UTMB Faculty Senate

February 9, 2004


Caduceus Room


Senators present:  S. Ayachi; C. Baker; D. Breitkoph; B. Budelmann (Chair-Elect); C. Christiansen (ex-officio); S. Gerik; A. Hudson Jones; C. Jansen; H. Jordan; M. Kanz; R. Lederman (Chair); H. Li; M. McGinnis; R. Moore (ex-officio); L. Primeau; R. Rahr; C. Stroup-Benham; G. Taglialatela (Past-Chair); C. Thomas; D. Trevino; C. Wigg; M. Winter; C. Wisnewski.


I.       Approval of 2/9/04 agenda & 1/12/04 minutes.

II.    President’s comments – J. Stobo

a.      Faculty salary equity study.  Dr. Stobo, the Deans, Chairs and Core Leadership will meet with Watson & Wyatt on March 16th.  No inequities have been found in the School of Nursing and School of Allied Health Sciences.  Those noted for the School of Medicine have been forwarded to the Dean to address. Faculty were compared to peers in their respective schools.

b.     Dr. Stobo has charged E. J. Pederson, Executive Vice-President, with the reorganization of the Office of Research.  This will no longer be a Vice-President; rather an Executive Director or Director of Research Support; must be someone who will head a “service” organization.  Mr. Pederson has met with Chairs, the SMACK group and consultants to determine the focus and direction.

c.      A diverse committee has been appointed for the Dean of Medicine search.  Committee members are not excluded as candidates.  Two firms have been contacted; Watson and Wyatt & Spencer Stewart – both impressive firms.  A decision will be made ASAP.  Having the Dean in place is projected for September, 2004.

d.     In response to a senator’s question about campaign focus groups on cancer, Dr. Stobo feels we cannot compete with the Houston market at this time.  We will be appointing a new director of clinical oncology.  He does encourage further collaboration towards cancer research and treatment.

III. Chair report – R. Lederman

a.      Members of the Faculty Advisory Council met in Brownsville with the following proposals to the Regents:

                                                              i.      Merit review by peers

                                                            ii.      Resolution on long term commitments for non-tenured faculty.

                                                          iii.      Tenure retention for full-time faculty seeking part-time appointments (for faculty with SBIR or STTR grants, family responsibilities, or for senior  faculty wishing to retain on active positions).

All proposals were well received by the Board of Regents. 

b.     A faculty member has made a request for Senate consideration of activities to contribute to the retention of students of diverse backgrounds. The Senate will invite Dr. Rebecca Saavedra to address the issue, and will inquire how the Senate can be of assistance in these efforts.

c.      Barbara Cammune has stepped down as Chair of the Governance Committee – Dr. Lederman will meet with the committee this evening to assist with questions concerning appropriate foci for committee deliberations.

d.     It has been challenging keeping to allotted times for agenda items during Senate meetings; request that the Parliamentarian (S. Gerik) assists with prompting.

IV.  Chair-Elect report – B. Budelmann

a.      The percentage of tenured faculty, as reported at the last meeting, for UT System is 70%; it is unclear, however, whether their reference (denominator) is all faculty, or only tenured + tenure-track faculty (that is, excludes non-tenure track faculty). At UTMB Schools, of the tenured + tenure-track faculty, an average of 64% is tenured (SOM = 64%, SON = 52% and SAHS = 74%).  R. Moore noted there will be a comprehensive data report from a UT System Accountability Initiative possibly released by the end of March, 2004.

V.     Past-Chair Report – G. Taglialatela

a.      He is sending the Principles of Faculty Development document to the department chairs per the request of the SOM executive committee.

VI.  Committee Reports

a.      Academic and Administrative – C. Jansen reported they have met with Ralph Farr to draft a document regarding faculty presence and interfacing with project groups.  This also is a mechanism that will keep the Senate abreast of information system activities.  R. Moore noted the three top advisory groups for involvement:

                                                              i.      Computing Standards (network, security, etc.)

                                                            ii.      Horizon (People soft)

                                                          iii.      Electronic Medical Records

b.     Faculty Quality – S. Gerik noted the committee’s efforts have been on morale boosting (i.e. faculty club).  They met with Kathy Shingleton, Director of Human Resources, and focused on resource identification.  Surprisingly, there are fifteen or more support programs – these programs need to be publicized  to faculty.

c.      They have received copies of the faculty satisfaction surveys done several years ago and are reviewing and updating for pertinence to current faculty.

VII. Closed Session  Discussion:

C. Baker noted that the APT processes have been modified by schools and departments approximately six years ago and others as recent as one year.  It appears there are huge variations in schools and in departments within schools.  These have not been thoroughly communicated to the faculty.  Suggested the Senate invite the deans of the three schools to elaborate on these.  The Senate would provide the deans with key issues.  The proposed agenda for each dean:

·        Overview – 5 minutes

·        Impact of changes – 5 minutes

·        Most common pitfalls – 5 minutes

·        Discussion – 15 minutes

            The Senate prefers to invite the deans to present at the same meeting. We will devote one whole meeting (1 ˝ hours) to the APT presentations.  APT guidelines should be sent to senators prior to the meeting for review.

VIII. Motion for adjournment made and seconded – meeting adjourned 5:37 p.m.  Committee meetings followed.