1:30 PM
2:30 PM
4:30 PM Mr.
Dan Stewart,
Assistant Vice
Chancellor for
Employee
Services
The minutes of the FAC meeting of May 24-25 were approved without
correction.
Campus Reports (see attached)
Committee Meetings
Mr. Stewart introduced the FAC to Faye Godwin and proceeded to describe the
changes in the UT System retirement program.
He began by noting that 403B regulations were the spur behind the changes in
the retirement system. The 403B program is the ORP (Optional Retirement
Program) which (ironically) is mandatory (unlike the voluntary annuity
program). He then traced the history of how the new retirement program was
developed.
There was a need to come up with minimal standards and a request for proposals
October 11-12, 2007
5
University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council
APPROVED MINUTES: October 11-12, 2007
(RFP) reflecting these standards was widely distributed to financial services
companies. The System received 17 responses (out of 100+), and 8 of these
companies made the cut. Since 3 of these companies were already participating,
only 5 new companies were accepted. The System will be contacting these
companies and meeting with company representatives. Care has been taken to
avoid high fees and expenses.
There now are 6 current programs, and 8 grandfathered programs, but the latter
cannot take any new clients. The 6 current programs are:
AIG
Ing
Lincoln financial
Metlife resources
Fidelity
TIAA Creft
The grandfathered companies are listed below (faculty already using these
companies can keep contributing to them at current levels).
Axa equitable
Kimper investors
Lincoln investment planninig
Nationwide life insurance
Rf group
And three that already were part of some entity:
Integrated resources
Security first group
Transamerica life insurance
If a faculty member’s company is not among the approved or grandfathered
programs, he or she must change and must do so by December 10.
Finally, contributions to the voluntary annuity program will stop if a faculty
member has not changed carriers.
For more information, the appropriate web address is
www.utretirement.utsystem.edu. This site has many links to things like
performance data on funds. The plan has an open architecture allowing faculty
to invest in funds from companies that are not their carriers.
In response to a question, Mr. Stewart noted that 457B plans are delayed
compensation plans and are separate from 403B plans. Regarding the former, it
has been worked out with the legislature that all funds can be transferred to
Fidelity, In fact, all such money has already been moved and people have been
October 11-12, 2007
6
University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council
APPROVED MINUTES: October 11-12, 2007
notified.
Friday,
October 12,
2007
9:00 AM
Committee Meetings
10:00 AM
11:06 AM
Dr. David
Prior,
Executive
Vice
Chancellor for
Academic
Affairs
Campus Reports (cont’d)
Dr. Prior began his remarks by stating his interest in faculty governance, noting
that he is currently on the faculty at UT Austin (Jackson School-Geology). He
affirmed his interest in the other UT Components, has visited each one already,
and intends to return to each of these campuses to talk with faculty leaders.
Originally from a small town in Ireland, Dr. Prior served in the British Merchant
Navy, and was the first from his hometown to go to college. He moved from
Belfast to LSU, then to Canada (Halifax, NS), to Texas A&M, before arriving in
Austin.
There followed a series of questions (Qs) and comments (Cs) that are
summarized below, along with Dr. Prior’s answers (As).
C: Chancellor Yudof has been sympathetic to shared governance and faculty
responsibilities, including faculty in deliberations concerning the policies of the
Regents Rules and HOPs. This is a polar opposite to Texas A&M where faculty
governance is only advisory. In the UT System, the faculty has a preponderant
voice in appropriate areas.
A: Rules require participation of faculty, but I am not yet aware of the full scope
of the Regents Rules.
C: Currently the FAC is working on clarifying faculty role and the definition of
“faculty”.
A: This is a good starting point.
At this point, there was discussion of a prior attempt by the FAC to define
faculty and what the consequences were. Dr. Prior commented that he is not
concerned about former positions, and will make up own mind about issues. He
asked for items that are pending from prior FAC initiatives.
Q: What are your ideas on the relationship between tenure and salary?
A: At Texas A&M, we decided on 4 imperatives, number 1 being Faculty
Reinvestment (new faculty, faculty parity).
Q: Can you draw down faculty salary by 50%? (There was discussion of a
October 11-12, 2007
7
University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council
APPROVED MINUTES: October 11-12, 2007
faculty member who failed to continue to attract grant funding, and who suffered
a salary cut, and was assigned additional teaching load.) A: Tenure is of
fundamental importance to the academy. We have tried to educate regents on the
role of PPE (periodic performance evaluation), on what is expected with tenure,
productivity, etc. We have pointed out to regents that the pre-review process is
very important, and the 3 year review as well. We will make sure that HOP
policies on PPE policies are followed by developing relationships with
Presidents.
C: Faculty can be great supporters of efforts.
A: The question is whether the institution is providing excellence so that
students and faculty want to go there. Managing pursuit of excellence is
essential.
There followed several questions and comments concerning: (a) what is being
done to address retention rates of faculty, (b) hopes that Dr. Prior and his office
will try to understand why faculty flee, and (c) what can be done to address
salary compression. Dr. Prior responded that salary compression is a serious
problem. We live in competitive circumstances and have to compete. It takes a
deliberate effort to make wise choices, continuously evaluating what is going on
with full consideration of budgetary constraints.
C: The California system uses fixed scales, and helps out with housing.
A: Much money, such as STARS + funding, is going to technical fields. There is
a real need across the system for operational dollars. We are proposing STARS
funding on a competitive basis for non-technical fields. We need more
operational dollars for faculty and more support for graduate students.
C: Endowments are growing at Harvad, Yale, etc. Our own merit increase is not
competitive with private and other public institutions. We also suffer in
competing for students, and have recently lost a Korean student to Stanford
which offered a $58K scholarship.
A: On the positive side, Texas is still investing in higher education. The
Governor is setting up a taskforce on higher education, and some powerful
legislators are supporting higher education. State support has declined however,
and the shift to tuition for funding continues. In order for us to be competitive
on a big scale, we have to be competitive financially. Various funds can help.
Can we compete in targeted areas? Yes. Even with resource-mismatches we are
competitive.
C: On the UT Austin campus, we are losing good people. We feel like the state
doesn’t care about higher education.
October 11-12, 2007
8
University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council
APPROVED MINUTES: October 11-12, 2007
A: Work is being done. What is important is that some areas are getting
clobbered by new formula funding rates (English, education, nursing, etc.). UT
is being caught, and flat rate tuition, etc., is not helping. We will be looking at
legislative fixes if possible.
12:15 PM
Dr. Kenneth
Shine,
Executive
Vice
Chancellor for
Health Affairs
Dr. Shine began his remarks by noting that the restoration of formula funding is
key for higher education. He also reported that the search for a new President at
UTMBGalveston has been successfully completed and that a search for a new
president at UTHSC Houston is awaiting full composition of the search
committee. We also will be searching for a new president at UT Southwestern.
These Presidential searches demonstrate the region’s commitment to do what is
best for a university. There is a need interactions between these health campus
and the academic campuses.
Dr. Shine reported that we have established an academy for health professional
education and that we are providing funding for a variety of health education
initiatives. Dr. Stobo from UTMB is overseeing this program. There also are
competitive grants programs. One big question is how to transform how health
education is done?
Several important projects are underway. A proposal for a task force on
graduate studies will be formally submitted at November BOR meeting. One of
the outcomes is a commitment of $5 million to improve graduate education. A
STARS + source program allows for operational, non-equipment uses of funds.
This may be combined with STARS or stand alone. Another program is the
Regents Research Scholars program, to provide matching money for startup
funds ($200-500K range from donor). Total in fund is about $2 million and
needs to be spent.
Dr. Shine noted that money for nursing faculty is rapidly running out.
We have additional funding for Health campuses and graduate medical
education. The additional $37 million brings the total for this program to $66
million. We want to see more doctors in Texas due to the expansion of these
programs.
We have received a massive infusion of dollars for upper limit payments. Last
year, $161million came into practice plans. Going forward there is likely to be
about $40million a year from this. It is dangerous for campuses to use this
money for operations because it is not guaranteed.
Leslie Carruth (Senior Health Analyst) has been added to the staff of Office for
Health Affairs. She will be looking at billing cycles (and is doing so now at San
Antonio) and the relationship between costs and charges. By the 2009 legislative
session, hospitals will have to be able to report all costs. Practice plans will face
October 11-12, 2007
9
University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council
APPROVED MINUTES: October 11-12, 2007
a real challenge putting this together. For Health campuses the biggest risk is the
growing number of uninsured.
Another issue we are facing is that of bylaws for practice plans. Brenda Strama
is on board to help out with the legal side of this issue. It is not an easy problem.
We are in the third iteration of responding to the FACs concerns about definition
of salary (base, supplemental, incentive ), the role of faculty on the
compensation advisory committee, and faculty members on budget and finance
committees. Income from consultation should be able to go to faculty with
limitations.
We are waiting on new regents to come on board before presenting the practice
plan proposal to the BOR. We will provide a brief introduction to the plan at the
November meeting, and then present it in February. There is considerable
discussion about separate bylaws for academic (basic science) and clinical plans.
There followed several questions (Qs) and comments (Cs), and Dr. Shine’s
responses to them (As) are paraphrased below:
C: Faculty have been looking at compensation plans as separately from bylaws.
There is a concerned about ambiguity.
A: The campus President determines who is in a plan but campuses determine
whether there is a separate basic science plan as well the practice plan.
C: There are still many problems with the practice plans. Many questions have
been left unanswered and need to be addressed. Can there be a meeting between
Dr. Shine and representatives from the Health campuses?
A: The questions will be answered. The Presidents will have authority in this
area. It is absolutely agreed that tenure is associated with base salary (the dollar
amount is less important than the principle).
C: Presidential committees appear bereft of faculty, but committee composition
is an issue.
A: The bylaws give only minimal requirements for faculty participation. Faculty
could have greater representation on committees.
1:10 PM
Committee Reports
The following is a listing of issues being addressed by the FAC subcommittees:
Academic Affairs (Doug reporting): possible activities
CB report on doctoral programs
Time and effort reporting
Conflicts of interest
October 11-12, 2007
10
University of Texas Faculty Advisory Council
APPROVED MINUTES: October 11-12, 2007
Sullivan workshop
CB report on Vertical Alignment
Faculty Quality (Dan reporting)
Concentration on quality of distance education courses (separate
Telecampus, non-Tel courses)
Orientation for new faculty
Teaching effectiveness committees
Health Affairs (Karen reporting)
Practice plan and bylaws
Audit committees should be external
No reports from audit committees (though they should report to PP
Board)
Business plan needs redundant procedures not in plan
Will look at insurance stuff
Problem students
Employee health services
90 day waiting period before insurance kicks in
Governance (Murray reporting)
Concern with conflict between DOE and regional accreditation ability to
discontinue all federal funding
a) contact other systems (CA, AZ, MI, etc.) – NEA, TFA, AAUP, scientific
assns., lobbying assns
b) how to contact them
c) explanation of issues
d) get list of legistlation with power
Course recording and ownership thereof (position here has been instructor owns
it, unless under contract otherwise) – will develop Regents Rule to address
issues surrounding ownership of curriculum and other material/recordings/etc.
produced by faculty.
Discussion of drafting proposal for a faculty regent, question about including
faculty reps from other systems ….
1:51 PM
Meeting adjourned
October 11-12, 2007
11