UTMB Faculty Senate

April 13, 2003

4:30-6:00 p.m.


Senators present:  S. Ayachi; C. Baker; M. Best; M. Boyars; V. Braciale; B. Budelmann; K. Calhoun; B. Camune; S. Gerik; C. Jansen; R. Lederman; J. Leonard; S. Mitra; L. Nash; A. Perachio; L. Primeau; N. Rubin; A. Speer; G. Taglialatela; C. Wigg.


I.                   Call to order.  April 14, 2003 Agenda approved; March 10, 2003 Minutes approved.

II.                Chair Report – G. Taglialatela

a.      The Institutional Budget Committee continues hearing plans for budget restrictions.  These details will be communicated as they become definite.

b.      The principles of faculty development document has been reviewed by the Academic Executive Committee.  The faculty senate will discuss/vote on this at today’s meeting

c.      Thirty minutes at the end of each senate meeting will be dedicated to the senate’s deliberations privately (i.e. no ex-officio members, guests).

III.             Chair-Eelect Report – R. Lederman

a.      Should the faculty senate have students as members?  Is this noted in the by-laws?  (Dr. Mitra asked if other universities allowed students) This will be an agenda item at the next senate meeting.

IV.              Issues form the AEC.  Dean Watson reported that the Academic Executive Committee reviewed and accepted the faculty development document & adopted the professionalism charter.

V.                 Professionalism Charter – Dr. Alice O’donell & Dr. Rebecca Saavedra

a.      The charter had been circulated to the senate prior to the meeting for review.  Also, “Putting the UTMB Professionalism Charter into practice” was distributed to the senate.

b.      The charter is being presented to Councils and groups across campus.  The senate is requested to pass on to their constituents.  The strategy will include a web site; pamphlets, orientations and a possible teaching module.  Concurrent to the roll-out is the institution of the new HIPPA guidelines which govern patient interaction (patient to practitioner)

c.      The charter committee includes not only representation by physicians and staff, but also of students throughout the four schools.  It is the goal of the charter to include all employees.  C. Wigg questioned who would reprimand unprofessional behavior?  A possible accountability system is one similar to the SOM “Early Concern Note”.  If a student displays potentially unprofessional behavior, the faculty request the Dean to counsel them.  With staff, the supervisor counsels the employee and if necessary refers to Human Resources.

d.      R. Lederman complimented the committee as they took all schools into account whereas other universities did not.  C. Jansen suggested that a clear distinction be made that it is interdisciplinary vs. cross-disciplinary.

e.      Motion was made to endorse the charter.  L. Primeau noted that senators had not distributed the charter to faculty & the senate cannot endorse for them.  The endorsement was called to a vote.  The senate voted to endorse the charter.

f.       J. Taglialatela thanked the committee noting it is an onerous task.  Senators will share with the charter with constituents for their feedback.

VI.              President’s Cabinet Awards – Dr. Jack Walllace

a.      The PCA was created to fund projects which have no current funding available.

b.      The cabinet is comprised of a mixture of UTMB and community individuals (about 32% UTMB and 68% community).  Total of 18 members.  Funds awarded last year were close to 50 thousand dollars. 

c.      Projects should include a cooperative effort involving the community (i.e. last year, one project:  simulated traffic emergencies, miming real wrecks, teaching high school students to drive safely).  Last year, 4 were awarded and Dr. Stobo funded one on his own.  The deadline is June 13th.  Victor Sierpina (UTMB) is the Chair and Pat Kohl (community) is the president.  All are welcome to join; the fee is tax deductible.

VII.           Faculty Development Document

a.      A brief history reveals the document originated in the faculty senate several years ago.  The original presentation to the AEC was not well received as it came across as a list of demands, entitlements.  The document was revised to show it as a developmental tool & guidelines.  J. Taglialatela presented this revision to the AEC and it was accepted.  The deans agree on the principals.  J. Taglialatela informs them of changes & revisions.  Dr. Lemon commended the senate at the last AEC.

b.      S. Mitra suggested this be sent to legal for approval (has already been submitted to Chris Johnson)

c.      B. Camune questioned whether the interpretation of junior faculty is the same across the schools.  Need definition – tenure & rank.  “New” is the key.

d.      V. Braciale asked if Chairs give faculty expectations? Where does APT come in? Cited an example of being asked to be a mentor by chair & was unwilling to do so.

e.      L. Primeau stated the expectations of chars are the same as APT Committee.  There are no individual agreements.

f.       R. Lederman noted these are mutual negotiations with junior and senior faculty.  This document helps to negotiate.

g.      S. Ayachi noted that 4 years ago, there was no senate – making progress.  Congratulations to those who worked on this document.

h.      Motion made and seconded to approve the document.  Approved.