MINUTES
Utmb Faculty Senate
Caduceus Room
Senators present: T. Albrecht; C. Baker; V. Braciale;
D. Breitkopf; B. Budelmann
(Chair-elect); B. Camune; S. Gerik;
A. Hudson Jones; C. Jansen; H. Jordan; M. Kanz; R. Lederman
(Chair); H. Li; M. Mcginnis; R. Moore (ex-officio);
R. Rahr; C. Stroup-Benham;
G. Taglialatela; D. Trevino; P. Watson (ex-officio); M. Winter; C. Wisnewski.
1) Approval of agenda (
2) President’s comments – John D. Stobo
o Research services – UTMB is working with the firm of
Brinks & Associates (Jan Feldman) to restructure the department. She has been meeting with representatives
here on campus and working with E. J. Pederson.
There will no longer be a Vice-President of Research. The department will be dramatically different
from the past with an emphasis on primary investigators’ post-award
development. Jim Aerie is working on
technology transfers to get intellectual property in public domain. The Senate is invited to submit names of
individuals they feel Jan should be meeting with for this effort.
o DOM search.
There have been 30 individuals nominated; 10 are internal
candidates. The search firm of Whitt-Keiffer has been hired.
Pres. Stobo is impressed with the quality of
candidates. A group of six individuals
(a sub-set of the search committee) will review candidates
information in June and narrow the list to the top three. They will then be brought to
o Retreat with Dr. Kenneth Shine, new UT System
Executive Vice-Chancellor for Health Affairs.
The one and one-half day retreat involved:
§
Blue panel
group on indigent care chaired by the president of
§
Innovative
educational programs – how to learn from one another
§
A consulting
group from out of state is working on nursing leadership – they are not a
medical firm; the intention is to get ideas “out of the box”
§
How we compare
with other components – we are the only one with our own hospital. We know the ways to calculate actual costs of
indigent care (140-150 million) other components use a formula
o
3) Chair report – Regina Lederman
o Recommendations to the Regents from the Faculty
Advisory Council:
§
Retention of
Tenure for Tenured Faculty seeking Part-Time Appointments – each school will
write their own policy.
§
Long
term 3-year appointments was
approved.
§
Peer review for
merit increases was approved.
§
Brief leaves
will be approved for inter-system collaboration; 2K per institution with 4 per
campus is approved.
4) Chair-Elect report – Ulli Budelmann
o You Count Survey – Dr. Budelmann
has discovered that pin numbers are not unique to each faculty. Richard Moore will contact Human Resources to
verify this information and determine how the company is accountable for the
data.
5) Past-Chair Report – Giulio Taglialatela (in the
interest of a full agenda, no report).
6) Compact
report presentation – Richard Moore (attached)
7) Institutional Educational Evaluation Committee –
Rudy Guerrero
o Asking for volunteers for this accreditation
body. They review the institution’s
strategic plan for SAC’s accreditation. The time commitment is the kickoff in June
2004, then quarterly meetings in 2005 & monthly meetings in 2006. This is a positive chance for a participating
role. Charlotte Wisnewski and Susan Gerik volunteered to represent the Senate on the IEEC.
8) Committee reports:
o Academic and Administrative affairs – Mark Winter
§
Needs
volunteers for the Computing Standards, On-Line Training, PeopleSoft And
Electronic Medical Record Committees (distributed sign up sheet)
o Faculty Quality – Christine Baker
§
Working on the
Faculty Satisfaction Survey
§
The Faculty
Club is progressing very well; building will begin in September and is
scheduled to be complete in January 2005.
o Governance Committee – Daniel Breitkopf
§
Developing
Faculty Survey of AAPT processes, will be distributed
to Senate members soon.
§
Continuing work
on lab cores.
9) AAPT Process – questions raised and discussion
o Major components of the three schools should be
similar, but some distinctions should be retained based on uniqueness and
differences in each school.
o Should outside letters be a requirement for APT
process?
o In the SOM, APT processes vary substantially in
different departments. Some departments have no written policies. Chairs make all APT decisions.
o Can someone be promoted solely on teaching?
o Should AAPT and merit review be separate?
§
The Governance
Committee will undertake the review, and cite issues and make recommendations to the Senate within two
months.
10) Review of Watson/Wyatt Faculty Salary Survey –
senators are encouraged to view the tapes and reports for each school available
at the Moody Medical Library (the Senate secretary will investigate posting the
survey on the Senate web site)
11) Adjournment/Committee meetings