Presentation Transcript

1. 2009-10 Faculty CouncilRegular Meeting

2. Agenda I. Report of the Secretary—Sue Greninger. II. Approval of the Minutes—Sue Greninger. Minutes of the regular meeting of February 15, 2010 (D 8027-8057). B. Minutes of the regular meeting of March 22, 2010 (delayed until May 10).
3. III. COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT—William Powers Jr. A. Comments by the President. B. Questions to the President. IV. REPORT OF THE CHAIR—Janet Staiger V. REPORT OF THE CHAIR ELECT—Dean Neikirk.
4. VI. Unfinished Business—Janet Staiger. A. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures (D 7982-7983a)—Paul Woodruff (dean, undergraduate studies).
5. Proposal for the Process of Faculty Selection to Committees in the School of Undergraduate Studies History As the School of Undergraduate Studies was being created in 2006, a committee of deans from all undergraduate colleges, chaired by then Pharmacy Dean Steve Leslie, proposed an advisory committee to assist the dean in governance of the school. The initial members of this committee, the Undergraduate Studies Advisory Committee (UGSAC), were chosen by the incoming dean in consultation with the Faculty Council Executive Committee. (Continued.)
6. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures UGSAC is currently composed of sixteen members (fourteen voting members): the dean and associate dean of the School of Undergraduate Studies, who serve as non-voting members, six representatives from the schools and colleges (associate deans who are faculty members), six members of the General Faculty at large, appointed by the dean of the School of Undergraduate Studies, and two students (the heads of the Student Government and Senate of College Councils).
7. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures UGSAC meets regularly with the dean to discuss matters related to the mission and activities of the school. Other committees and subcommittees created to focus on specific initiatives pertaining to the core curriculum, flags, and the Bridging Disciplines Programs. Five faculty committees oversee implementation of flag requirements in the undergraduate curriculum. These groups interpret the flag criteria review and approve course proposals.
8. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures Committee recommendations for operational interpretations and for flagged courses are submitted to UGSAC for final approval. Should any of the flag committees recommend changes to the flag criteria, those changes are submitted by UGSAC to the Educational Policy Committee and then Faculty Council for review and approval. Members of these five committees were selected initially by the dean of UGS, in consultation with deans of the other undergraduate schools and colleges.
9. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures The dean of the School of Undergraduate Studies would like to standardize the appointment of members to the committees of the school. This proposal specifies a role for the chair of the Faculty Council and the Faculty Council at large in selection of some UGS committee members. It also recognizes the importance of broad faculty participation, close working relationships with the other undergraduate schools and colleges, and the expertise and interests of individual faculty members.
10. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures Proposal Beginning in 2010-11, the Undergraduate Studies Advisory Committee shall be composed of seventeen members (fifteen voting members): the dean and associate dean of the School of Undergraduate Studies, who serve as non-voting members, five representatives from the schools and colleges with the largest undergraduate populations (associate deans who are faculty members, chosen by the respective deans of Liberal Arts, Natural Sciences, Engineering, Business, and Communication), (Continued.)
11. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures one representative from one of the remaining schools and colleges offering undergraduate degrees (an associate dean who is a faculty member, appointed to a two-year term by the dean of that school or college; every two years UGSAC selects the school or college to be represented), six members of the General Faculty at large, elected by the Faculty Council (two elected each year to three-year terms) from six different schools and colleges, one member of the Faculty Council appointed annually by the chair of the Faculty Council as liaison with the Educational Policy Committee, and two students (the heads of the Student Government and Senate of College Councils).
12. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures The flag committees overseeing writing, independent inquiry, and ethics and leadership shall be large, with a faculty representative solicited from the dean of each undergraduate school and college. These members serve renewable staggered three-year terms. The dean of UGS shall appoint one student member to each committee for a one-year term, in consultation with the president of the Senate of College Councils. The chair of the Faculty Council shall appoint one member of the Faculty Council to each committee for a one-year term. (Continued.)
13. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures Each spring the Faculty Council will solicit nominations, including self-nominations, of the General Faculty for membership on UGSAC. No nominations will be accepted from the four schools and colleges represented by continuing elected members. The ballot of nominees will be made available to the voting members of the Faculty Council, and the two elected will start their three-year terms at the beginning of the following academic year.
14. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures The remaining two committees, providing oversight of the quantitative reasoning flag and the cultural diversity in the US and global cultures flags, shall be smaller. Each shall consist of six faculty members appointed by the dean of the School of Undergraduate Studies (renewable three-year terms). The dean of UGS shall appoint one student member to each committee for a one-year term, in consultation with the president of the Senate of College Councils. The chair of the Faculty Council shall appoint one member of the Faculty Council to each committee for a one-year term. (Continued.)
15. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures Flag committee chairs shall be appointed annually from the established committee membership by the dean of the School of Undergraduate Studies.
16. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures UGS Faculty Governance Amendment After each annual general faculty meeting, the general faculty will reconvene as the UGS Faculty for a meeting. Notice of the meeting will be sent out at least two weeks in advance. The Dean will chair the meeting. Voting members of the UGS Faculty include all voting members of the general faculty. Voting members may request that students and other interested parties may have privileges of the floor. There shall be no proxy votes. By petition, the faculty may call a meeting; the petition must identify at least one item of business and must be signed by 5% of the voting members. On receipt of such a petition, the Dean will schedule the meeting and send notice two weeks in advance. (Continued.)
17. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures A quorum shall consist of 10% of the voting faculty of each college or school that offers undergraduate degree programs. This is to insure that the quorum is representative. Failing a quorum, the business of the UGS faculty shall be referred to the Faculty Council by way of the appropriate committee. The agenda for UGS faculty meetings shall be determined by UGSAC. Items may also be placed on the agenda by petition of 5% of the voting faculty. The business of the UGS faculty shall consist of such matters of school policy and procedure as are subject to faculty governance.
18. VII. REPORTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY, COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS, AND COMMITTEES. A. Report from Sponsored Projects and the Vice President for Research —Susan Sedwick(associate vice president for research and director, Office of Sponsored Projects) and Juan Sanchez (vice president for research).
19. Faculty Council UpdateSusan Wyatt Sedwick, Ph.D., CRAAssociate Vice President for Research andDirector, Office of Sponsored ProjectsThe University of Texas at Austin
20. Office of Sponsored Projects Status of filling two new positions Industry Engagement Communication strategies Why don’t we keep faculty apprised? PI list serv Research Administrators Network Training for new investigators, post docs and graduate students Training for New investigators, post docs and graduate students departmental administrators OSP staff
21. ARRA Reporting burdens NSF administrative review GAO audit of jobs calculation Future: STAR Metrics
22. Proposal Submission Lead time Effort allocation (minimum 1%) NIH Modular Budgets Potentially Unallowable Costs Clerical and administrative costs Cayuse Processing priorities
23. F&A/Indirect Costs Rates On-Campus (52% MTDC) Off-Campus (26% MTDC) Other Sponsored Programs (35% MTDC) Clinical Trials (25% TDC) State Agencies (15% TDC) Foundations Role of OSP in Waivers Disbursements
24. Negotiations Communication Research Manager System Industry Funded Projects Turnaround time Non-negotiated Awards Subcontracting Issues Credit Authorizations/Spend Available
25. Sponsored Projects Award Administration ECS Upgrade PI discretion over costs (office supplies ~ research supplies

26. Questions

27. Report on the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics Association(COIA)—Tom Palaima (professor classics and COIA representative).
28. VIII. NEW BUSINESS. A. Resolution from the Faculty Council Executive Committee in Support of the Cactus Café (D 8003)—Janet Staiger (professor, radio-television-film and committee chair). RESOLUTION FROM THE FACULTY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE IN SUPPORT OF THE CACTUS CAFÉ Given the renown of the Cactus Café, including its historical and cultural importance to the University of Texas community and to Austin, and the critical role of the Cactus Café in fostering the musical arts and providing community outreach services to Austin and to Texas, the University of Texas at Austin faculty believe that any decisions changing the administration and functions of the Cactus Café should have a full and open discussion among the various groups who have an interest in its mission. Such discussion should include the students, faculty, staff, and administrators of University of Texas at Austin, as well as the Austin community.
29. B. Proposed Revisions to UT Austin’s Financial Exigency Policy (D 8009-8012)— Janet Staiger (professor, radio-television-film and committee chair).
30. Current “Financial Exigency” Policy Sec. 3.16. Threatened Faculty Retrenchment Whenever there is reason to anticipate that the University is sufficiently threatened By financial exigency, declines in enrollment, or changes in educational needs to endanger the continuance of the University’s obligations to faculty members with tenure or those on regular academic appointments, the President at the earliest date possible shall inform the President’s Advisory Council, the Faculty Council, the Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility, and all potentially affected budgetary units about the threatening problem. The President shall consult with these faculty groups to determine the nature and seriousness of the problem, the most appropriate of the possible courses of action to be taken, and the means of safeguarding faculty rights and interests, including tenure rights. (continued)
31. The Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility shall advise, monitor, and make recommendations with respect to the protection of the rights of faculty members throughout the process of planning and effecting the solution to the problem. In solving such a problem, The University shall make every reasonable effort to reassign affected faculty members to other suitable work and to aid them in finding other employment.
32. Proposed Revisions to HOP 3.16 Declaration that UT-Austin will follow new policy of Regents’ Rulezsin Rule 31003. Discussion of two types of situations: 1. Abandonment of academic positions or programs for academic reasons 2. Abandonment of academic positions or programs because of an institutional financial exigency
33. 1. Abandonment for Academic Reasons President will consult with budgetary units and faculty council to determine Bona fide academic reasons Most appropriate of possible courses of actions Means to safeguard faculty rights and interests, including tenure rights Tenured faculty in the unit(s) will have opportunity to participate in the review
34. 1. (continued) President will appoint a review committee of at least 7 members. At least one-half will be faculty. The faculty will be chosen from nominations by the Faculty Council. A written report will be presented to the President for his/her decision. Any faculty terminated may request a hearing through the UT Faculty Grievance process (HOP 3.18).
35. 2. Abandonment for Institutional Financial Exigency The Regents’ Rules will define “financial exigency” as “a demonstrably bona fide financial crisis that adversely affects the institution as a whole and that, after considering other cost-reducing measures, including ways to cut faculty costs, requires consideration of terminating appointments held by tenured faculty.”
36. 2. (continued): Steps in the Process The President will inform the Faculty Council and budgetary units of the financial exigency. The President will consult with the Faculty Council and budgetary units about the problem and possible courses of action. “If reductions in faculty are unavoidable, the University will make every reasonable effort to reassign affected faculty members to other suitable work . . . .”
37. 2. Steps in the Process (continued) The President will write an Initial Declaration of Financial Exigency. The President will submit the Declaration to the Faculty Council for advice and concurrence. Majority vote by the council members is necessary for concurrence; however, if concurrence is not possible, the President and Faculty Council will still proceed to create a joint Faculty Council-Presidential Exigency plan.
38. 2. Steps in the Process (continued) The joint exigency plan will include a formula for membership for the Exigency committee to make recommendations: The committee will have a least 7 members, at least ½ of which will be faculty without administrative duties. Faculty appointees will come from list of nominations from the faculty council. At least ½ of nominees will be tenured faculty.
39. 2. Steps in the Process (continued) The Exigency committee will review academic programs and records of possible faculty to be terminated. The proposed policy includes a list of what should be considered in the review. If two or more faculty are equally qualified to perform teaching and research, preference for retention will be given to tenured faculty. Recommendations will be in writing.
40. Procedure for Appeal Faculty members whose positions will be eliminated may appeal using the UT-Austin Faculty Grievance process (HOP 3.18), subject to the Regents’ Rules 31003 section 3.8 which also permits arguing about The existence and extent of the exigency The criteria for termination used by the Exigency Committee The application of the criteria for termination
41. Final Points Terminated faculty members will be given “reasonable time to close down research or other such facilities in a non-destructive way.” “Terminated faculty will have right to first consideration” for newly opened positions as specified in Regents’ Rule 31003 section 3.6.
42. C. Proposal from the Educational Policy Committee to Modify the Criteria for the Global Cultures Flag (D 8004-8005)—Alan Friedman (professor, English and committee chair). PROPOSAL FROM THE EDUCATIONAL POLICY COMMITTEE TO MODIFY THE CRITERIA FOR THE GLOBAL CULTURES FLAG Summary The faculty committee that oversees the Global Cultures flag requirement has recommended the following modification to the language of the Global Cultures flag criteria. On February 22, 2010, the Undergraduate Studies Advisory Committee voted to approve this change. Because the current language mandates that one third of the course’s graded content must be based on content dealing with the cultures and perspectives of a single “community, country, or coherent regional grouping of countries,” the flag committee has had to reject proposals to flag some courses that the committee believes meet the spirit of the Global Cultures flag. The proposed modification of the criteria would address this problem.
43. Current Language: To satisfy the Global Cultures flag, at least one-third of the course grade must be based on content dealing with the cultures and perspectives of a non-U.S. community, country, or coherent regional grouping of countries, past or present. Proposed New Language:To satisfy the Global Cultures flag, at least one-third of the course grade must be based on content dealing with in-depth examination of the broader cultural context and perspectives of one or more non-U.S. communities, countries, or coherent regional groupings of countries, past or present.  
44. Justification  The goal for the Global Cultures flag requirement, as the flag committee understands it, is to give students the opportunity to participate in an in-depth examination of the cultures and perspectives of a non-U.S. community. As such, sustained focus on a particular community, country, or coherent grouping of countries is required. However, as the committee has reviewed proposals to flag individual courses over the past year, they have discovered that the specific language of the Global Cultures criteria has required them to reject some proposals they found to be in line with the goals of the flag requirement. Some of the questions with which the committee has struggled include:
45. Can a course that compares several different global cultures through the lens of a particular thematic focus be flagged? There have been some cases where the course focuses on four main cultural contexts, such that even though there is sustained attention to each context, no one “country, community, or coherent regional grouping of countries” is the basis of a third of the grade How do we handle a course whose graded assignments compare multiple cultural contexts? These courses often give students an in-depth understanding of several cultures that is enriched by the comparative approach, but it can be difficult to determine that a third of the grade comes from one “country, community, or coherent regional grouping of countries.”
46. How do diasporic cultures figure into this definition of cultural groups? In many cases, there may be more cultural continuity among groups that share similar origins, but are regionally dispersed due to migrations, than there is cultural continuity within the same geographic region. Yet it can be difficult at times to approve flags for these courses given the language of the flag criteria. How do we define what a “coherent regional grouping of countries” is for the purposes of this flag? Europe and Asia might be considered coherent regions, but each includes a wide variety of cultural groups and perspectives. Because the language of the flag criteria is so limiting, however, the committee has tended to interpret regional coherence fairly broadly, in order to be able to approve courses that are in line with the goals of the Global Cultures flag. It would be more in line with the goals of the flag to focus on whether students gain an in-depth understanding of a particular cultural group, rather than focusing on whether a third of the grade comes from a particular regional context.
47. The proposed modification of the flag criteria would allow the committee more flexibility in navigating these questions, while at the same time conveying more clearly to the university community what the flag committee is looking for in flag proposals. The committee’s goal is to approve the Global Cultures flag for as many courses as meet the spirit of this requirement, and this change would facilitate the committee’s ability to achieve this goal. Proposal submitted by: Larry Abraham, Associate Dean, School of Undergraduate Studies, February 26, 2010
48. D. Proposal from the Educational Policy Committee to Revise Q-Drop Procedures (D 8006-8008)—Alan Friedman (professor, English and committee chair). Procedures Through the twelfth class day. From the first through the twelfth class day in a long-session semester, and from the first through the fourth class day in a summer term, a student may drop a class through the registration system. If the dropped class must be taken in conjunction with another class, the student must drop the second class as well. Each student should meet with his or her adviser before dropping a class. A class dropped during this period is deleted from the student’s academic record. It does not count toward the six-drop limit described above.
49. From the thirteenth class day through the [the twentieth class day] deadline to drop a class for academic reasons. From the thirteenth class day through the [twentieth class day] deadline to drop a class for academic reasons in a long-session semester, and from the fifth through the last class day in a summer term, a student may drop a class only with the approval of his or her dean. The student first must obtain the instructor’s signature on Form X stating the student’s current grade in the course and the basis for calculating the grade. In some colleges and schools, the approval of the student’s adviser is also required. If the student is allowed to drop, the class remains on the student’s academic record with the symbol Q, which identifies a drop without academic penalty. In addition, the student’s dean determines whether the student is dropping the class for an academic or a nonacademic reason. [If the student is allowed to drop during this period, the student’s dean determines whether the student is dropping the class for an academic or a nonacademic reason.] If the dean determines that the reason is academic, the drop is counted toward the six-drop limit described above. (Continued.)
50. [Through midsemester] After the deadline to drop a class for academic reasons.After the deadline to drop a class for academic reasons has passed, a student may drop a class only with the approval of his or her dean and only for urgent, substantiated, nonacademic reasons. Drops that occur during this period are not counted toward the six-drop limit described above. [From the twenty-first class day through midsemester in a long-session semester, and from the eleventh through the last class day in a summer term, a student may drop a class only with the approval of the instructor, the student’s adviser, and the student’s dean. [If the instructor approves the drop, he or she will assign either the symbol Q or a grade of F. The symbol Q indicates that the student has earned a grade of at least C- in the class, that no final grade has yet been assigned, or that no academic penalty is in order, because of the student’s performance and the nature of the course. In compelling circumstances, the student’s dean may assign the symbol Q for nonacademic reasons. [If the student is allowed to drop during this period, the student’s dean determines whether the student is dropping the class for an academic or a nonacademic reason. If the dean determines that the reason is academic, the drop is counted toward the six-drop limit described above. [After midsemester. After midsemester, a student may drop a class only with the approval of his or her dean and only for urgent, substantiated, nonacademic reasons. Drops that occur during this period are not counted toward the six-drop limit described above.] (Continued.)
51. RATIONALE Overview The Student Deans Committee recently reviewed the policies concerning Q-drops in the General Information catalog (GIC). After a review and discussion of these policies, the committee recommended two major changes to the wording of the policy. Changes to the Midsmester Deadline The first change involves the “midsemester” deadline. The committee could find no real rationale for specifying that date as the deadline for Q-drops for academic reasons. Indeed, that date tends to be somewhat harmful to both the students and the university. As such, at a later time the committee will recommend that the midsemester deadline be changed, and in anticipation of that future change, opted to change the language for the Q-drops to allow for that possible change in deadline. Because the deadline itself has not changed, this new wording (i.e., “deadline to drop a class for academic reasons”) does not actually change current policy. Rather, it simply makes a change in the future somewhat easier to process. (Continued.)
52. Changes to Instructor Permission The second change is more substantive and would require a change in current procedures. In brief, as specified by the GIC, Q-drops between the twentieth class day and the midsemester deadline should only be allowed if “the student has earned a grade of at least C- in the class, that no final grade has yet been assigned, or that no academic penalty is in order, because of the student’s performance and the nature of the course.” (Continued.)
53. The wording of this policy is vague, and consequently, many instructors interpret it differently. Some instructors, for example, will allow a Q-drop for the class even if the student is failing at that time, but other instructors will not. Given these inconsistencies that regularly occur across campus, the Student Deans Committee has recommended that the language be changed so that all students can receive a Q-drop during this period regardless of their underlying grade or performance in the class. These Q-drops would be assigned by Deans’ offices around campus, meaning that instructors will no longer have the authority to make these decisions. However, the new language also includes a provision that students must still see an instructor before obtaining the Q-drop. This requirement to see the instructor, but not have the instructor make the decision on the Q-drop, helps the university reach the goal of consistency but also provides an avenue for the instructor to talk to the student before the Q-drop is made official. (Continued.)
54. Summary In short, this new language corrects one of the more difficult issues in the university regarding Q-drops. It also allows for future changes to the Q-drop deadline without requiring another rewriting of the policy.
55. E. Update to the Social and Behavioral Science Core Curriculum Course Area for the Undergraduate Catalog, 2010-2012— Paul Woodruff (dean, undergraduate studies). MotionOn behalf of the Undergraduate Studies Advisory Committee (UGSAC), the dean of undergraduate studies requests approval to remove the following course from the core curriculum course lists for the 2010-2012 Undergraduate Catalog.
56. BackgroundThe chair of the Department of Linguistics has requested this course be removed from the social and behavioral sciences core list in the 2010-12 catalog. The proposal is strongly supported by Richard Flores (on behalf of the Dean of COLA and as an UGSAC social sciences committee representative). The department reports this course would offer a maximum of 40 seats per long semester, a very small proportion of the seats offered in this core area, which would still include ANT 302, 305, 307, 309L, 316L, 318L; CTI 302, 365; ECO 301, 304K, 304L; GRG 305, 306C, 307C, 308, 309, 312, 319; LIN 306, 312; PSY 301; RS 310; SOC 302, 308, 308C, 308D, 309, 313K, 318, and 319. This motion, in addition to D 6976-6981, D 7333-7335, and D 7859-7861, will define the core curriculum course lists for the 2010-2012 Undergraduate Catalog.
57. IX. Announcements and Comments. The General Faculty elections have been extended through Wednesday, April 14. Afterwards, the results will be posted online at http://utdirect.utexas.edu/afgf/ B. Annual Standing Committee Reports are due in the Office of General Faculty by May 10. X. Questions to the Chair. XI. Adjournment.