DRAFT                                                                 MINUTES

UTMB Faculty Senate

December 8, 2003


Caduceus Room


Senators present:  T. Albrecht; C. Baker; M. Best; D. Breitkopf; B. Budelmann (Chair-elect); B. Camune; C. Christiansen (ex-officio); C. Cooper (ex-officio); S. Gerik; C. Jansen; H. Jordan; M. Kanz; R. Lederman (Chair); S. Lemon (ex-officio); H. Li; M. McGinnis; R. Moore (ex-officio); C. Phillips; L. Phillips (ex-officio) A. Pou; R. Rahr; J. Stobo (ex-officio); C. Stroup-Benham; G. Taglialatela (Past-Chair); C. Thomas; D. Trevino; P. Watson (ex-officio); C. Wigg; M. Winter; C. Wisnewski.


I.       Agenda for 12/8/03 approved; minutes of 11/10/03 approved.

II.    President’s comments – J. Stobo

a.      Noted that the next salary equity study presentation to the AEC by Watson and Wyatt has been postponed from last month to Friday, December12, 2003.  It should easily provide comparative data showing outliers, which will be checked by the Deans to ensure pay disparities are not due to gender or race.

b.      The UT Chancellor has approved our negotiations to manage Austin Women’s Hospital.  Once the city approves, we estimate starting around the first of 2004.

c.      The continued implementation of PeopleSoft has not been an easy transformation.  The new system is necessary; we have been working with solutions problem-by-problem.  We are in communication with other institutional users to benefit us by their experiences.

d.      The President’s Council receives 360 degree evaluations annually.  Each identifies up to 16 evaluators including himself, immediate supervisor, peer, and customers.  He has found the comments portion of the assessment the most valuable.

III. Chair Report – R. Lederman

a.      Distributed a list of Senate Committee membership and asked senators to check for accuracy, and requested any changes be sent to her.

b.      Introduced new senator from the School of Nursing, Caroline Phillips, PhD.

IV.  Chair-Elect Report – U. Budelmann

a.      Attended the Faculty Advisory Council (FAC) in Austin with R. Lederman.   Of note:

                                                               i.      Sid Sander (Assistant Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning & Construction) reported on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Plans for the next five years (2004-2009) total $4.6 Billion. As compared to spending in previous years, there will be no increase in academic growth, a slight increase in health, and a significant increase in administration, offices, etc. New building costs per square foot are $215 for offices, administration and class rooms, $ 230 for dry labs, and $ 330 for wet labs.

                                                              ii.      Kenneth Shine (the new Executive Vice Chancellor for Health Affairs) mentioned that he is not in favor of tenure.

                                                             iii.      The Chairs of the FAC will meet with the Board of Regents in February. They are currently working on several resolutions, as follows:

·         The performance measure of the UT Components should include:

o        The total $$ amount of all administrative salaries.

o        The total $$ amount of all non-administrative faculty salaries.

o        The ratio of administrative positions versus non-administrative faculty positions.

·         For long-term planning by faculty, all UT Components should move toward longer-term commitments for all faculty of all professional ranks

·         All faculty salary raises should be predicated on peer review.

·         Organizational restructuring should always involve consultation with the affected faculty.

·         Search committees for academic or health-related administrative positions (e.g., Deans, Vice-Presidents, Provosts, Chairs, Directors, etc.) should include significant faculty representation from the units affected.

·         Tenure for part-time faculty who have already earned tenure.  Currently tenure can only be held by full-time faculty. Dr. Lederman asked senators to share any feedback they have with her.

V.     Past-Chair Report – G. Taglialatela

The Principles of Faculty Development document has cleared through legal.  In addition to being posted on the senate web site, Dr. Linda Phillips will post it on the academic affairs site.

VI.  “Conflict of Interest” update – A. Wishon

The process for disclosures has been revised.  It is an on-line version that is pre-populated from the last submission.  This electronic version will give users and departments real-time completions.  Her office will provide training sessions and monitor results & compliance. (see handout)

VII. 360 Degree Evaluations for Deans

a.      Charles Christiansen:  Has been using this evaluation method for nearly 4 years.  This is done on-line and provides for feedback on kinds of behaviors, logistics and performance management.  Evaluators include immediate supervisor, direct reports, peers, and customers.  In the past, an outside private consultant was hired to compile results and provide themes and a written report.  Dr. Christiansen shares the top ten and bottom ten ratings at the SAHS bi-annual town meeting.

b.      Cary Cooper:  In addition to Dr. Stobo, he is evaluated by peers, program directors, and staff.  The main problem is selecting from his 300 faculty throughout the schools. He would prefer a random selection of evaluators.  The evaluation includes a rating of the importance of the question, which he feels can be eliminated thus shortening the document.  Also, he favors using a shortened version, much like the School of Medicine has used.  The evaluation has been very helpful with performance management. 

c.      Stanley Lemon:  Around four years ago, the School of Medicine organized a formal 360 evaluation of academic administrators: chairs and the dean. The original lengthy, cumbersome evaluation with about sixty to seventy questions was subsequently trimmed to a shorter questionnaire addressing a limited number of critical leadership qualities.  Each administrator is evaluated by the person to whom he/she reports, five peers, five direct reports (faculty for the chairs, with this year an additional five faculty chosen at random from within the department), and five external “customers”.  A commercial company compiles and compares results among those participating in the program.  Results are broken down by chairs, peer, and faculty.  All raters are kept confidential.  This evaluation has proven very effective and significantly enhances one-on-one evaluation sessions between the dean and the chairs.  He finds the comments most useful. The cost is around 15K per year.

VIII. On-line training – Richard Moore

The President’s Council has charged Mr. Moore with establishing a centralized process to monitor existing programs and the development of future ones to ensure that employees are only being asked to complete mandatory training.  The Department of Occupational Training and Development (OTD&R) in Human Resources has been identified to lead the effort.  They will be forming an advisory group and would like to include faculty senators.  Cindy Wigg, Christine Baker and Mark Winter volunteered to be on the committee.

IX. PeopleSoft – M. McGinnis

He has been in touch with Ralph Farr, Director of Information Systems.  Mr. Farr has indicated that he would like consultants from the senate to be involved in future project planning from the onset.  This will allow faculty from all schools to be represented. If invited to the next Senate meeting, he will also present Information System’s plan for the next five years.

X.      Motion made and seconded to adjourn at 6:03 p.m.  Committee meetings followed.