2010-11 Faculty Council Regular Meeting

1. 2010-11 Faculty CouncilRegular Meeting

2. Agenda • Report of the Secretary. • Proposals from the Faculty Committee on Committees Affecting Terms of Service, Term Limits, Chairs, and Chair Elects (D 7976-7978): • Entire proposal returned to the Faculty Council for reconsideration so the whole proposal can be considered upon resubmission • Provost recommends approval: • Extension of standard term of committee service from 2 to 3 years with eligibility for reappointment of one additional term • Creation of deadline for selection of chair elect • Clarification of rules for selection of vice chair and chair elect

3. Provost recommends disapproval or partial disapproval: • Committee election of chair of the Faculty Advisory Committee on Budgets • Extension of a member’s service to a maximum of 6, 8, and 12 years on committees with respective terms of service of 2, 3, and 5 years • Limit on the number of years a member can chair a committee • Extension for chair elect to serve beyond their term limits • Extension of term limit for past chair to serve additional year

4. Proposal from the Faculty Rules and Governance Committee Recommending Changes to the Parliamentarian Language in the Rules and Regulations (D 7979 ) Provost recommended disapproval with a suggestion for resolving the conflict by retaining the first sentence of HOP C.1, Sec I, D.4., and striking the second sentence, which would then read as follows: Handbook of Operating Procedures for The University of Texas at Austin Chapter 1: Faculty Governance, Section I: General Faculty D. Organization 4. “The Parliamentarian shall be appointed annually by the President upon the advice of the Faculty Council, and may be reappointed.”

5. HOP 3.16: Threatened Faculty Entrenchment (D 8009-8012) Provost recommended disapproval with the following comment; the president concurred: “I am concerned that this legislation departs substantially from UT System guidelines. It reduces excessively the decision-making authority of the president as it relates to selection of the faculty committee, and I recommend that this legislation no be approved.”

6. Proposal to Change the Function and Composition of the C-13 Information Technology Committee (D 8074-8075). Returned for reconsideration with the following recommendation from Provost Leslie: …if the proposal to extend standard term limits from two to three years (D 7976-7978) is approved… ”then for this legislation the president should be given a slate which includes four members of college IT committees, of whom two will be selected each year. With staggered terms, two of the six IT committee representatives will roll off each year and need to be replaced.”

7. Approval of the Minutes. • Minutes of the regular meeting of March 22, 2010. • Minutes of the regular meeting of April 12, 2010. • Minutes of the special meeting of May 11, 2010. • Minutes of the regular meeting of May 11, 2010.

8. III. Communication with the President. • Comments. • Questions. From the Faculty Council Executive Committee. • From January 25, 2010: The FCEC would like to know the outcomes of the distribution of the limited faculty raise money in each college. Specifically, what percentage of faculty who received raises fits into the President’s three categories of 1-gender, 2-compression, and 3-merit. Were the gender and compression gaps improved, and can we see those statistics? We would also like confirmation that the limited pool of raise money was not used for retention/recruitment packages. Questions continued.

10. Questions continued. • From March 22, 2010: We understand that some trimming will be occurring in the upper administration budget (the offices of the vice presidents). For our information in terms of thinking about University priorities, what was the structure (number of vice presidents and number of staff members in the VPs’ offices) ten years ago, five years ago, and this year? What was the budget for these offices ten years ago, five years ago, and this year not in dollars necessarily but in terms of a relation to the general academic budget (e.g., ten percent of the amount in the general academic budget)?

11. Vice President Portfolio Comparison September 2010

12. VP Core Expense Comparison FY 00 to FY 10

13. VP FTE Comparison FY 00 to FY 10 (A&P and Classified Full-Time Equivalent)

14. Report of the Chair: issues for today and the near future. • Discussion with standing committees. • We will try to set aside time at the October FC meeting for general discussion of topics that should be considered this year. • A quotation from President Powers’ State of the University address: “We will either lead change or have it dictated to us.” • Financial Exigency policy is still under discussion with the President and Provost; we hope to have agreement soon. • Report on last year’s Faculty Council's resolution for College/School Educational Policy Formulation Structures. 

15. Report on College/School Educational Policy Formulation Structures. Faculty Council's resolution calls for College/School Educational Policy Formulation Structures to meet at least these three criteria:        1.  It holds an annual College/School meeting         2.  It has an Educational Policy Formulation Committee that is elected by faculty, or, if chairs or the dean appoint the committee members, curriculum changes are circulated to the full college faculty for approval or protest.         3.  The college/school's voting faculty have recently approved the governance process.

16. Colleges/Schools in which their Educational Policy Formulation Governance meets all three criteria: • Architecture         • Business         • Education         • Geosciences         • Graduate          • Information • Natural Sciences • Nursing         • Pharmacy         • Public Affairs         • Social Work         • Undergraduate Studies  

17. Colleges/Schools in which their Educational Policy Formulation Governance appears to meet the first two criteria but the process has not been approved recently by the college/school's voting faculty.         • Engineering         • Fine Arts         • Law        • Liberal Arts For these plans we will assist the FC college representatives in an effort to gather faculty comments on their governance procedures.

18. College/Schools in which their Educational Policy Formulation Governance does not meet any of the three criteria.         • Communication

19. Report of the Chair Elect. POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS ON UNIVERSITY BUDGET ISSUES A financial crisis should not be addressed by doing harm to those who are most vulnerable by firing and wage reductions of low paid faculty, staff, and graduate students. Providing a living wage with health benefits for all UT employees should be supported. In response to budget reductions, slowing or cutting new construction and administrative salaries and positions, rather than reducing staff or faculty, should take place first. Cont. next slide.

20. POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONS ON UNIVERSITY BUDGET ISSUES, cont. • A serious effort to eliminate or reduce wasteful duplication of programs should be undertaken. • Discussion of retirement incentives, with proper safeguards to minimize their being taken advantage of by the most productive faculty, should take place. • A serious study of the financial relationship between the University and its Intercollegiate Athletics, with a view toward insuring that it is IA that supports the academic enterprise and not the other way around, should take place.

21. Unfinished Business—None. VII. Reports of the General Faculty, Colleges, Schools, and Committees—None. • New Business. • Suicide Prevention Week—Dr. Jane Bost, associate director, Counseling and Mental Health Center. • Resolution from the Faculty Council Executive Committee Regarding the Creation of College Tuition and Budget Advisory Committees—Janet Staiger (past chair and professor, radio-television-film).

22. RESOLUTION FROM THE FACULTY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE REGARDING THE CREATION OF COLLEGE TUITION AND BUDGET ADVISORY COMMITTEES “RESOLVED: That every college and school create a College Tuition and Budget Advisory Committee (College TBAC) consisting of an equal number of faculty and students from the current college and school governance bodies. The college’s Faculty Council (FC) representatives will usually serve as the faculty members of the College TBAC. If more FC representatives want to serve than are needed, the representatives will be chosen by lottery from among them. If too few exist, an election by voting faculty in the college will be held to determine the other members of the committee. The College TBACs shall make recommendations concerning college priorities, budget allocations and cuts, and tuition in the college. The committee shall submit written reports and recommendations at least once a year. The committee shall maintain transparency with the college or school community by holding open meetings and forums both before and after issuing a written report, by soliciting input from faculty, staff, and students, and by communicating with them as frequently as possible.”

23. Announcements and Comments. • A program to kick off the first Ethical Research Awareness Day at UT Austin will be held Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 10 am to noon in the Texas Union 2.102 Eastwoods Room. Contact Paula Poindexter at paula.poindexter@austin.utexas.edu for more information. • The annual Faculty Council photograph is being rescheduled. You will be notified as soon as a new date has been set. • Due to a conflict, the annual meeting of the General Faculty scheduled for October 25, 2010, is being rescheduled. You will be notified as soon as a new date has been set. • The annual meeting of the School of Undergraduate Studies will immediately following the General Faculty meeting. We will let you when the meeting date has been set. • UT Austin will host the Joint Meeting of the Texas A&M Faculty Senate and the UT Austin Faculty Council on March 7, 2011. • Questions to the Chair. • Adjournment.