MINUTES

UTMB Faculty Senate

March 8, 2004

Caduceus room

4:30-6:00

 

Senators present:  T. Albrecht; S. Ayachi; C. Baker; M. Best; V. Braciale; D. Breitkopf; B. Budelmann (chair-elect); B. Camune; C. Christiansen (ex-officio); S. Gerik; A. Hudson Jones; C. Jansen; H. Jordan; R. Lederman (Chair); H. Li; M. McGinnis; S. Mitra; R. Moore (ex-officio); C. Phillips; L. Primeau; R. Rahr; C. Stroup-Benham; G. Taglialatela (past-chair); C. Thomas; D. Trevino; P. Watson; C. Wigg; C. Wisnewski.

 

I.    Agenda 3/8/04 & minutes 2/9/04 approved.

II. Presentation of SOM APT process – Dr. Linda Phillips

a.      Serves as an interface with departments

b.     Best practices of the process are gleaned – departments are more in sync now with SOM APT process

c.      The last revisions of the SOM Guidelines was in 1993

d.     Teaching is the dominant factor in achieving tenure – non-tenure faculty may become Research Scholars

e.      The process is legally monitored at state & institutional levels

f.       Chairs must support faculty for promotion/tenure

g.     Faculty are mentored in preparation for promotion

h.     The SOM APT committee makes its recommendations to the Executive Committee, which makes its recommendations to the Dean

i.        The guidelines for clinicians are currently under review by the APPC

j.       In the case of faculty having multiple appointments crossing departments; it is the chair of the primary department that determines promotion and rank; faculty cannot have a higher rank in secondary departments

k.      The office of educational development has been extremely helpful in advising faculty on assembling their portfolios

l.        It is unlikely that departments will agree on standard procedures

III.          Presentation of the SAHS APT process – Dr. Charles Christiansen

a.      A task force was formed a year ago to revisit the criteria of the process and bring it in line with other similar allied health institutions across the country

b.     Currently SAHS has a one tier review process which is very limiting; Dr. Christiansen formed an advisory committee to the Dean to review committee recommendations sent to him. He perceives that it is imperative that expert peers in each discipline review faculty dossiers and provide informed commentary on the merit of a candidate’s work.

c.      Changes and revisions to the criteria must receive approval by the UT System.

d.     One important change in the guidelines is that in order to hold rank at the level of assistant professor or above, faculty must hold an earned doctorate

e.      SAHS faculty have previously authored a proposal to recommend teaching appointments of up to three year terms.  MD Anderson is currently using this procedure

f.       Proposed revisions to the SAHS APT process were shared at the faculty assembly and faculty input was repeatedly invited; Regent’s Rules provide that faculty approval is not required. (However, a senator noted that SAHS by-laws call for faculty approval)

g.     Post tenure review in the SAHS occurs every five years

 

 

IV.           Senators comments:

a.      Noted that faculty work loads have swelled; work loads have detracted from research time

b.     Many surgeons do cases on their own time to allow for concentration on writing

c.      Would like to know the impact of the reduction of support staff

V.  Chair report – R. Lederman

a.      She and U. Budelmann met with the Academic Executive Council

b.     Reported that Time and Effort Reports   will be required in the future from all faculty (whether or not they have grant money). The institution will have a site visit from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools in 2008; Rudy Guererro and Christine Stroup-Benham are working on this project and will submit a report by 2006

c.      The Faculty Quality Committee will review a prepared document on the process for conducting searches for consistency across departments

VI.           Chair-Elect report – U. Budelmann

a.      C. Stroup-Benham has compiled a report on tenured faculty for all UT-System components, Texas A&M, and the University of Houston.  She can e-mail that to senators who would like it.   The data for UTMB are  69% overall tenure (of those who are tenured or on tenure track); UT-System = 72%; Health Related Institutions = 77%, and Public Institutions = 71%

b.     Comments from the Faculty Satisfaction Survey for UT-System (1,500 comments and 83 pages edited) are available for review

c.      In upcoming  accountability issues, the diversity of the student population will be a key issue

d.     The Moody Medical Library participates in the UT Digital Library, with currently 3,000  journals available on line.  We share a cost with UT-System.  Of 125 national medical libraries in the database, we are ranked #5 in on-line journal availability

e.      Noted that a reduction in faculty salary is legally considered a disciplinary action and can only affect the base salary; tenure is intended to include financial security

f.       The Academic Executive Council has done an analysis of the Faculty Salary Survey just for UTMB; the response rate for each school is measured as a percentage of the total, and is not a true reflection of each school

VII.         Academic and Administrative Affairs Committee report – C. Jansen

a.      A proposal for the senate’s participation with information systems projects & plans, to achieve better satisfaction with changes was sent to senators last week asking for input.  To date, there have been no responses.

b.     The committee will go forward with the proposal

VIII.     Motion to adjourn made and seconded.  Meeting adjourned.