1 / 0

2010-2011 Faculty Council Special Meeting

2010-2011 Faculty Council Special Meeting. Agenda. I. Report of the Committee to Nominate Faculty Council Officers for 2010-2011.

Télécharger la présentation

2010-2011 Faculty Council Special Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. 2010-2011 Faculty CouncilSpecial Meeting

  2. Agenda

    I. Report of the Committee to Nominate Faculty Council Officers for 2010-2011. The Committee to Nominate Faculty Council Officers for 2010-11 (Dean Neikirk, chair) nominates the persons whose names are set forth in the following slides.Members of the nominating committee include Cynthia Buckley (sociology), Sue A. Greninger (human development and family sciences), and David Hillis (integrative biology), Tom Palaima (classics), Janet Staiger (radio-television-film). Revisions to the membership and election of faculty to the Faculty Council Executive Committee were approved by the Faculty Council (D 7788-7789) on January 25, 2010.
  3. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Composition. The chair, chair elect, and past chair of the Faculty Council; the secretary of the Faculty Council; the chair (or the chair elect in the absence of the chair) of the Graduate Assembly; and three Faculty Council members elected by the voting members of the Faculty Council. Terms of service commence on the first class day of the fall semester; they are for one year (though renewable).
  4. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Function: To facilitate the work of the Faculty Council and to see that the Council has the benefit of the work done by the standing committees and by the special committees of the Faculty Council; to plan the Council's agenda and other related activities; and to meet at least monthly with the president and his or her designated representatives in order to discuss and advise on educational, institutional, and faculty matters.
  5. NOMINEES FOR CHAIR ELECT Alan W. Friedman, professor, English Alba A. Ortiz, professor, special education
  6. NOMINEES FOR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Samer M. Ali, associate professor, Middle Eastern studies Benjamin H Carrington, assistant professor, sociology Alan K. Cline, professor, computer sciences Dana L. Cloud, associate professor, communication studies Arturo De Lozanne, associate professor, molecular cell and developmental biology Brian L. Evans, professor, electrical and computer engineering Edmund (Ted) Gordon, associate professor, anthropology Hillary Hart, distinguished sr. lecturer, civil, architectural, and environmental engineering Susan S. Heinzelman, associate professor, English Pauline T. Strong, associate professor anthropology
  7. II. Announcements. Dean Neikirk is in the process of making General Faculty Standing Committee assignments for next year. You will be receiving your formal letter in campus mail soon. Thank you for your willingness to serve. Next year, UT Austin's Faculty Council will host the Joint Meeting with Texas A&M's Faculty Senate, which has been scheduled for March 7, 2011; be sure to mark your calendars. It is an all day event. The 2010-11 Faculty Council meetings are posted on the Faculty Council's web site under Spotlights and Events. III. Adjournment.
  8. Happy Summer!
  9. 2009-10 Faculty CouncilRegular Meeting

  10. Agenda

    I. Report of the Secretary—Sue Greninger. II. Approval of the Minutes—Sue Greninger. Minutes of the regular meeting of March 22, 2010 (delayed). B. Minutes of the regular meeting of April 12, 2010 (delayed).
  11. III. COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT—William Powers Jr. A. Comments by the President. B. Questions to the President. From the Faculty Council Executive Committee. 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 vice presidents’ 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)?
  12. IV. REPORT OF THE CHAIR—Janet Staiger V. REPORT OF THE CHAIR ELECT—Dean Neikirk. VI. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. A. School of Undergraduate Studies Governance Procedures (D 7982-7983)—Larry Abraham (associate dean, undergraduate studies).
  13. Proposal for the Process of Faculty Selection to Committees in the School of Undergraduate Studies History As the School of Undergraduate Studies (UGS) 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)
  14. UGSAC is currently composed of sixteen members (fourteen voting members): the dean and associate dean of the UGS, 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 UGS, and two students (the heads of the Student Government and Senate of College Councils). (Continued)
  15. 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. (Continued)
  16. 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. (Continued)
  17. The dean of the UGS 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. (Continued)
  18. Proposal Beginning in 2010-11, the UGSAC shall be composed of seventeen members (fifteen voting members): the dean and associate dean of the UGS, 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)
  19. 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). (Continued)
  20. 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)
  21. 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. (Continued)
  22. 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 UGS (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)
  23. Flag committee chairs shall be appointed annually from the established committee membership by the dean of the UGS. (Continued)
  24. 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. (Continued)
  25. 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)
  26. 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.
  27. B. Proposed Revisions to UT HOP 3.16 Threatened Faculty Retrenchment (D 8009-8012)— Janet Staiger (professor, radio-television-film and committee chair).
  28. 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)
  29. 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.
  30. Proposed Revisions to HOP 3.16 Declaration that UT-Austin will follow new policy of Regents’ Rules in 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
  31. I. 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 Faculty in the unit(s) will have opportunity to participate in the review
  32. I. (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).
  33. II. 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.”
  34. II. (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 . . . .”
  35. II. 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.
  36. II. 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.
  37. II. 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. Recommendations will be in writing.
  38. 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
  39. Additional 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.
  40. Four Amendments to Posted Policy 1. In section I: Addition of the word “budget” for clarity I. Abandonment of Academic Positions or Programs for Academic and Budget Reasons An academic program under consideration for abandonment or an academic position that is under consideration for elimination for bona fide academic and budget reasons should be reviewed in depth through a procedure determined by the President in consultation with the Faculty Council. The President shall consult with the Faculty Council and the affected budgetary units to determine the bona fide academic and budget reasons, the most appropriate of the possible courses of action to be taken, and the means of safeguarding faculty rights and interests, including tenure rights.
  41. 2. In section I: Clarification that all faculty will be notified and permitted to contribute to the review process [Tenured] Faculty in a program that is under consideration for abandonment or in an academic position that is under consideration for elimination will be notified and afforded an opportunity to contribute to the review process. The President will appoint a Review Committee, at least one-half of which will have membership of faculty members without current administrative duties. The Faculty Council shall provide the nominations for the faculty members and will supply at least twice the number of faculty nominations as required for the Review Committee.
  42. 3. In Section I: definition of “program” added. A program shall be defined as a planned, coordinated group of courses for a specific curricular goal.
  43. In Section II, revision of language to conform to AAUP guidelines regarding tenured faculty In sections 3.3, Review Consideration, and 3.4, Tenure Preference. The Exigency Committee next recommends specific positions to be eliminated. These recommendations should also be contained in a written report. The recommendations should be related to the Exigency Committee’s assessment of programs. If other officers of the university, such as deans or program chairs, are involved in identifying individuals whose appointments are to be terminated, the process for obtaining these recommendations should be described in the report. (continued)
  44. The Exigency Committee will have available the personnel records of those being considered including current curriculum vitas, annual reports for the past six years,promotion committee reports and recommendations, and results of periodic performance reviews. It will have access to full personnel files. ( The tenure status of a faculty member shall not be a consideration in the determination of whether a particular position shall be eliminated except as permitted in Section 3.4 below.)The appointment of a faculty member with tenure will not be terminated in favor of retaining a faculty member without tenure, except in extraordinary circumstances where a serious distortion of the academic program would otherwise result. (continued)
  45. Faculty whose positions would be jeopardized by the proposed actions will be provided the opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the Committee’s review process, including the ability to respond in writing to the recommendations. ( For section 3.4, Tenure Preference. If, in the opinion of the committee, two or more faculty members are equally qualified and capable of performing a particular teaching role, the faculty member or members having tenure shall be given preference over non-tenured faculty. However, if such faculty member has the same tenure status, consideration will be given to other documented needs of the institution.)
  46. C. Revisions to Changes to the Voting Rights of the General Faculty (D 8065-8066)—Hillary Hart (distinguished senior lecturer, civil, architectural and environmental engineering and committee chair). Rationale: To maintain equity in the voting rights for all non-tenure track faculty who meet the criteria described in the original HOP for instructors and lecturers. And to update/clarify certain details of faculty governance. Proposal: Modify the HOP (Chapter 1, Section I.B) to extend University voting rights to all non-tenure track faculty who meet certain criteria.
  47. Proposed revision I. General Faculty B. Membership 1. Voting members of the General Faculty shall consist of the following: a. All professors, associate professors, and assistant professors. b. All instructors and lecturersnon-tenure track facultywho have had a total of four or more continuous long session semesters of service at these ranks at The University of Texas at Austinand who meet these criteria: (1) Are appointed at least 50% time at a UT-Austin Unit  (2) Have an academic title  (3) Are not students
  48. Modify the HOP, Chapter 1, Section VI . A. Colleges and Departmentalized Schools Voting members also include : Instructors and lecturers Non-tenure-track faculty members with two semesters of service 2. Dual titles such as Professor of Computer Science and Chemical Engineering indicate voting membership in both units provided the faculty member holds a 50% appointment in each unit.
  49. Modify the HOP, Chapter 1, Section VI . B. Departments and non-Departmentalized Schools. A faculty member shall have voting status in a department on departmental matters if:  1. He or she holds a full-time appointment in that department as detailed in the budget and holds the rank of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor, Instructor, Lecturer, or any other non-tenure-track title. The assignment of a faculty member to an administrative post, released time for research or career development, an endowed chair, or such other activities as may be approved by the President shall not jeopardize the voting status of the individual under this provision. Or
  50. He or she holds joint appointments in two or more departments in any of the ranks listed in subsection a. above, the sum of which corresponds to full-time appointment in the University and comprises at least 50% time appointment in the department. Phrase removed: “and the joint appointment is subsequent to his initial appointment.”
  51. Add to the HOP, Chapter 1, Section VI . C.  Academic Centers. A faculty member shall have voting status in an Academic Center on Center matters according to how a Center determines its voting rights. 
  52. D.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.
  53. VII. REPORTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY, COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS, AND COMMITTEES. Report on the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics Association (COIA)—Tom Palaima (professor classics and COIA representative).
  54. VIII. NEW BUSINESS. A. Report of the Committee to Nominate Faculty Members for Appointment to the Intercollegiate Athletics Councils for Men and for Women (D 8076-8077)—Janet Staiger (professor, radio-television-film, chair).
  55. DEDICATION“It’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall.” Under the guiding principle I learned from Willie Nelson—“police your own area”—this presentation is, with some measure of aidōs, dedicated to the memory of my friend, UT student (summer intensive Greek 2001) and scholarly collaborator, Col. (dec.) Ted Westhusing, who always stood for what was right, even when what was wrong was being tolerated, excused or supported by those with authority, power and responsibility greater than his. His cause was greater. His cost was greater. It is incomprehensible to me after studying these issues and problems for almost eleven years now, and quite seriously for the last five, that men and women of high education and good conscience can let things come to this pass and be so profligate with resources and tolerant of policies and practices that do not conduce to the true educational interests of the citizens of our great state. Ted saw the same things in a much more terrible situation. Just because these matters are, relatively speaking, trivial, does not mean we should not move to fix them. They may not cost lives, but they ruin some, and cost others the opportunity truly to improve their lives.

    POINT 1COIA annual national meetings San Diego State University, January 22-24. SDSU Pres. Weber (with considerable direct NCAA experience): (1) athletics is a part of the institutional work of human growth and development; (2) the ultimate responsibility of setting standards and values for athletics at the university resides in the guild of faculty, not administrators; (3) Weber was glad COIA invented itself—and was sorry it did not do so about 50 years ago. (4) President Weber: athletics is in desperate need of reform(his words) and COIA can be active voice in the reform by posing the right questions, about, for example, the corrosive aspects of money.
  57. POINT 2 The problems with NCAA athletics were recognized by Upton Sinclair, John R. Tunis and a Carnegie Foundation National Study in the 1920’s. On the Forty Acres UT’s own Wright Committee (1997-1999) issued a full report on February 4, 1999, that can be accessed on the Faculty Council Web site. http://www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/1998-1999/reports/ath_adhoc.htm. From it, we can also cite these immortal and courageous words by Michael Granof, when he had a chance to speak up on the Wright Committee: “I am impressed with the [Athletics] Department's fiscal integrity, its concern for the academic well-being of our athletes and the effectiveness with which the department fulfills what it sees as its purpose.” President Weber did not say what he was willing to do. This is consistent with the report of the national Knight Commission which reported the significant average losses by 85% (94 out of 119) of the national NCAA BCS (formerly Division I-A) institutions: an average of $9.87 million in 2007-08. It also reported the nearly unanimous opinion of the presidents of NCAA institutions that they could do nothing about the out-of-control costs and coaches’ salary structures. I.e., the presidents who have visibility and authority have washed their hands of a situation that their own failures to exert controls and act in the educational, research and larger cultural interests of their institutions have brought about. When presidents say they can do nothing, they mean they can do nothing that will not have consequences for their salaries, their careers, their comfort levels during their tenures as presidents, and the higher special interests that have placed them in their offices.
  58. POINT 3 The problems are clear and the responsibility should not be shirked off onto faculty who are everywhere just about as institutionally powerless as we are here at UT Austin. FOR ANALYSIS READ: http://www.texasobserver.org/cover-story/the-golden-football The Golden Football: The University of Texas’ bad example. http://www.texasobserver.org/archives/item/15900-uts-byzantine-budget-on-5-million-coaches-and-laid-off-lecturers UT’s Byzantine Budget: On $5 million coaches and laid-off lecturers http://www.dailytexanonline.com/opinion/athletics-moral-fiscal-mismanagement-1.2142556 "Athletics' moral, fiscal mismanagement" http://www.statesman.com/opinion/palaima-uts-big-spenders-show-little-regard-for-273051.html UT's big spenders show little regard for value of money Inside Higher Ed Curbing Athletic Spendinghttp://www.insidehighered.com/var/ihe/storage/images/media/news_images/2010/01/ncaa/4185866-1-eng-US/ncaa_full.jpgSmith College economist Andrew Zimbalist noted that more than 100 coaches in the FBS have compensation packages that are in excess of $1 million. In many cases, this means they earn way more than their (nominal) bosses, the university presidents. Zimbalist proposed that the NCAA should seek a partial antitrust exemption to regulate coaches’ salaries.
  59. POINT 4CONSIDER IF YOU SAVOR THE IRONIC: Quote: US Secy of Education Arne Duncan declared that we should hold coaches responsible. "When the average arrests per year are higher than the team's GPA, that's a challenge."  If we held UT Austin's $5M coach, Mack Brown, who is held out nationally and locally as a prime example of coaching virtue, responsible as the Secretary of Education suggests, he would be very responsible. When Dan Buckner was arrested in College Station on January 13, according to the Austin American-Statesman, he was “the fifth Longhorn to be involved in an incident with police since June." Then on Sunday AM April 18, Texas running back Vondrell McGee was arrested for driving while intoxicated. That makes 6 players who have been apprehended by police in just over 10 months. That's more than double the football team's GPA.  It would seem to be quite a challenge coaching football at UT Austin, especially if we add the surprising number of UT student athletes who now decide after a season or two suddenly to 'transfer' to other programs...and thereby give UT NCAA APR credit for a ‘transfer student’, rather than a dropout. Secy Duncan does not seem to have the words ‘farce’ or ‘fraud’ or ‘flimflam’ in the vocabulary he chooses to apply to the real world that he must not be looking at.
  60. POINT 5CONSIDER: College presidents have watched as the NCAA programs at their institutions: (1) have run up significant debts; (2) have lobbied successfully for removal of basic standards for admissions; (3) have lobbied successfully for adjustments to the Academic Progress Report (APR) system. These last efforts have converted the passing 925 APR score now into a disgraceful 35% 6-year graduation rate.
  61. POINT 6CONSIDER: THIS IS NOT TOM PALAIMA BLOWING SMOKE: The Panel on Student-Athlete Welfare headed by Dr. Gerald Gurney of the University of Oklahoma, President-elect of the N4A (The National Association of Athletic Academic Advisors) (1) the gap between the profiles of specially-admitted athlete-students and of the regular student body. The situation has changed dramatically for the worse since 2003, when NCAA initial-eligibility standards were changed to a sliding scale. The number of special admits has increased significantly while, at the same time, at many Division I-A schools, the admission profile (i.e., academic quality) of the student-body profile has increased significantly. The result is that the situation of special-admit students in highly-competitive classrooms is even worse than in the past. They are at a greater disadvantage. (2) There is also a relationship between lower academic standards and character issues (the NCAA Infractions Committee is seeing a greater incidence of academic scandals than in the past). Students with weak academic profiles are thrown in with students who have stronger academic profiles—and then the institutions use the flimflammed APR/GSR (Graduation Success Rate) point system to evaluate their success at retention and graduation. (3) institutions put a lot of money into academic support for athletes (learning specialists, learning disability specialists, tutors, etc.). Ifthe other students had such support, they would all do much better. Dr. Gurney pointed out that athletic departments have huge investments in these student-athletes in terms of recruiting and training; and the huge salaries of the coaches are dependent on the eligibility of these students.
  62. POINT 7CONSIDER Ditto: Division I-A Faculty Athletics Representatives The Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) from Washington State University reported on the role of the FAR and current issues before the Division I-A FARs, which include: getting more faculty on NCAA committees; blocking further APR/GSR gimmickry; containing costs; seeing that the impact on student athletes of playing in NCAA championship tournaments and bowl games be considered; counteracting runaway commercialization; coaching limitations (institutions seem to add coaches by adding "operations" people to team staffs); bringing decisions about athlete-student life under the control of institutions, not coaches. FARs must work actively with the faculty senates/councils about faculty concerns.
  63. POINT 8CONSIDER: Division I-A Academic Cabinet Report Professor John Bruno, Faculty Athletics Representative from Ohio State and a member of the Division I-A Academic Cabinet, reported on the work of the Cabinet. Highlights are: (1) current analyses suggest that some combination of test scores and core grades is a better predictor than either metric alone, for admissions. Professor Bruno said that the guiding principle for initial eligibility standards is that they "should represent minimally acceptable standards, with continued reliance upon member institutions to make admissions decisions that are most appropriate for determining academic success locally." (2) The Cabinet is also considering non-traditional coursework. Professor Bruno said that this means “any course delivery method other than traditional, in-person classroom setting.” Their focus is not an “indictment on pedagogical value of such delivery,” but shows concern with the “potential for abuse and also [the] issue of integrating athletes with [the] student body.” The technology is advancing very rapidly and they want to be able to establish set of general parameters that define such courses as acceptable. As we know, in one of the last years when such data were available, there is at UT Austin a considerable difference between the average SAT’s of male student-athletes in major sports and the overall student body average.
  64. POINT 9 CONSIDER: Comments from Brad Wolverton, The Chronicle of Higher Educationeditor for Money and Management, with long experience as a sports journalist He addressed “the true cost of the college sports obsession and all it entails—over-the-top sports facilities, growing commercialization, and coaches’ salaries.” The presidents and athletic directors, who draw salaries much larger than any faculty, are increasingly cut from a corporate cloth, as reported in the Chronicle, and President Weber’s mythical institution where faculty set and control, or even appreciably influence, values and standards in athletics is hard to find in the real world. In a survey Wolverton conducted of the big-time institutions, “private donations were close to becoming the #1 source of revenue.” The biggest programs, together, had raised about $4 billion for capital improvements from 2003-2008. [UT has spent ca. $300 million since 1998 and has an indebtedness now of ca. $224 million.] In addition to football stadiums, the money went for such things (at different institutions) as a 34,000-square-foot academic-support facility for athletes, a weight room the size of a Wal-Mart store, and a basketball practice facility with a lot of amenities. Each of these projects cost about $21 million. Much of the money for capital projects comes in the form of pledges, so universities take on debt and hope the money comes in. Smaller programs, striving to get closer to the top, often face the largest debt problems. Wolverton reported that “athletics gifts to Division I schools went from representing 14% of overall university-wide gifts in 1999 to 28% five years later.” During the same period, gifts to institutions for non-athletic purposes were flat. He asked, with a straight face, who is watching the programs. The presidents, he noted, as reported by the most recent report of the Knight Commission, have largely "thrown up their hands," claiming that the spending and costs are out of control and they can do nothing.
  65. POINT 10 CONSIDER: Comments from Brad Wolverton, The Chronicle of Higher EducationCONTINUED The athletic directors are driven by the need to generate as much money as possible for their programs and of course, themselves. We might ask, how much time can full-time faculty, even if serious faculty could be appointed to true oversight committees, spend on the Sisyphean task of trying to influence big-time athletic programs which have been untethered since the 1920’s? He wondered, archly rhetorically it would seem, whether independent faculty members have as much voice as pro-sports donors, regents, administrators and politicians do in making sure the growth in athletic programs fits the academic mission. There are now 25 Division I-A head football coaches who make $2 million or more (twice as many as two years ago). The average pay of the head football coaches in I-A has gone up 30% in the last two years. Locally, we know, Mack Brown went from $3.1 M to $5 M actual salary, what I call the give-Muschamp-a-big-carrot raise. Wolverton pointed to the SEC as the most financially successful conference. It has 6 of the 15 largest athletic budgets, the second-smallest number of sports sponsored by a conference (one of UT Austin’s own formulae for success—support fewer sports and fewer athletes and have more money to lavish on fewer coaches), the winningest records, and the lowest APR scores in football, men's and women's basketball, and baseball of the six BCS conferences. He asked: Is the SEC the conference that should be emulated?
  66. POINT 11 CONSIDER: Wally Renfro, Senior Adviser to the President of the NCAA, provided an update on several issues. This was virtually mind-numbing palaver about special admissions, academic reforms, and financing practices. So I won’t even bother summarizing most of it. There was one factoid: There is a factor-of-13 difference between the revenues of the largest and smallest of the 120 Football Bowl Championship Series schools. The Knight Commission reported that a large majority of presidents feel powerless to deal with sports finances, because of this disparity. Finally, as we remarked at the outset, former NCAA student-athlete Arne Duncan, our new Secretary of Education, has weighed in on many of the NCAA athletics issues. He has even gone so far as to propose that the NCAA ban from their March-Madness tournament any team that does not have a 40% 6-year graduation rate. Naturally the NCAA said “Thanks, Arne, but no thanks.” Secretary Duncan is also troubled by one-and-done players like our own one-year-wonder jersey-retiree Kevin Durant. But the NCAA and NBA explicitly created this situation by making it impossible for future Kobe Bryants, Kevin Durants and LeBron Jameses in our high schools (or sports academies) to go straight to the NBA. Have to keep the networks happy! Secretary Duncan also decried the fact that 8th-graders were being recruited by NCAA institutions. But the NCAA changed its guidelines so that even 7th graders now are considered prospective athletes and therefore are fair game for “recruiting by the rules.”
  67. POINT 12 CONSIDER: The University of California at Berkeley sports department has wanted to return to national prominence. It ran up a $31.4 million debt that university leaders repaid from academic coffers in 2007. Now, after UC Berkeley has furloughed faculty and staff (but not football coaches) and proposed a whopping 30-percent tuition increase, its athletics program reported an additional $12.2 million debt this year and expects a similar figure next year. This is coming from the overall University budget. The athletics director announced with a straight face that these amounts “will be repaid in the future from external sources of revenue.” So UC Berkeley’s Faculty Senate tried to make its advice heard and its will implemented.
  68. POINT 13 CONSIDER: ACADEMICS FIRST A Model Resolution (aka Fantasy) on Intercollegiate Athletics for Faculty Senates Jointly not issued by: The UC Berkeley Faculty Senate* The Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (COIA)** The Drake Group (TDG) 1. Faculty Governance (a) The Faculty recommends that the University recognizes and supports a Campus Athletics Board (CAB) or equivalent, as mandated by the NCAA. The CAB shall have a voting membership composed solely of faculty members and shall be authorized, in conjunction with the University Administration, to establish policy and to oversee the athletic department's operations with regard to the following: (i) Promote transparency and clarity in all matters affecting the academic mission; (ii) Assist the athletic department in making decisions that are in concert with the overall academic mission of the University; (iii) Protect student athlete welfare; and, (iv) Confirm the satisfactory accomplishment of the academic and financial items below.
  69. POINT 14 CONSIDER: ACADEMICS FIRST A Model Resolution (aka Fantasy) on Intercollegiate Athletics for Faculty Senates 3.Finances (a) The faculty recommends that the University President or equivalent put the Athletics Department on a self-supporting basis, and implement the following: (i) The Athletics Budget shall receive no base funds from the general education fund. Any annual cash support to the Athletics Budget from the general education fund shall be approved by the Athletics Oversight Committee and the faculty senate, as well as by the University's governing board and through the normal budgeting procedure. (ii) The Athletic Budget shall be integrated with the academic budget and follow the same processes and procedures; and, (iii) The Athletics Budget shall receive support from student fees only as voted by the student body.
  70. POINT 15 CONSIDER: Graglia and Palaima Debate College Football http://www.utexas.edu/know/2010/01/06/debate-college-football/ Transcript available at: http://www.utexas.edu/research/pasp/ watchthehorn — April 12, 2010 — Parts one and two of our interview with UT professor and critic of the budget of UT's athletics program... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUqtOSjoxNA&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf6seiM2i_E&feature=related Here follows a recent article in USA Today about the President of SMU, Gerald Turner, who agreed to a big salary for his football coach, while as the co-chair of the Knight Commission speaking out for bringing budgetary restraint back to NCAA athletics programs. THE END
  71. Walking the talk? Knight Commission co-chair backs big salary for SMU football coach: Southern Methodist University President Gerald Turner says the contract of head football coach June Jones is a "sustainable expense." By Steve Berkowitz, USA TODAY, 5-6-10  In his capacity as co-chair of the reform-minded Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics, Gerald Turner cautions about increasing spending by major-college athletics programs.  In his capacity as president of Southern Methodist University, Turner has overseen one of the nation's most drastic recent increases in football-coaching compensation. SMU paid coach June Jones $2,142,056 during the 2008 calendar year, more than a 300% increase over what the university paid Jones' predecessor in 2005-06. Turner said Jones, hired Jan. 7, 2008, received a $500,000 signing bonus and a 2008 base salary of about $1.6 million. At that time, Jones' salary likely made him the top-paid football coach at a school in a conference without an automatic Bowl Championship Series bid.  "We wouldn't have (given Jones such a lucrative contract), believe me wewouldn't have done it. if it wasn't a sustainable expense ... based uponwhat these individuals said they would do," says Turner, adding that thedonors signed pledges and some already have paid their entire commitments infull. Turner says SMU's dealings with Jones and his work with the KnightCommission are compatible. "I'll tell you, with the SMU hat on, it makes you very aware of the pointthat (he and others on the Knight Commission) have been making," he says."One person can't do it. It's going to take everybody working together, butthen every individual has to have a budget that is sustainable for his orher university. I think those are the two things we've been saying, and I feel that what we've done here is compatible with both."
  72. Intercollegiate Athletics Council for Men I. The present faculty composition of the Intercollegiate Athletics Council for Men is as follows: David W. Fowler, professor, civil engineering (chair, term open) Edmund T. Gordon, associate professor, anthropology (term expires 2010) Alba A. Ortiz, professor, special education (term expires 2011) Michael Clement, associate professor, accounting (term expires 2012) Diana M. DiNitto, professor, school of social work (term expires 2013)
  73. The panel of faculty being nominated for appointment in 2010 for a four-year term to the Intercollegiate Athletics Council for Men is as follows: Hans Boas, associate professor, Germanic studies Benjamin H. Carrington, assistant professor, sociology Edmund (Ted) Gordon, associate professor, anthropology Thomas G. Palaima, professor, classics Janice S. Todd, professor, kinesiology and health education
  74. Intercollegiate Athletics Council for Women II. The present faculty composition of the Intercollegiate Athletics Council for Women is as follows: Mary A. Steinhardt, professor, kinesiology and health education (chair, term open) Isabella Cunningham, professor, advertising (term expires 2010) Robert Prentice, professor, information, risk, and operations management (term expires 2011) Larry D. Carver, professor, English (term expires 2012) Barbara W. White, dean, social work (term expires 2013)
  75. The panel of faculty being nominated for appointment in 2010 for a four-year term to the Intercollegiate Athletics Council for Women is as follows: Susan S. Heinzelman, associate professor, English LeeAnnKahlor, assistant professor, advertising Hunter March, professor, music Tasha S. Philpot, associate professor, government Christine L. Williams, professor, sociology
  76. B. Proposal to Change the Function and Composition of the C-13 Information Technology Committee (D 8074-8075)—Paul Resta (professor, curriculum and instruction and committee chair).
  77. C-13 Information Technology CommitteeRecommendations for NewIT Governance Structure

  78. SITAC ReportRecommended Governance Structure
  79. Recommendation 1 To provide the governance process a broader base of faculty input, the C-13 Information Technology Committee should add six additional voting faculty positions selected from members of college and school faculty IT committees. These positions should rotate every two years from among those units that have faculty IT committees. Colleges/schools without faculty IT committees are encouraged to create them. Upon approval of this proposal, it is recommended to eliminate the representatives of college and school technology coordinators.
  80. Recommendation 2 Cross-committee communications are essential if the new governance structure is to effectively respond to the needs of all sectors of the University. In instances in which the work of two committees is closely related, cross-representation would be helpful. Thus, the C-13 Information Technology Committee recommends that a representative from the Information Technology Research and Educational Technology Committee (R & E) serve as an Administrative Advisor ex officio member without vote on the C-13 Information Technology Committee.
  81. Recommendation 3 The Ideas of Texas should be the mechanism to harvest ideas from faculty, staff, and students. A process should be developed to filter and communicate this input to the appropriate committees for consideration and/or action.
  82. Recommendation 4 Colleges and schools should submit vision plans and proposals to the R & E Committee using a streamlined template.
  83. Recommendation 5 Representatives from the R & E Committee and the Information Technology Architecture and Infrastructure Committee (A & I) should meet jointly each year with each college and school to review the unit’s plans and needs.
  84. Recommendation 6 The college and school vision plans should align with the University Strategic Information Technology Advisory Committee’s (SITAC) plan and should include metrics on results of the previous year’s funding for IT projects.
  85. Recommendation 7 A grant proposal process and format should be established for the review, selection, and funding of innovative projects that can serve as models for other technology initiatives within the University.
  86. Recommendation 8 Based on the probability of flat or reduced University funding for IT over the next few years, sustainability should be included as an important criterion in evaluating innovative project proposals.
  87. Committee on Committees Approved Proposal on April 26, 2010 DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTYPROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE FUNCTION AND COMPOSITION OF THE C-13 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE Professor Paul Resta (curriculum and instruction) submitted the following proposal on behalf of Information Technology Committee recommending changes to the function and composition. The proposal will be voted on by the Faculty Council at its meeting on May 10, 2010. The secretary has classified this resolution as general legislation. Sue Alexander Greninger, Secretary The Faculty Council and General Faculty
  88. FUNCTION: To recommend to the president, and to the [vice-president for information technology] chief information officer, and to the Faculty Council changes in policies regarding information technology; to consult with and advise the [vice-president for information technology] chief information officer about policies and procedures pertaining to information technology at The University.
  89. COMPOSITION: [Five]Eleven[i] members of the General Faculty, six of whom shall be from college/school faculty information technology (IT) committees.The IT faculty will rotate among the colleges and schools that have faculty IT committees. [,] Each year the deans of colleges/schools with faculty IT committees will send the name of a faculty member of the IT committee to the Committee on Committees. The Committee on Committees will forward the panel of names to the president, from which he will select three to serve on the committee for a two-year term. The committee will also include four staff members, and four students. Staff members shall be appointed to two-year rotating terms by the president, from a panel of names submitted by the Staff Council. One student member shall be appointed to a one-year term by the president in the fall from a panel of names submitted by each of the student government and the student senate, and two members shall be appointed to one-year terms by the president from a panel of names submitted by the graduate student assembly. In addition, every year the chair of the Faculty Council shall appoint two members of the Faculty Council for one-year terms as members of the committee. The committee shall elect its own chair and vice chair, who shall be members of the General Faculty. The [vice-president for information technology] chief information officer and a representative from the Information Technology Research & Educational Technology Committee (R&E) serve as [an] ex-officio members without vote. A representative from each of the following shall be selected by the president to serve as an administrative advisor without vote: the division of innovative instruction and assessment, [the college and school technology coordinators,] financial affairs, and department chairs.
  90. RATIONALE: This proposed revision to the membership of the C-13 Information Technology Committee will provide a broader base of faculty input for the university IT governance process. The college/school faculty IT committees provide an effective means to identify faculty IT concerns and assess the impact on faculty of university and college IT policies and decisions. These members will be able to present their faculty’s needs and issues to the C-13 Information Technology Committee and disseminate information on Committee matters and recommendations to their faculty. Colleges/schools without faculty IT committees are encouraged to create them. The proposed revision will also eliminate the need to have a “college and school technology coordinator” representative on the C-13 Committee as the IT needs of colleges/schools will be well represented by the school/college faculty IT Committee representatives. Based on a recent survey, the following schools/colleges have faculty IT committees: Architecture, Education, Jackson School of Geology, Law, Liberal Arts, and Social Work. The committees are appointed and most have administrators or staff as ex officio members. Having a representative from the R&E committee as an ex officio member of the C-13 Information Technology Committee will help foster cross-communication between the two committees.
  91. PROCESS: The deans of colleges/schools with faculty IT committees will send the name of a faculty member of the IT committee to the Office of the General Faculty. The Committee on Committees will select six of the college/school faculty members to serve on the C-13 Information Technology Committee and rotate the membership. The initial term of these appointments may vary to create a two-year rotation.
  92. Discussion
  93. C. Motion to Change the Composition of the C-12 Responsibilities, Rights, and Welfare of Graduate Student Academic Employees Committee (D 8080)—Professor Brian Evans (computer and electrical engineering and committee chair). MOTION: Add to the Composition: The chair of Graduate Assembly shall appoint one member of the Graduate Assembly for a one-year term as a voting member of the committee. RATIONALE: The Graduate Assembly has legislative powers concerning graduate student academic employees, e.g. "graduate student programs and student welfare, including teaching and research appointments" and "graduate student support". The C-12 committee would benefit from having a liaison from the Graduate Assembly on the C-12 committee. The request for this change was initiated by Victoria Rodriguez and Pauline Strong, and received unanimous support from the C-12 committee members in 2007-2008.
  94. D. Faculty Council Resolutions on University Budget Issues (D 8083)—Alan Friedman (professor, English). Believing that a financial crisis should not be addressed by doing harm to those who are most vulnerable, the Faculty Council opposes firings and wage reductions of low paid faculty, staff, and graduate students. We support providing a living wage with health benefits for all UT employees. We endorse the principle of slowing or cutting new construction and administrative salaries and positions rather than fire faculty or staff. (Continued)
  95. 3. We support a serious effort to eliminate or reduce wasteful duplication of programs. 4. We endorse the principle of creating retirement incentives, with proper safeguards to minimize their being taken advantage of by the most productive faculty. 5. We support 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.
  96. Announcements and Comments. A. The General Faculty elections results are posted under Spotlights & Events on the Faculty Council home page. B. Dean Neikirk is in the process of making General Faculty Standing Committee assignments for continuing members. You will be receiving your formal letter in campus mail soon. Thank you for your willingness to serve. C. Annual Reports of the General Faculty Standing Committees are due in the Office of the General Faculty. D. Next year, UT Austin's Faculty Council will host the Joint Meeting with Texas A&M's Faculty Senate, which has been scheduled for March 7, 2011; be sure to mark your calendars. It is an all day event. X. Questions to the Chair. XI. Adjournment.
  97. Happy Summer!
More Related