President Craig called the February 15 Faculty Senate meeting to order in the Farish Hall Kiva at 12:15 p.m. 

 MEMBERS PRESENT:  [41]                                                                                    
  ARCH:     D. Kacmar
  BUS:       R. Keller, C. Pirrong 
  CLASS:   E. Brown-Guillory, B. Byrnes, S. Craig, M. Haun, W. Herendeen, N. Houston, G. Jowett, T. Karner, J. Kotarba, J. Middents, D. Papell, G. Trail
  EDU:       M. Clarke, J. Freiberg, S. McNeil, A. Warner
  ENGR:    J. Richardson, J. Williams, R. Willson, D. Zimmerman
  HRM:      K. Titz
  LAW:      S. Huber, P. Linzer                                               
  LIB:         D. Camille, S. Ferimer, N. Linden
  NSM:      D. Blecher, P. Copeland, J. Eichberg, D. Graur, G. Johnson, T. Lee, D. Wells
  OPT:       R. Manny, S. Quintero
  PHA:       C. Pedemonte                                     
  TECH:     K. Greenwood
  GSSW:   H. Karger                                                                                                                  

MEMBERS ABSENT:  [9]                                                                                                                      
  BUS:       S. Kadipasaoglu, M. Parks
  CLASS:   R. Lence, F. Schiff
  ENGR:    W. Rixey (w/Notice)
  LAW:      M. Duncan (w/Notice)
  NSM:      T. Albright (w/Notice), A. Ignatiev, J. Subhlok,

ON-LEAVE:  [2]
CLASS:   V. Brady, D. Mazella

VISITORS:   
Jay Gogue (UHS Chancellor and UH President), Donald Foss (UHS Senior Vice Chancellor and UH Senior Vice President for Academic), John Rudley (UHS Vice Chancellor and UH Vice President for Administration & Finance), Dona Hamilton (UHS Vice Chancellor and UH Vice President for Legal Affairs and General Counsel), Elwyn Lee (UHS Vice Chancellor and UH Vice President for Student Affairs), Elaine Charlson (UHS Executive Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and UH Executive Associate Vice President for Academic and Faculty Affairs), Marco Mariotto (Dean of Graduate & Professional Studies), Ed Hugetz (UHS Assistant Vice Chancellor and UH Assistant Vice President for Planning & University Outreach), David Bell (UHS Assistant Vice Chancellor and UH Assistant Vice President for Academic and Faculty Affairs), Richard Kassachau (Professor, PSYC), Charles Henry (President, Staff Council), Mike Emery (Reporter, UH Today), Jeb Schneider (Reporter, Daily Cougar)

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:  The January 25, 2006 minutes were approved.

REPORT FROM AND DISCUSSION WITH THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT:  Steven Craig           
            In reference to the Scholarship Report, Pres. Craig encouraged senators to talk to their colleagues to make a serious effort in reporting their research output.  The form of research and scholarship varies according disciplines but UH needs to be able to show the variety of that output.  There is a Research Report that shows grant dollars.  The Scholarship Report is an alternative measurement.  There will be changes it to over time, but this is a good starting point. 
            The theme of the Senate Retreat on Friday is to talk about long range planning for UH. President Gogue, Provost Foss and Vice President for University Advancement, Michael Rierson, are going to talk with the senators about planning.  John Antel, Dean of CLASS, is going to talk about enrollment management as he heads that particular task force.  Pres. Craig said he wants the Senate to think about long range planning in a systematic way.  He requested feedback on how to do that.  Should there be a task force or a new standing committee created to focus on long-range planning?  He added that at the Retreat he would present two studies; one looks at faculty size and the NRC rankings and the other compares UH to some other universities.  He encouraged senators to attend the Retreat.
            Sen. Huber said he would like to have the record reflect that UH used to have a planning body called the University Planning and Policy Council (UPPC) 

REPORT FROM AND DISCUSSION WITH THE UH SYSTEM SENIOR VICE CHANCELLOR AND UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS/PROVOST:  Donald Foss
            Dr. Foss said that as the textbook policy is on the agenda later in the meeting, he would wait to comment on it.  The Provost reported on:  (1) The Ombuds Office.  There are a good number of nominations for the position.  There is a broad based committee that will review these nominations and make recommendations.  The process is moving forward and the Provost hopes to have this done by next month.
            (2) The Library Faculty Policy.  The Provost met with Dean Rooks and Dr. Charlson to go over some issues that were unclear.  Dean Rooks will work to make clarification and then work with Dr. Charlson to bring a final document back to Dr. Foss.  That is also a work in progress which should go forward this term.
            (3) The Scholarship Report.  The Provost Office is working on creating a secure Web site for faculty to input their data.  Departments may want to fill out their Excel spreadsheet.  The plan is for all future Scholarship Reports to be Web based.
            (4) Budget Issues.  Dr. Foss briefly explained about the shortfall on enrollment projections.  He pointed out that each year student enrollment has been growing and UH made its projections on enrollment based on past experience.  Unfortunately, the projection was slightly higher than actual enrollment and it doesn’t take too many percentage points to cause a shortfall.  Dr. Foss said he has been working with the deans and has been holding budget hearings.  Some senators have participated in these budget hearings.  A question that every dean has been asked in a very systematic way is what are the college’s plans for the summer and the fall?  How can the Provost help?  The Board of Regents has indicated that at its next formal meeting it will give the University permission to be flexible in terms of tuition and fees for the summer term.  Deans have been asked to come forward with some great ideas about how to increase enrollment, especially in the summer given this flexibility. 
            Sen. Johnson asked if fees were going to be abolished.  Dr. Foss said fees are not going to be abolished, but the administration is not inviting proposals for new fees.  Dr. Foss said the final decision on the budget has not been made yet.  The administration is still considering how to deal with the shortfalls in the enrollment, benefits for personnel and the increased cost of utilities.  It is also looking at a possible salary increase, some additional faculty members and a few other initiatives to move the university forward.  Putting all those things put together means a fee increase.  The administration is also trying to make some budget cuts to offset the increase and share the burden of the shortfalls.  The administration will work with the Board of Regents on the budget. There is a set of existing fees.  The deans have been encouraged to take a look at fees with the idea of rolling some of them into the designated tuition.  There may be the opportunity to do that in some cases.  This will give some additional flexibility.  It also adds to the 20% set aside for financial aid.  All of these things are under discussion right now.
            Sen. Willson said there is some uncertainty in the individual departments about what is the most important thing the departments should be focusing on within the system goals.  In particular, departments used to think about credit hours, state formula, Ph.D., and Masters programs.  Then for awhile they talked about designated tuition.  Most recently it seems that enrollment headcount is becoming a very important matrix; for example in a masters program it would be better to have three people taking one class each than one person taking three classes.  Is headcount more important than total number of classes?  Dr. Foss said his first response is no, the funding formula doesn’t really count heads yet; it counts FTE.  However there is reason to think that in the future the only accountability measure will be the number of degrees UH generates and there has never been FTE to get a degree, only people get degrees.
            Sen. Willson said the flow of people receiving degrees is a different measure.  Dr. Foss said it depends on what happens in the future; for the present he has told the Council of Deans that there is nothing more important anyone can do in the next sixty days than to be creative in getting student enrollment to where it needs to be. 

BUDGET & FACILITIES COMMITTEE, CHAIR – Karl Titz
            Sen. Titz said committee members are busy going to the budget hearings.  In a written report for a BFC meeting on January 27, 2006 he noted attendees as Gordon Johnson, Donna Kacmar, Sukran Kadipasaoglu, Tracy Karner and Nancy Linden.
            The committee continues to examine salary compression issues.  The committee received from Libby Barlow, Executive Director of Institutional Research, the data base of tenured and tenure track faculty by rank and salary with a comparison to the Oklahoma State University (OSU) data base.  Dr. Barlow will follow up with a report of new hires with separations by rank, department, age and length of service.  With these data points, a fairly realistic picture of tenured and tenure track faculty salary issues should emerge.  Senators Sukran Kadipasaoglu and Tracy Karner will report back to the committee with their preliminary analysis by the next meeting.
            The committee made preparations to participate in the University Budget hearings between February 8 and February 17.  Each college hearing will be attended by a member of the Senate Budget & Facilities Committee not from that College.  The process entails the opportunity for Senators to attend; a briefing session, several College budget hearings and a de-briefing session.  Senators’ input, during and at the conclusion of each hearing, is invited.  This is the second year the Budget and Facilities Committee has represented faculty during these hearings.  The request from the Provost’s Office for back-up information to include expenditures by college for the previous five years was delayed due to time constraints on compiling the information.  The request included expenditures by college and department for:

            Tenured and tenure track faculty              Administrative personnel
            Other academic personnel                      Graduate Student funding (combined, all sources of funds 

            Budget and Facilities Committee Meetings for Spring 2006 will take place in CNHC S250 on the following Wednesdays from 12:00 p.m. until 1:30 p.m.:  Feb 22, March 22 and April 26

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES, CHAIR – Allen Warner
            Sen. Warner said the COC is elected each year.  The 2006COC will have its organizational meeting on February 24.

EDUCATIONAL POLICIES AND STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, CHAIR – Dan Wells
            Sen. Wells said the first meeting of the committee is going to be February 22.  Some of the issues the committee will look at are:  enrollment management, advising, orientation, items associated with admission process, how UH is doing in these areas and what it needs to do better.  Graduation contracts and the drop policy will also be discussed.

SCHOLARSHIP AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEE, CHAIR – Suzanne Ferimer
            Sen. Ferimer said the committee will meet February 22 to discuss faculty involvement with development and alumni relations 

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, CHAIR – David Papell
            Sen. Papell said the FAC met February 8 and voted to recommend the following:

PROPSED UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON TEXTBOOK AND EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS POLICY

A.  The selection and production of educational materials by faculty is essential to providing quality instruction, and the freedom to choose educational materials is central to the principle of academic freedom.  Therefore, the ultimate decision on the use of such materials should properly rest with individual faculty instructors and or faculty units. 

B.  The practice of contributing to a body of knowledge by faculty members in their chosen fields of study through developing educational materials, i.e. textbooks, case studies, custom books, workbooks, is a practice that is not only acceptable, but actively encouraged by peers, department chairs and deans.

C.  Should the development of educational materials, i.e. textbooks, case studies, custom texts, workbooks, by the University of Houston faculty result in royalties for the faculty member responsible, the University of Houston supports such endeavors as the rightful fruits of one’s labor.   Unless there is a prior written agreement with the University of Houston for a percentage share of such royalties, all royalties shall wholly belong to the faculty member with the exception described in Paragraph D. of this document.

D.  In order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest, instructors of record at the University of Houston must not keep royalties in the case where their textbook or educational materials are required in the course in which they are teaching.  Therefore, if faculty members wish to use materials in their own classroom wherein they incidentally receive royalties from such materials, these faculty members must donate net effected royalties after taxes to a unit or activity of their choice within the University of Houston or any charity listed on the State charitable campaign.

E.  Taking into account their estimate of new versus used texts purchased by their students, faculty members will estimate to the best of their ability the net effected royalties from the students in their own classes.  Faculty members will donate this amount as described in Paragraph D.  The faculty member will provide an annual written report to the administrator of their unit (Chair, Director, or Dean) regarding the calculation of net effected royalties and the donation made to the unit, activity, or charity of choice.

F.  In any semester where instructional materials are required by an instructor who is receiving royalties for the materials, it is recommended that the syllabus of the course include a statement that “Royalties derived from materials required for this class are not kept by the instructor; they are donated in accordance with the Textbook and Educational Materials Policy passed by the University of Houston Faculty Senate, February, 2006.”   This statement will signal to the student, to the university and to the general public that the faculty member is adhering to policies that prevent an appearance of conflict of interest where royalties are involved.

       Sen. Papell said the policy involves two important principles:  one principle, covered in paragraphs A, B, and C, is that if a faculty writes a textbook, a casebook or a study guide and receives royalties from it, those royalties belong to the author and the administration has no claim on it; and the second principle, covered in paragraph D, is if a faculty member writes a textbook, etc., and assigns it to his/her class, the individual should not profit from the royalties made by assigning his/her book to his/her class.  Part of the details involves information on after tax royalties.  Also in terms of implementation, faculty should note what this policy does not do.  It does not establish committees, watch dog bodies or monitoring.  Instead each year the faculty member will estimate the amount royalties that he/she received from his/her own students and donate that either to a university program or to a charity listed on the State Chartable Campaign.  While it is impossible to know exactly what royalties one is getting from one’s students, especially with second hand books, internet sales, etc., a faculty member can give a good faith estimate.  The committee tried very hard to make sure that faculty don’t lose money by assigning their textbook. 
       One change that was made after the last Senate meeting dealt with including a statement on the syllabus about assigning the textbook.  Some committee members felt a statement should be put on a syllabus in the spirit of disclosure, but others believed faculty shouldn’t be dictated to about their syllabus, so the paragraph now reads that putting a notation on the syllabus is recommended.
       Sen. Papell said he would like to address three subjects that were raised by most people commenting on this proposed policy:  (1)  A faculty member assigns his/her study guide to his/her class, but takes his/her students out to lunch.  Under this proposal, the faculty member can continue to take his/her students out to lunch by donating the estimated royalties to the department, then get reimbursed for the meal.  (2)  This policy doesn’t address the issues covered by the policy the Faculty Senate recommended in 2004.  It doesn’t address what departments do, custom publishing versus nationally published books or the Bookstore. True, this policy does not cover these things, but there is absolutely nothing in this policy that precludes a committee of the Faculty Senate from taking on these issues.  (3)  Was this policy was written by the Provost?  The answer is no.  The policy was drafted by Sen. Greenwood when she was Chair of Faculty Affairs, it went through the committee once last year, it went to the Executive Committee where it was re-written, then it went to the Senate and back to the FAC.  Sen. Papell said the last thing is that people who know him will probably agree that he is not shy about disagreeing with university administration, including the Provost.  He added that he believed the Senate should adopt this policy because it is the right thing for the faculty to do.  Sen. Papell moved that the Senate adopt this textbook policy.
       Sen. Greenwood said the members of the Faculty Affairs Committee are not acquiescent.  They did their homework.  They visited other universities and checked their policies.  They concluded that faculty at UH have the privilege of choosing their own text.  Faculty have the privilege of receiving royalties, but faculty should not have the privilege of profiting off a captive audience.  FAC tried to take this policy to the highest level.  It used standards. 
       Sen. Johnson asked if a faculty member has a book printed through the copy center that costs the department $20, then the department sells it to the students for $30 is that permitted?  Dr. Papell said no.
      Sen. Linzer said he wrote the Minority Report because he feels the proposed policy is very misguided. 

 
            I dissent from Parts D, E and F of the report of the Faculty Affairs Committee, proposing a “Textbook and Educational Materials Policy” for the University.  Apparently, this proposal began as a reaction to reports of teachers charging a fee to students for preparing class materials, and to the extent that Parts C and D of the Policy cover unpublished or privately published materials, and implicitly, though not very clearly, forbid charging a “royalty” for privately prepared class materials, I fully support them.  Part D, however, is clearly intended to cover royalties paid to an author by the publisher of a nationally used textbook or casebook.  As such, it demeans the University, insults the author-instructor, cheats him or her out of legitimate earnings and quite possibly violates the law.
            Whatever the motives of its sponsors, this proposal makes the University look minor league.  At major research universities it is the norm for professors to publish course books, and for them to teach out of their own materials.  Those who are talented enough to write a book that is nationally published for use in university courses are regarded as worthy of praise, and it is assumed that their students benefit from instruction from the author or co-author of the book used in the course.  That this phenomenon is viewed with suspicion at UH reinforces the Cougar High mentality and reputation that many of us have been laboring for decades to erase, and that hurts the University in rating systems like that of U.S. News.. 
            To assume that the instructor who uses his own casebook does so to extort royalties from his students, demeans the University and insults the instructor.  Most course books take years to write, and authors are entitled under the copyright laws to be compensated for their efforts.  The Policy does not save the students any money; it just extorts a kick-back to the University or to some “charity listed on the State charitable campaign.”  I have been informed by a noted and very reliable tax authority that the coerced donation would probably not be deductible under the federal income tax laws, and thus, that the instructor would have to pay taxes on the money that he or she was forced to “donate” away.  Even more serious, there is a strong possibility that a forced “donation” to the University would violate federal and state white collar crime laws.  An employer (the University) forcing an employee to give to it royalties that lawfully belong to the employee is structurally similar to payola to radio stations, which is a federal felony.  Even the forced giving to an “approved” charity sounds a lot like the boss telling an employee that he has to give to the boss’s favorite charity.  The University, as a state agency, would also be open to suit arguing that the forced “donation” is a taking without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
            The argument that there is an appearance of impropriety is belied by the hundreds if not thousands of institutions of higher learning that not only permit but encourage their instructors to publish course books without having to “donate” the royalties from their own classes. Many teachers may choose to give a party with the proceeds or to donate them to some cause, but they should not be forced to do so.  That, to my mind, violates academic freedom and is particularly offensive from a university that is always apologizing for not paying its professors better.
            This is ill thought out.  There was an exception for nationally published course books in the original proposal, but apparently that was abandoned because of pressure from the Provost.  If the Faculty Senate stands for anything, it should stick with the original proposal.  If that proposal is forced down the faculty’s throat, at least it will be clear that the faculty did not acquiesce.  The matter can then be submitted to the courts, perhaps in a class action on behalf of all present and future faculty authors who may wish to use the product of their hard work in class without having to forfeit the royalties to the University or a favorite charity of the state.  The University should not be able to say that this body, supposedly representing the University Faculty, agreed to the proposal.

Sen. Linzer said the original policy was the right policy.  It was meant to protect against overcharging students for faculty doing their jobs. Somehow that got lost in the process.  Sen. Linzer said his objections included:  (1) it demeans the university.  It sounds as if it is unusual for UH to have faculty who write books that are used in classes.  In large, research universities professors assigning textbooks that they had written is a common practice. The proposed policy reinforces the Cougar High mentality, the reputation UH has been trying for decades to lose.  (2) It ignores an important point.  The first three paragraphs state the university position that faculty can keep royalties.  It is really nice of the University to say, but that is a matter of copyright.  The University doesn’t have any choice in that matter.  The point is people spend years writing casebooks and course books and teaching materials.  They generally do it because they are dissatisfied with the materials that are out there.  They also do it for professional reputation and they hope to make money.  But on the whole if there is a book that is really good, a faculty member is not going to spend years trying to compete with it; the person is using it.  Sen. Linzer said that he wrote a casebook because he wanted to give his students outside reading and there was nothing available in the market.  (3) An instructor should be able to choose the teaching materials he/she feels are needed in the classroom.  If that happens to be their own materials, it seems wrong to tell the person that he/she can’t keep the money he/she earned.  To force the faculty member who does assign his/her own textbook to donate those royalties is against the 5^th amendment – taking requires compensation.  Also, in the State of Texas there is a very good chance that the faculty member cannot get a tax deduction for money he/she is forced to give.  (4)  The biggest reason not to approve this policy is that it lacks respect for faculty.  If a faculty member is assigning a nationally published casebook which has gotten through the phalanx of getting published and a phalanx of editors, it should be considered by UH to be acceptable.  Some people put years of work in and have found a national publisher; not someone who will slap a cover on it or Xerox it.  This is a book that is being used elsewhere so if a person wants to use it in his/her class it should be that person’s choice.  And if the students resent it they will let that faculty member know.
      Sen. Haun said she is representing her constituencies.  First of all, the idea of reimbursement through departments will take at least two weeks and will generate a pile of paperwork; it just adds to the bureaucracy at UH.  Second, there is no enforcement mechanism the way this is set up.  Third, there is a lack of uniformity in the implementation of it.  The concept that there is a tax on a captive audience is kind of absurd from one point of view because any textbook is a tax on a captive audience.  And there are fees for all these classes, too many classes, which are additional taxes for paper, printing, etc.
      Pres. Craig asked Sen. Haun if she was recommending an enforcement mechanism.  Sen. Haun said no, she was speaking against the policy because it will mean more paperwork, more bureaucracy, has inconsistent implementation, and lacks an enforcement mechanism.  UH is already taxing a captive audience with any textbook it requires and the more expensive the book, the greater the tax.  A faculty member may choose a textbook because it costs $40 less than that of another author.  People are more concerned with the excessive rip-offs that occur and problems with the Bookstore.  At least one person, who sells his book, has assured her that he will file a lawsuit if this policy is implemented.  How much time and energy is that going to take?
      Sen. Warner said first of all “they” are not doing anything.  The Faculty Senate is the elected representative of the faculty.  Before this body is a proposal that deals with the degree to which senators can exercise shared governance with one another under the covenant here in the Senate and with the faculty.  There have been abuses.  There have been things that have happened that were clearly abuses.  And there is no university policy to deal with these abuses.  The Senate has a choice to make.  It can choose to do something or it can choose to do nothing.  Should the Senate choose to do nothing, someone is going to have to do something.  In the last legislative session there were proposals that dealt with telling universities how often textbook changes can be required.  Luckily those didn’t pass.  Sen. Warner said this is not a legal issue or an accounting issue; it is an issue of honor and integrity. 
      Sen. Kotarba said he objected to this proposal in terms of the overall intent.  Some of the relevant little things have already been covered, but just because they are little doesn’t mean that they aren’t important.  He added that he remembered when Jerry Strickland, the Interim Provost, came to the Faculty Senate, and said he had been asked to come up with a policy regarding textbooks and requested Senate input.  A proposal was put together.  He did not ask the Senate to create a policy.  That was never the original request.  This proposal looks like a policy issued by the Faculty Senate.  The most explicit evidence of that is at the bottom of Paragraph F where it is suggested that faculty list the textbook educational materials policy passed by the UH Faculty Senate.   Sen. Kotarba said he didn’t know if the Senate wanted to get into the business of issuing policies regulating textbooks and was not sure if the Senate could enforce the policy.  He said the Senate may want to return back to Dr. Strickland’s original charge which was to give advice because senators represent the faculty and are close to this.  What has happened over time is the Senate is talking about its policy.  He said he objected to how the thing has evolved over time.  Sen. Kotarba added that  this policy proposal doesn’t deals with abuses like bundling materials or ripping off students. 
      Pres. Craig said this policy says the department chairs are going to know about these royalties every year, so do the chairs have anything to say about this policy? 
      Sen. Karger said he takes offense in having a nationally review textbook, one that has been adopted in many schools, to be lumped in the same category with somebody who is bundling course materials and selling it.  He said his problem with this policy is that it does not get of the more egregious instances of students being ripped off.  He added that he could say all the sales are used book sales and therefore he doesn’t get any royalties, the policy doesn’t protect the group that needs to be protected.  The original proposal was actually tougher in a lot of ways and stronger and more protective of students than this proposal. 
      Sen. Kotarba said one of the most troubling aspects of this proposal is under Paragraph D where it is mentioned “in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.”   He said he would rather the Senate put its time and energy into creating a policy that is going to get rid of conflict of interest and not just the appearance of it.
      Sen. Trail said abuse is not addressed by this document.  What is an abuse is to together a package and charge students $10 more for it or have the publisher say to a department that it will put this book together and kick back a part of the price if the department guarantees it will require in classes.  Those are abuses.  This document doesn’t address abuses.  The initial and initiating impulse for this was students’ complaints about inflated prices.  He added that he is utterly opposed to the policy as presented.  He would like something that addresses the abuses.  He said he didn’t think the previous policy directly addressed those abuses.
      Sen. Copeland said he wanted to comment about respect for the covenant and shared governance.  There is nothing against the covenant in voting no on this policy.  And voting no does mean a choice to do something or to do nothing.  The Senate can vote against this proposal and it doesn’t mean that it is doing nothing.
      Sen. Willson said the Senate should consider trying to insert into the discussion of this topic the test of whether the textbook in question is widely used outside.  It would be a reasonable measure.  That being said, there really is a problem here.  If one looks for example at the question of human research subjects, the situation where there is an unequal power relationship is the subject of considerable policy and discussion in the past twenty years and if that relationship leads to direct benefit or enrichment of the person who has more power, we know that’s improper.  It was suggested that this policy would harm the reputation of UH.  Does anyone want to stand up in front of his/her class and tell students that they must use this textbook so the person will make a profit?  Announcing this policy will enhance the faculty’s reputation.
      Sen. Keller said he has never written a textbook and has no plans to write one.  He added that he knows the committee is well intentioned and has done a good job, but this policy is only going to catch the honorable faculty.  He said he would rather the horror stories be handled by the department chairs and the dean.  The Faculty Senate doesn’t want to get into setting up policies that have to deal with somebody who is doing something wrong.  The Senate is supposed to be representing the faculty, not disciplining the faculty.
      Sen. Huber said in the Law Center there are two possibilities.  There are nationally published textbooks and there is anything else.  If faculty want something reproduced for their students he/she turns it in to the Associate Dean’s office six weeks before classes start, it goes into a black box and when the faculty members shows up for the first class he/she has the materials and the university charges for what it cost.  One has to be careful with cost.  The basic mark up from wholesale to retail in an awful lot of industries is 100%.  There is 50% mark up for printing, There is staff cost, but that is a whole different question -- no royalties.  Sen. Huber said his personal experience involved going to a small college where nobody wrote books. They were wonderful teachers.  They paid personal attention to the students, but they didn’t write books. He went to law school at Yale and the University of Chicago.  He was proud that his faculty members had written books.  This is the big leagues.  Students are impressed when their teacher has written a book.  He said he has taught at Pepperdine, he has taught at the UT and it is the same kind of attitude there.  He is proud.  He is playing in the big leagues.  Since when has the university been providing advice about what to put on a faculty member’s syllabus?  There are problems here and they are printed materials problems and that needs to be addressed.  He said he would note that in Paragraph E the expression of “members will donate” is an oxymoron; will donate doesn’t work.  Sen., Huber said if someone put out a recommendation that anyone who wants to go up for tenure has to go through the testing set forth in Mozart’s Magic Flute, he wouldn’t have heard much about it.  He has heard from half his colleagues on this.
      The proposal failed by majority vote (6 For; 28 Against; 1 Abstention).

      Sen. Warner asked about the intent of the body at this point.  Does the Senate want the committee do something else or just drop it?  Pres. Craig said the policy will be sent back to the committee.  One question is how to address abuses more directly. 
      Sen. Lee said perhaps a mechanism could set up by which students could notify the Provost office about textbook abuse.  A committee could be formed to evaluate these abuses and then make recommendations.  This wouldn’t necessarily be through the Faculty Senate at all.  It could be through a committee that works directly with the Provost and would evaluate the abuses and recommend an action to be taken.  There should be some way to alert students about this opportunity to report the abuse.  That could be through a letter from the Provost or something in their registration packet that tells them if this happens these are the steps to take.  There could be a working system but maybe not without a policy.
      Sen. Middents said the question is should the Senate’s involvement be proactive or reactive.  Is the Senate still being asked by the Provost to suggest a policy to avoid abuses or suggest some sort of implementation of dealing with reported abuses.
      Sen. Linzer said he opposed this document but he doesn’t oppose the Faculty Senate taking an active role for the University.  He said he would be happy to work on that.
      Sen. Trail said this started out with the Educational Policies & Student Affairs Committee and ended up in the Faculty Affairs Committee.  Pres. Craig said the two committees met together and it was a joint decision by the two committees.
      Sen. Wells said the EPSA committee did pass a policy some time ago.  The Provost had some concern with part of the policy and would not approve it as written.  EPSAC & FAC tried further discussion with the Provost with both the committee members and individually with both chairs of the committees.  The groups were unable to resolve the issues.  The EPSAC, which Sen. Wells, felt that this was a major impasse.  The FAC thought that they could work on a policy that would be acceptable to the Provost.  In lieu of trying to get something out and generating more faculty discussion Sen. Wells suggested that the FAC go ahead and work on the policy and bring something back.  That is how the policy evolved.
      Sen. Kotarba said Faculty Senate can voice its opinion regarding this issue, but he didn’t think it wants to write policy.  He would be in favor of the committee coming up with strong recommendations.  One would be that the Senate is dead set against bundling.  The Senate should go on record as straight forward dead set against it.  The Senate should also very strongly recommend that faculty in good conscience should not profit from materials that they assign.  Leave it to the faculty member to work out the details of that. 
      Sen. Haun asked if the Senate should expect an executive recommendation from the Provost.  She added that she would encourage a committee to address the abuses end of it only.
      Pres. Craig said the Senate should address abuse.  It is important for this body to be proactive in terms of the planning.
      Sen. Haun agreed that the Senate should be in the position making recommendations to some higher authority who has the power of implementation.
      Sen. Eichberg said it is critical that the Senate do something about more than abuse.  One is send it back to the committee.
      Sen. Huber asked the Provost if he would care to speak for himself.
      Dr. Foss said this issue is not an enforcement issue.  It is an issue that responds to the role of colleges in an air of mistrust.  What are the obligations to UH students and the community and what is a conflict of interest.  The Provost pointed out that he wasn’t at UH when this started.  He said he knows a fair amount of the history about it and is 100% persuaded that there are abuses that everyone in this room would agree are abuses.  He added that it is not the appearance of conflict of interest that needs to be addressed, but genuine conflict of interest.  In the meantime he said that he is going to think about everything that he has heard and he will try to be more responsive to the faculty and to the students and to the obligations that are with UH as a public institution.  He said that appreciated the discussion.
      Sen. Middents said one of the frustrating things in the committee was a discussion of the requirements which state law imposes upon the faculty in terms of conflict of interest. The committee never really got a meaning of what those requirements were.  What standards must faculty apply? 
      Sen. Jowett said he thinks that students very often are reluctant to report things to the Provost.  In listening to the committees, the Senate should put the handling of abuses back in the departmental level.  Secondly, on a personal level, he writes textbooks that are monographs and he writes them because there are no books; his books are used.  He said that on the first day he goes through an exercise with his students to let them know precisely how much he will be making in the class.  Most students have an idea that he is getting 50% or 60% of the price of a book so he explains that he gets 10% and in a class of 80 students that means as a co-author he may be making $150 out of that class.  That really does quiet things down.  That is one way to deal with this and certainly in a graduate class, where it was manageable, he could take 18 of them out to dinner.  It is a little difficult with 80 or 90 undergraduates.  
      Sen. Linzer said when he was an undergraduate at Cornell he took government from Clint Rossi who was a big name.  He came into class one day, his book was out in paperback, and he said he had assigned his book and he wanted the class to know his total royalties was $10 so he took out a $10 bill and set it on the fire.
     Sen. Byrnes said it is important that the committee revisit the policy or make recommendations of key points to go forward as the policy is created.  In the meantime what is the current state of affairs?  If a faculty member writes a book and uses it with his/her students and it is a nationally recognized book, then the instructor should receive royalties.  I respectfully disagree, the person shouldn’t donate those royalties to the department or to the university or to charity.  The students are still paying the same amount, whether it goes to the instructor or the department.  If it is determined to be a legitimate book then an instructor should get any and all royalties.
      Sen. Haun said she doesn’t know what these flagrant abuses are.  It would just be helpful to know where the abuses really are in order to know how to find the solution.
      Sen. Jowett said there are many people banging on professors doors offering to sell instant books which are being put together with five or six readings; it looks like a legitimate book but really in fact isn’t.  He said he thinks this should go back to the departments to set up committees that should be very closely policing the value of those new kinds of publishing venture which can be extremely lucrative to the professors.
      Sen. Karger said the Senate needs to break it down to some basic issues and offer some abstract concepts like the Senate is concerned that student are getting ripped off, the Senate doesn’t want to penalize people who write the textbooks that are nationally recognized, etc.  This body needs to stay very clearly focused on what the key issues are.
      Sen. McNeil said departments should be working on the people who take advantage of students.  One of the factors that was talked about almost four years ago is that the departments don’t have any guidelines to use in these matters.  In one case a faculty member would charge the students for the test to review.  There were no guidelines that prevented that faculty member from doing that.  Departments should do this but there needs to be a department policy or university policy that provides guidelines.
      Sen. Zimmerman said one of the problems is that abuses take place at the department level as well.  A department chair came to a committee meeting and pleaded the department’s case, saying that the policy would affect a photo copy budget.  They ran all of the photo copies off of charges to students.
      Sen. Warner said in the interest of keeping the agenda he moved that the issue be referred to the Executive Committee and there be discussed with the various chairs to decide where best to continue discussion.
      Sen. Huber seconded the motion.
      The motion passed unanimously.
      Sen. Haun said to the Executive Committee there is a broader issue of student abuse because there are graduate classes where students are writing papers and the professors are publishing books like they did the research.  There are undergraduate classes where professors require watching hours of video tapes for their own research projects.  The broader issue here is the ethnics and the relationship between the faculty and the students.
 
REPORT FROM AND DISCUSSION WITH THE UH SYSTEM CHANCELLOR AND UH PRESIDENT: Jay Gogue           
            Dr. Gogue said UH has some new procedures for the tuition revenue bonds (TRBs).  It has been suggested that TRBs will be raised again in the special session which is expected to occur after the primary.  TRBs may be part of the legislative discussion on school finance and property tax.  The change in procedures is a concern, although universities have been told that this will be a one time change.  Historically institutions have submitted their building requests to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board where they were grouped as tremendous need, great need, need, etc.  This time the CB has formed a single list from one to 285 or whatever the number of projects is without the usual prioritization by the Coordinating Board.   A second change is that buildings have to be prioritized individually.  UH’s number one TRB request was for $60 million for the renovation of three buildings in the science complex. 
            Dr. Gogue said the UH System has three members of its Board of Regents whose terms were to expire on August 30.  The Governor has not yet named any replacements, but a week ago he did appoint the first student regent for the UH System.  His name is Robert Johnson.  He is a second year Law student at UH.  He attended his first committee meetings last week. 
            Dr. Gogue said he is very proud of UH and all the work done for the University’s federal agenda.  There has been a lot of effort by a lot of people.  In terms of directed federal monies, there is $7.5 million earmarked for this year.  It was about $6 million last year and the previous five years it had averaged about $2 million.  There has been a lot of progress made in the federal agenda.  Dr. Gogue praised Dr. Arthur Weglein and his colleagues for working very hard on the energy bill, particularly on the language that deals with deep water exploration.  Currently there is $100 million in that particular item and there will be competition between a couple of groups to see who will actually receive that money.
           Dr. Gogue said he was looking forward to seeing senators at the Faculty Retreat on February 17.  The President encouraged everyone to participate in the new opening celebration of the M.D. Anderson Library.  Dr. Gogue added that he personally wanted to thank everyone because he knows that faculty and staff made financial commitments to the project.  The Library and Honors College expansion cost about a $45 million with roughly $25 million of that being private money. 

New Business:  None.
           
The meeting adjourned at 1:42 p.m.