UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON FACULTY SENATE MINUTES – April 19, 2006  

President Craig called the April 19 Faculty Senate meeting to order in the Farish Hall Kiva at 12:15 p.m. 

MEMBERS PRESENT:  [30]                                                                                    
ARCH:   D. Kacmar
BUS:     R. Keller 
CLASS: E. Brown-Guillory, S. Craig, W. Herendeen, N. Houston, G. Jowett,
            T. Karner, J. Kotarba, J. Middents, D. Papell, F. Schiff, G. Trail
EDU:     J. Freiberg, S. McNeil, A. Warner
ENGR:   R. Willson
HRM:    K. Titz  
LIB:      D. Camille, S. Ferimer
NSM:    T. Albright, D. Blecher, P. Copeland, J. Eichberg, G. Johnson, T. Lee, J. Subhlok, D. Wells
OPT:     R. Manny          
TECH:   K. Greenwood

MEMBERS ABSENT:  [20]                                                                                                                      
BUS:     S. Kadipasaoglu, M. Parks, C. Pirrong                  
CLASS: B. Byrnes (w/Notice), M. Haun (w/Notice), R. Lence
EDU:     M. Clarke          
ENGR:   J. Richardson, W. Rixey (w/Notice), J. Williams, D. Zimmerman
LAW:    M. Duncan (w/Notice), S. Huber, P. Linzer                                               
LIB:       N. Linden (w/Notice)
NSM:    D. Graur, A. Ignatiev
OPT:     S. Quintero
PHA:     C. Pedemonte                                     
GSSW:  H. Karger (w/Notice

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

VISITORS:   
Leroy Hermes (UHS Chair of the Board of Regents), Donald Foss (UHS Senior Vice Chancellor and UH Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost), 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), Agnes DeFranco (Interim Assistant Vice President for Undergraduate Education), Mike Emery (Reporter, UH Today), Amanda Recane (UH Student)

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:  The March 29, 2006 minutes were approved.

REPORT FROM AND DISCUSSION WITH THE FACULTY SENATE PRESIDENT:  Steven Craig           
            Pres. Craig said one of the unintended consequences of tuition deregulation is that the Board of Regents may now become the first line Sales Force for UH and certainly will determine for how the University is going to grow over time.  The Board is responsible for increasing revenue to cover this growth.  For example, if UH is going to follow this long-term plan of trying to hire 400 new faculty within the next decade or so, the cost of that starts around $40 million.  That is just an example.  Clearly there have to be buildings to put people in and students services to go with the students who will learn from that group, etc.  Revenues are really important and the Board of Regents is in charge of revenue.  There are three main sources of revenue in the purview of the Regents.  One is state support and the Board of Regents is uniquely situated to deal with that since they are appointed by the Governor of the State.  Second source is through the capital campaign, which is going to be very important for UH.  It clearly goes back to 400 new faculty and needing endowed chairs to recruit and support faculty.  Next month faculty will get the first hint of what the new master plan for UH will like; the first reports are very positive.  The Regents are important for the capital campaign as they will go out in the community to talk about what UH is doing and why it is a worthwhile place to invest resources. The third source of revenue is tuition and fees. There have been some pretty interesting conversations with the Board of Regents about tuition and fees over the past couple of years.  At the last meeting where the Board of Regents approved a just less than 10% tuition and fee increase for this coming year, there was an animated exchange of views that one might call political view versus an institutional view of the world.  The political view of the world asks how the University can keep the political landscape calm while the institutional view of the world asks what the specific needs of the institutions are.  And not all of the UH System universities are in the same environment.  The question for the Senate is how can faculty reinforce the institutional view of the Board of Regents and show them what the needs are and what the ambitions are and how everyone can work together as a group.  Faculty need to think of the Board of Regents as the first line sales organization for the University to the broad community both political and business.
            Last weekend was the Board of Regents retreat.  Sen. Kotarba and Pres. Craig attended the second day.  At the retreat Dr. Gogue presented some state mandated reports of different output measures of UH and on average the University looked good.  The exception was the category of grants per faculty where UH is not ranked third.  It is ranked sixth or seventh.  The Board is interested in the University so they asked questions about that.  Pres. Craig said faculty need to work on having additional information presented about research output and how to understand and interpret these numbers.  For example, grant dollars were not broken out for ENGR and NSM faculty or subtracting grants for medical schools or some of the other ways one might try to interpret that grant dollar information.  Clearly, grant dollars are one the way to measure research.  They don’t measure research output, but are research inputs.  The scholarship report that Dr. Foss is working on will measure the research output.  The idea is to try to tie the Board of Regents into being the University’s first line sales organization.  The way to do that is for faculty to sell themselves to the Board of Regents.  Over the past couple of years faculty have interacted more with the Regents.  Last year, then chair of the Board of Regents, Morgan Dunn O’Connor addressed the Senate and that was valuable.  Today the current Board of Regents Chair Leroy Hermes is here to talk with the Senate.  The Board of Regents has allowed the Faculty Senate President to speak at their meetings, courtesy of President Gogue.  Pres. Craig said he has made several presentations to the Board.  He added that he and Sen. Kotarba were allowed to come to the Board Retreat and talk with them.  Faculty and Regents need more interaction.

REPORT FROM AND DISCUSSION WITH THE UH SYSTEM BOARD OF REGENTS CHAIR:  Leroy Hermes           
            Mr. Hermes thanked Pres. Craig for the invitation to address the Senate and for attending the Board of Regents Retreat.  It is always good to have the faculty there to give their perspective and to get a feel for all of the things that are happening at the University.  Mr. Hermes thanked the Faculty Senators for their service and for their commitment and loyalty to UH. 
            He said that he graduated from UH in 1966 with a degree in Architecture.  Little did he imagine that forty years later he would be back here in a governance role for the University.  It is clearly a privilege and an honor.  He added that UH has changed tremendously from what it was in 1966.
            Gov. Perry appointed Mr. Hermes in 2001.  Mr. Hermes said he was proud of UH in 1966 and he is really proud UH now.  It has transformed into a major university. UH became a state supported university during the time he was a student.  Back then, as a private university, tuition was $20 a semester hour.  When UH became a state university the enrollment grew, things didn’t cost as much and the state put a lot more money into the system. 
            The Board Chair praised the quality of the people in the institution and the things that happen here.  He added that the four-and-half years he has been on the Board of Regents have been some of the most satisfying years of his career.  He noted that he has had a good career in architecture, but these past four years have been tremendously rewarding working with the administration, the staff, the faculty and the students of the University.
            This week the Governor appointed two new regents.  There are nine members on the Board of Regents and every three years, three Regents go off and the Governor appoints three new Board members.  Welcome Wilson and Jim Wise are the new members.  Both of them are graduates of UH, their wives are graduates of UH and their children are graduates of UH.  They are loyal Cougars and experienced business people who will put their heart and soul into UH and carry on the work that the current Board.  Although her term has expired, the Governor is keeping Morgan Dunn O’Connor on the Board of Regents for indefinite period. 
            Mr. Hermes said he would like to talk about three specific topics:  (1) The Strategic Plan, the need to move the University forward and preserve the quality that UH has while at the same time ensuring that students can afford their education.  It’s a fine balancing act to try to keep tuition as low as possible and still meet the needs of this University.  The administration and the faculty put a tremendous amount of work into preparing the numbers that were presented to the Board.  The different budget numbers which show what UH would like to have and what it needs, then scaling back to what the Board thought had to be done and to satisfy the politicians.  Two sessions ago the legislature deregulated tuition and gave that ability to the Senate, to the Board of Regents and to the administration of the universities.  However the Regents spend quite a lot of time in Austin when the legislature is in session and they always want to talk to about what the University is doing with tuition deregulation, so the Board needs to be rather judicious in setting tuition increases.  Regents have to be good stewards of the public funds and at the same time bring the University as quickly as possible into Tier One status.  That is the focus of the Board of Regents.  It is a slow tedious process that takes a lot of money. The Capital Campaign is a major part of that effort.  Federal funding is a major, major part of it.  Mr. Hermes said he is hoping that UH will get there during his tenure on the Board of Regents.  It may not happen that quickly.  He only have eighteen months left on his tenure, but even after his term is over, he will do everything he can to keep that ball rolling.  Everyone has to be creative and sensitive to the needs of the students and faculty and still meet the perception of legislators.  Mr. Hermes said he believes the modest increase in tuition, just under the 10% range, is making progress toward the balance.  He noted that there are 30 new faculty hires in the budget.  There is a modest faculty salary increase for next year.  Funds have been set aside for academic advising and for the retention of students.  Funds have been set aside for student financial aid.  Again, the main focus in the strategic plan is to do everything possible to achieve Tier One status.  The focus in the Texas Medical Center, the initiative with the Methodist Hospital, and the movement in that area will take UH a long way toward that achieving that goal.  Federal funding and research money that will come to the University through these associations will help UH move in that direction quicker.
        (2) The University’s Master Plan. Some faculty have seen some of the concept materials presented by the master planners hired by UH.  This is a top architectural firm that specializes in college campus planning.  They have worked with Harvard, UCLA, and numerous other major campuses throughout the United States.  Mr. Hermes said he was impressed with some of the observations the consultants made just by walking around campus.  They were very impressed with what UH has, i.e., the landscaping, the sculpture, etc.  Some of the observations they made related to the amount of open space that UH has and how many more buildings could be added to campus to improve it.  They suggested the buildings could be a little tighter but still keep courtyards.  There is a lot that can be done to improve the physical environment and change the whole culture of the University.  Right now the University is a place where people park, go to work and then leave.  Urban campuses in particularly need to be a lot more than that.  They need to be a community, a place where people work, study, go to cultural and sporting events and hang out.  They virtually live there and it becomes a true community where going to school, living, and working, retail and all of the cultural aspects of the university all happened in one somewhat of a village.  Now there would still be people coming in from the outside.  That happens even in true urban universities where even faculty live on campus.  It creates an environment where a lot of things will change.  The student retention rate will change.  The overall graduation rate will change.  Over a period of years the whole tradition of the university will change.  People’s relationship to the university and their future will change. The University will become like a home.  Alumni will view the campus differently than they do now.  They will see it as something that has great memories and they want to stay attached.  That means a lot in fund raising and allegiance to the university and just a whole different feeling that becomes a bigger part of their overall life.  That is what makes great universities.  The campus planners are approaching the plan with this view in mind.  This is all a part of the strategy for becoming Tier One and becoming a major urban university in a major urban environment.  The perimeter of the campus is also going to change in the next ten years because of what Metro is doing.  Metro is going to have a rail line on probably two sides of this campus, Scott and Wheeler, and there is going to be another east-west line from the Galleria intersecting this campus on Scott Street.  The rail lines themselves are not what is significant, but what is going to happen around and along those rail lines in the form of development making this a true urban setting.  The whole culture of this campus will be different.  Mr. Hermes said he sees all of these things happening together, i.e., the master plan, the rail, achieving the Tier One, the growth of the University, the student population ultimately growing to 50,000-55,000 will take UH to a level in the next twenty years that everyone wants it to have.  That is what he wants for the University.  That is what the Board of Regents wants for the University.  That is what faculty want for the University.  Mr. Hermes said he is excited about it. 
        (3) Legislative Affairs is also something that interests Mr. Hermes.  He said he has always been involved in the political process, not just from his involvement with the universities, but from life in general.  He said he spends a lot of time with legislators over the years and more recently he, other members of the Board and the UH administrators spent time with the Lt. Governor and the Speaker of the House.  They were told that the legislative session that starts next January will have higher education as one of the main focuses.  The special session that is taking place right now is dealing with public education and, based on what he read in the paper this week, it appears Speaker Craddick has signed on to support the Governor’s plan for public education which means there is a good chance that the program will get through the House.  All tax legislation originates in the House.   Perhaps it will be modified some, but at least it has a good chance of getting out of the House.  It will go to the Senate and there will be change again and it will go into Conference Committee.  There is a good chance that by June 1 something will go to the Governor’s Office for a signature which will clear them out of the way and will leave the next session open for them to truly address higher education.  There is also a chance that tuition revenue bonds could come up in the special session.  There are several senators and representatives who have their own plans for how they might be handled.  Tuition revenue bonds are used to pay the debt service on bonds issued to build buildings and renovate buildings on the campuses.  There is hope that if it doesn’t happen in this special session, it be handled in the regular session in January.  This week Comptroller Strayhorn announced that there is about $8 billion surplus in the treasury.  Some of the money probably will be used for public education reform, but there will be money left over and all the universities in the State will be unified in going after that money for programs.  In the last session the HEAF funding was reauthorized for another ten years.  That was an increase from $175 million to $262 million annually to be distributed among those universities that did not receive funds from the Permanent University Fund.  The distribution of that $262 million is based on student population.  UH is the largest recipient based on student population and should receive $26 million, an $11 million increase.  That will start in the fall of 2007.  Also, UH will be pursuing an increase in the Research Development Fund, which is historically $6 million a year.  The goal is to try to double that amount.  The other funding issue is formula funding.  All universities in the State will be pressing very hard for an increase in formula funding.  The Coordinating Board has recommended the legislature increase the formula funding from 12.5% to 15%.  It doesn’t mean the increase will happen; the legislature seldom follows the recommendations of the Coordinating Board in that area.  There will be many other areas like Katrina funding, high energy cost for all the State agencies.  There will be a lot of other agencies going after any money that is left over out of that $8 billion.  Universities will be to get as much of it into the formula funding area as possible.  That will be state-wide for all the universities.  The key to funding formula is to increase enrollment and that is everyone’s job in the university.  That is the Regent’s job, the administration, and the faculty’s job.  Enrollment is critical, particularly in the upper levels, because the formula funding is much greater in that area.
            Mr. Hermes said he appreciated the invitation to address the Senate and offered to take questions.  He noted that Dr. Foss and Dr. Rudley were present to help him, if necessary.
            Sen. Willson asked regarding the Texas Medical Center initiative and Methodist Hospital particularly, what is the Board of Regents’ vision for that initiative over the next five-ten years?  Mr. Hermes said about a year ago UH signed a 30-year agreement with Methodist Hospital to work towards an alliance for developing health related programs with Methodist Hospital.  UH has been working on that.  At this time there are several joint appointments with Methodist Hospital doctors who also hold faculty appointments at UH.  UH is in the process of negotiating with the City of Houston as a partner with Methodist Hospital to purchase a building in the Texas Medical Center.  The Methodist Board and the UH Board of Regents and the administrations of all the institutions are actively pursuing programs to develop together. 
            Pres. Craig asked if there was an ultimate objective for this initiative.  Mr. Hermes said part of the strategic plan is to develop a Health Science Center in the Texas Medical Center.  Anything beyond that would be pure speculation.  He added that people can let their imaginations go as far as they want because that is where the Board’s imagination is going.
            Sen. Jowett said he wanted to raise the issue of salary for faculty members.  By any rough estimate it appears that salaries in Texas have fallen 10%-12% behind the cost of living in the past five years.  Is this a serious issue for the Board of Regents?  Is it serious enough to put pressure on other boards from other universities?  He added that the University seems to be ignoring this fact.  Sen. Jowett said he made a very brief comparison one time between unionized faculty, who are found mostly in northern universities, and non-unionized faculty, most found in southern universities.  Unionized faculty have seen their salary increases keep up with their cost of living whereas faculty at UH have not.  Mr. Hermes said he understands the dilemma and wished he could give an answer.  First of all, he wished UH could find the money to catch up and be competitive with other universities in other states; nothing would make him feel better than that.  He wished he could say that he knew what the answer was but he can’t.  No one was very happy about a 2% increase in the budget or with it starting in January rather than in September, but was what they could do.  Mr. Hermes said the only way that to get there is to continue to raise tuition.  One of the problems with the last tuition and fee increase was this unexpected energy cost, which was more than one-third of the proposal, about $8 million.  The cost of energy is jumping all over the map.  It is almost unbelievable what happens with the energy cost on a daily basis.  Mr. Hermes said raising tuition or convincing the State to increase the formulas substantially would help.  Other than, he said, he just didn’t have an answer.    

REPORT FROM AND DISCUSSION WITH THE UH SYSTEM SENIOR VICE CHANCELLOR AND UH SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS/PROVOST:  Donald Foss
            Dr. Foss said one topic that Dr. Gogue asked him to mention is about honorary degrees.  Last year there were no honorary degrees.  This year there was a process and in just a couple of weeks UH will be conferring honorary degrees on Margaret Spellings, United States Secretary of Education; and Maconda Brown O’Connor, Ph.D., Clinical Social Worker, a servant of the Houston community in many ways.  An important thing to do for the future is to get a great pool of nominees.  The requirements include that the person has to have distinguished him/herself in some way for the institution or for the community, state or nation; sitting politicians cannot be nominated and the people have to be available.  Dr. Gogue would like everyone to look ahead, not just to the next graduation, but 18-24 months ahead to collect names and work with people in terms of their availability for graduation ceremony.  Dr. Foss said to consider this a Call for Nominations. 
            UH lost one of its deans, Nancy Rapoport from the Law Center has resigned her deanship.  The Provost is working with the faculties and other stakeholders on a pretty aggressive timetable to name an interim dean.  Dr. Foss said he is confident that will be done in the near term.
            The Scholarship Report has been sent back to the deans.  The response rate was only so-so and it is going to be difficult to give the Senate the report it wants unless UH gets more data.  It is back in the hands of the department chairs and the deans at this point and time and maybe back to the faculty.  Some of the data look inaccurate and others were missing.  Senators were asked to encourage their colleagues.  Dr. Foss said this has been warmly received in one way by some people and very warmly received in another way by others.  He added that he appreciates the fact that this came from the Senate.
            Dr. Foss said he has made his recommendations about promotion and tenure to Dr. Gogue and it will be on the next Board of Regents meeting agenda.  The candidates have been notified.  It was a pleasure to read through the promotion and tenure binders.  To learn about the accomplishments of the faculty here was educational for me; very time consuming to get through them all, but well worth it. The Provost said he had a meeting three or four weeks ago with the deans and department chairs to talk about some aspects of the binders that came forward.  In the future Dr. Foss will be asking for more systemization in the process, especially with regard to reports on teaching. There will be advance notice of this change so that candidates will be have time to response.
            Regarding recruiting and retention, applications for First Time in College students are up about 4%.  It is not a huge increase but one does not expect huge increases.  Universities work hard for small percentage increases in this area.  Acceptances are also up.  Declines are up a fair amount.  UH is making progress toward meeting the Board of Regents’ goals to recruit more students in the top 20% of their graduate classes.  That is also not going to happen overnight.  UH has to work hard on it.  The people who work in the recruiting office and report to Dr. Charlson have done a good job.  Because of the tuition increase, there should be additional financial aid money to help recruit these students.  Some financial aid awards will be based on accommodation of merit and need. 
            The retention piece is exceedingly important.  Mr. Hugetz did a study that showed the importance of retention.  The vast majority of the growth in the undergraduate population over the past few years has been due to retention.  If UH keeps a student it saves the money from having to recruit a new student.  At the Board of Regents meeting on May 2 the administration be proposing a pretty bold policy with respect to retention.  For First Time in College students who come to UH and complete 30 hours in their first twelve months with passing grades and making progress towards their degree, UH is proposing that they get a $500 scholarship towards their next year’s tuition.  Most of the time that will be less than the tuition increase.  If they complete 60 hours by the next year, making good progress towards their degree, UH proposes they get $1,000 towards the next year’s tuition.  If they complete 90 hours within the next year, without stopping out, continuous enrollment, continuous progress towards degrees, students in good standing would get $1,500 towards their next year’s tuition.  This is real money.  This will cost the University unless more people stay here which is in everyone’s hands in terms of how students are treated on this campus.  This will cost something in the neighborhood of $2.5 million.  In terms of retention, this is putting the money of the University where its mouth is with respect to supporting students on an ongoing basis and graduating them in four years.  Students who come here will be called the Class of 2010. 
            A student who manages to use this scholarship program, could also get a Be on Time scholarship if they have loans.  Under certain circumstances, those loans could be forgiven if they graduate in four years.  This is a tremendous opportunity for students to come to UH, to stay on target and to save themselves and their families money over the course of their education.  Over time the tuition will have to increase in order to deal with faculty salaries and faculty growth issues as well as energy costs, etc.  This is an effort to stand up and say to students that once admitted, UH has their interests in mind with respect to getting out.  It is a gamble for UH.  These are real dollars that will not be collected for these students, however, the University will gain in many ways.  The more students who stay will save in recruitment costs.  Dr. Rudley’s Office and the Provost’s Office worked on this plan.  They will evaluate it with the Board of Regents, but want to tell students who are coming to UH this year to give them a head start to take money from UH and more importantly to make progress towards their degree. 
            Dr. Foss has received reports from the Committee on the Ombudsperson.  They have forwarded three names to the Provost.  He is meeting next week with the three people so he hopes to have that appointment done soon.  Dr. Foss noted that Sen. McNeil was on that committee and thanked her for her service.             Sen. Schiff commended the Provost Office for proposing the scholarship program.  It is a tremendous thing and will show students that UH does care and will help them.  Dr. Foss said Dr. Rudley should stand up here, too, because his office was involved.
            Sen. Johnson said the PASS system on campus has a problem because data from the old system doesn’t roll over into the new one.  For example, if one looks under the benefits summary it says “you do not have any beneficiaries as of the date above.”  This is going to cause a problem for someone.  He added that he talked with a fine lady over in HR named Juanita Virgin and she is the one who told him that the data didn’t roll over.  Sen. Johnson said all faculty should be made aware that there is a problem and they should correct it.  Dr. Rudley thanked Sen. Johnson for the e-mail and said Dr. Gogue had the same problem.  Dr. Rudley said that the wording is going to be changed.  The problem is that the PASS system, PeopleSoft and the State ERS system are three different data bases so the terminology will be changed to direct people to another system. 
            Sen. Jowett said at the last meeting he asked the Provost about the decision regarding benefits or help with minority  hiring to which Dr. Foss replied that he was having a meeting that afternoon.  Has there been any decision about that?   Dr. Foss said no, he in discussions about it.  Before UH does any new faculty hiring, he probably will have something to say about it.
            Sen. Freiberg said part of the challenge of getting students through to graduation in four years is availability of the courses for the students when they want to take them as opposed to taking the courses when they are being delivered.  Is there a move or mechanism that will look at this as the other plan gets implemented?  Dr. Foss said this plan is in effect a contract and UH’s part of the bargain is if a student signs up, the University has to work with department chairs and deans to ensure that course availability is there.  Likewise something that Mr. Hugetz called to the Provost’s attention is that UH needs to look at course scheduling so that a lot of kids who drive to campus should be able to take their History course and then their English course and then their Psychology course on M-W-F mornings with an hour in between rather than having their schedules scattered all over the place.  UH can’t do that for every conceivable combination of courses that students want, but it could be done for a set of core courses.  Mr. Hugetz said that UH has already piloted core courses on Saturdays and is seeing big enrollment on Saturdays because students really like to be able to get to that grouping of classes.  Mr. Hugetz said UH is now going to expand that to Fridays.  Dr. Charlson brought some money in during the past five years to deal with core sections.  Mr. Hugetz said the real challenge now is going to be at the upper level.  There are a lot of suggestions of certain courses at the upper level and UH needs to address these very specifically.  If UH gets the momentum going to get the student to graduation quicker, it may hold them here with an academic priority before the job becomes such a big priority.  Dr. Foss said one of the implications faculty have to understand is that not every faculty member is going to teach necessarily when they have historically taught for their personal convenience. 
            Sen. Herendeen asked if 3,400 was still the target for new students for the forthcoming academic year.  Dr. Foss said it would be okay with him if UH exceeded that number.  Dr. Foss said he has talked to Dean Antel about the nature of course availability, if he would be able to do that and the Provost Office is prepared to spend money to assure that is the case. 
            Sen. Willson asked if is there a consensus on scheduling blocks, for example a class which has two contact hours a week into a single two hour block.  Sen. Willson said the students he is currently teaching like this a lot because it cuts down on their time and their gasoline cost.  He asked if that is a scale solution.  Dr. Foss said these kinds of things are best looked at individually with respect to what makes sense.  Dr. Foss said for undergraduates distributed learning is probably a good idea rather than quickly massed learning but there will be exceptions.
            Sen. Johnson said if the amount of work study money would be increased to encourage students to stay?  Dr. Charlson said she was sure UH will do that because the cost has gone up and because the administration is hoping to get more people to hire work study students on campus.  Dr. Charlson said right now some of UH’s work study students are being hired by HCC.  UH would like to keep them on this campus.
            Sen. Jowett said in the School of Communication there are a large number of undergraduates and a small number of faculty.  There are 3000 and 4000 level classes that range between 80-100 students and to move students through what is the second largest undergraduate program in the University, the department is going to need some specific help.  The reason he says that is because in the 25 years he has been in the Senate he has heard solutions but they don’t seem to be targeted at specific problems in the University.  Is anybody looking at this on a site specific situation?  Dr. Foss said the Provost Office is looking at it specifically.  Sen. Jowett said in order to solve it, Communications is either going to have to have more faculty or do something to have more people teach more classes because the bottle neck is so serious that students are forced into five year and sometimes six year undergraduate programs.  Dr. Foss assured the Senate that he is talking with the dean on this level.              

REPORT ON NCAA SELF-STUDY:  Richard Scamell
            Dr. Scamell said since last June UH has been involved in a self study of its Athletic program as part of the NCAA’s Athletic Certification Program, which was initiated in 1993 at the NCAA convention.  In 1996, UH did an initial self study of the Athletic program.  Dr. Scamell noted that Sen. Jowett was involved in the first-cycle self study.  Currently, UH is involved in its second-cycle self study. 
            The purpose of the self study is for an institution to evaluate its athletics program in accordance with the NCAA’s three operating principles: governance and commitment to rules compliance; academic integrity; and equity and student athletes welfare.  The purpose of the program itself is to help an institution identify issues and also to determine corrective actions.  The NCAA doesn’t expect universities to be perfect in all areas but they do expect each university to do identify any problem areas it may have and to initiate plans for improvement in these problem areas.  Since this is the second cycle self study, this process has been useful in identifying areas that have made substantial progress.  Another purpose of the self study program is to open up the affairs of athletics to the university community so there is considerable involvement among faculty and staff as part of the self study.
            The NCAA’s Athletic Certification Program is basically handled by the NCAA Committee on Athletics Certification which consists of 14 members.  The 14 members are evenly distributed among college presidents, athletics administrators, faculty athletics representatives and conference administrators.
            UH’s self study is due at the NCAA on May 15.  At some point, usually about three months after the self study report is turned in there will be a visit by a committee formed by the NCAA called the Peer-Review Team.  The typical Peer-Review Team will have a maximum of four members.  It will be chaired by a CEO whenever possible.  Jay Gogue was recently the chair of the Peer-Review Team that took a look at the University of Iowa athletic program.  Basically, the purpose of the Peer-Review Team is that they are responsible for verifying the accuracy of the self-study.
            In essence the players in athletic certification include the Committee on Athletics Certification and the Peer-Review Team.  The institution has a steering committee to guide the overall process of the self study itself.  The steering committee consists of Dr. Gogue, Elwyn Lee, James Anderson, John O’Dell (an Alumni representative), and members from the self study committees.  Most of the work as far as the self study is concerned is done by the three self study subcommittees:  Governance and Commitment to Rules Compliance, Academic Integrity, and Equity and Student Athletes Welfare.  There is a campus liaison to interact with the NCAA and to plan the visit of the Peer-Review Team.  Dr. Scamell serves as the Chief Report Writer and interacts with a member of the NCAA whenever he has a question. 
            The certification decision is made as follows:  the institution submits its report to the NCAA which takes about a month to look over what has been done.  If the NCAA feels that there are some areas that should have been covered but weren’t, it will get back with the institution and give it an opportunity to do that work.  In UH’s case, the Peer-Review Team is going to visit from October 16-18.  When done, it will issue a report and UH will have an opportunity to respond to the report. 
            Once everything is done, the NCAA Committee on Athletics Certification will make the certification decision.  There are three possible alternatives:  (1) the athletics program will be certified, indicating that the program is substantially conformity with the operating principles.  The NCAA does not expect the institution to be in perfect conformity with each operating principle.  They do expect institutions to observe certain areas where they are weak and to develop plans of action that will allow them in the not too distant future to come into conformity with the operating principles themselves.  (2) an institution may be certified with conditions.  Should the Peer-Review Team identify any problems serious enough, the NCAA can withhold full certification until the problems have been corrected.  (3) There is always the possibility that an institution would not be certified.  That is not going to happen to UH but it can happen to institutions that don’t take the self study seriously.
            The second cycle self study has been considerably more work than the first cycle self study.  During the first cycle self study UH developed a number of plans in a number of different areas.  For example, it developed a gender equity plan and a minority opportunity plan.  One thing that the NCAA wants UH to do as part of the second cycle self study is to bring them up to date as to the progress that has been made on plans as well as the student-athlete welfare plan that was developed and the plans for academic support, etc.  That has required some additional work but it is also a very healthy thing to do.
            Also the NCAA has created what they call a Program Area Checklist.  This has been very useful.  In the first cycle self study UH was asked to create a gender equity plan or what they called a gender issue plan.  The NCAA didn’t tell universities what constituted a gender equity issue plan, it just said institutions needed to have one.  The same applied to the minority issue plan.  It turned out when UH submitted its self study the NCAA looked at the gender equity plan and said there is not enough detail in it.  So, UH was given the opportunity to provide more detail to the gender equity plan and to the minority issues plan.  This must have happened to most institutions back during the first cycle self study because now the NCAA has come up with Program Area Checklists that have to be used to form the gender equity plans.  For example, one thing that they look for in the gender equity plan has to do with athletic scholarships.  The NCAA wants to know if 60% of an institution’s student athletes are men and 40% are women, does 60% of the scholarship money go to men and 40% to women.  If a university varies from that it has a problem and has to work toward conformity with the proper percentage.  There are a bunch of other items on the program area checklists that deal with gender issues, for example, is the institution accommodating interests and abilities of UH student athletes?  What about equipment and supplies?  Are student athletes, both men and women, given the kind of equipment and supplies that they need in order to practice or compete effectively? 
            All institutional plans must include all required elements.  For example, all thirteen program areas must have a plan of action.  If it happens to be a program area where the support that UH provides is excellent, then UH has to say that it wants to continue what is currently being done in this area.
            Plans for improvement have to be very detailed with measurable goals.  The institution has to outline the steps necessary to achieve these goals.  There needs to be certain individuals responsible for achieving a particular plan of action, etc.
            An important part of the self study is that the plans of action must receive institutional approval.  In other words UH’s self study has to be approved by the Board of Regents before it can be submitted to the NCAA.
            The plans for improvement must be reasonable relative to the institution’s ability to reach the prescribed goals.  For example, the first cycle self study was quite difficult to do.  Dr. Scamell said he wasn’t involved in it nearly as much as this one.  One of the problems that UH had back in 1996 involved student athlete graduation rates which were between 20-30% each year.  It was really very embarrassing.  As part of UH’s plan of action during the first cycle self study it said that UH planned to raise the graduation rate to 75%.  The NCAA took a look at that and said that is not really reasonable and recommended UH shoot for the NCAA average which at that point was 52%.  That is the idea here is that you are not suppose to come up with a plan of action that is completely unreasonable and completely unreachable. 
            Another thing that a plan of action must do is to bring the institution into conformity with the applicable operating principle.  For example, one of the requirements of the NCAA is that an institution’s academic support services provided to student athletes needs to be evaluated by a campus group outside of athletics every three years.  The NCAA is looking for the academic advising program in athletics, the tutoring program, study hall program and the success skill program to be evaluated, etc.  It turns out that UH wasn’t doing that and so this is a mechanism that has to be established in order to get this job done.  Back in 1996 when Dr. Ivancevich was Provost UH hired Todd Stansbury, who really did an excellent job in helping to turn around the academic support program in athletics.  So UH developed a mechanism where he had a dual line of reporting relationship with the Provost.  Over the years UH has different people do this job, but the dual reporting line never really took effect.  And so the self-study committee has made the recommendation and Dr. Foss has approved this recommendation that UH establish a more formal interaction between the Associate Athletic Director for Student-Athlete Services and the Provost’s Office.  This will be UH’s mechanism for making sure that all of the academics support areas are evaluated by some campus group every three years.  
            Another plan for improvement is in the gender issues area.  This is just a plan for improvement that says every three years UH wants to utilize an outside agency to review the Department of Athletics gender issue program area.  The rationale is based on the NCAA’s governance and rules compliance area which states that an institution’s rules compliance activity is to be audited by an outside agency every three years.  UH has Don Guyton’s group, the UHS internal auditing people look at the rules compliance procedures.  The procedures that UH has for certifying eligibility, the procedures that it has for financial aide administration, and the procedures that it has for governing whether or not any extra benefits are given have to be audited every three years by an outside group.  This is done with Don Guyton’s group.  UH also has Conference USA review the governance and rules compliance areas every three years.  Likewise this is something that UH needs to be doing in the academic area but didn’t realize it until now.  It makes very good sense to do the same kind of thing for gender issues, given the importance of Title IX.  UH hasn’t had an outside group come in to evaluate its gender issue areas for about ten years.  This is something that needs to be done and it is something that the committee is recommending as well.
            The handout (available in the Senate Office) is in the form of a spreadsheet.  The first page of the spread sheet indicates the various topics that the NCAA is interested in with respect to governance and rules compliance. 
            The second page shows the academic integrity operating principle.  The NCAA is going to ask questions that deal with academic standards and academic support.  As far as academic standards are concerned, they want all kinds of information on how admissions take place at the University.  They want to know that UH student athletes are not admitted differently from the way regular students are admitted.  One thing that has been good about this go round as opposed to the first cycle self study is that now UH gets a chance to explain that its graduation rates for student athletes are now between 50-55% as opposed to 25-30% in the first cycle self study.  This has been a good part of the process.  Also, the NCAA cares about academic support areas like academic advising, tutoring, success skills, study hall, etc.
            On the third page is the equity and student welfare operating principle.  For example, the gender issues self study items are listed, including athletic scholarships, accommodations of interests and abilities, equipment and supplies, etc.  And the fourth page shows the program areas that are relevant with respect to minority issues.
           This report is available on-line (http://www.bauer.uh.edu/ncaa/).  Dr. Scamell said he would appreciate everyone taking a look at this report.  Comments should be sent to RScamell@uh.edu.
            Sen. Copeland asked which portion of this self directed study weighs the merits of the rising cost?  Dr. Scamell said none.  He added that during the first cycle self study there were four operating principles and one of those operating principles was fiscal integrity but that was dropped during the second cycle self study so what they are looking for are rules compliance, institutional control, academic integrity and equity for student athletes.  Sen. Copeland questioned the NCAA’s academic integrity to leave fiscal responsibility out when UH has used $100 million on this enterprise in just the sixteen years that he has been at UH.  Dr. Scamell invited senators to look at the Web site to see what the NCAA is asking.  Sen. Copeland said this is a self directed study.  Dr. Scamell said the University is asked to respond to self study items.  Sen. Copeland said so it is not a self study designed by UH.  Dr. Scamell said no, it is a self study designed by the NCAA and they have very specific questions and UH’s job is to address those self study issues.
            Sen. Johnson asked why UH has such elaborate arrangements for Athletics but MIT and the University of Chicago don’t.  Dr. Scamell answered, in other words why does UH have an athletic program?  Sen. Johnson said a student athletics program is a good idea but UH’s seems terribly complicated.  Why can’t UH just go play Sam Houston and have a good time on Saturday afternoon and save money?  Dr. Scamell said he doesn’t really concern himself with that question.  Dr. Scamell said he took the job as UH’s Faculty Representative to the NCAA because he was interested in academics and student athlete welfare.  He added that he realizes there are all kinds of financial questions that deal with athletics.  Those financial questions are monitored by the President’s Office and by Dr. Rudley, but he views that as outside of his scope.  When he took this job, Dr. Scamell said he specified that he is a teacher and so he would deal with student athlete welfare and academics.
            Pres. Craig said I think that Sen. Johnson and Sen. Copeland questions should be directed to the academic leaders in the University and to the President of the University.  He added that the Senate should respect that Dr. Scamell has done a good job in leading the self study. 

REPORT ON MAIL.UH.EDU:  Mary Dickerson, Systems Administrator 2
            Ms. Dickerson noted that there were two handouts that show the highlights of the e-mail upgrade (available in the Senate Office).  The upgrade will primarily affect students and faculty and staff who have mail.uh.edu accounts. The Web interface is enhanced and supplies a lot of the features that that most people have on their home Road Runner systems, including spell check, extra features, formatting, etc.  IT will also be upgrading the quotas for users of mail.uh.edu.  They will go to 200 MB; students will find that very helpful.  The upgrade is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. May 14 (Sunday) to 6:00 a.m. May 15 (Monday), which is after the close of the Spring semester.  During that time users won’t be able to access their mail boxes.  Exchange users are not at all affected by this mail upgrade, only mail users.  Any mail that is sent to mail users during the upgrade will be delivered after the upgrade is complete so no functionality will be lost during that 12 hour window.  No user account passwords will change.  All the information is available on the flyer and there is also going to be a campus workshop on Thursday, May 4, at 2:00 p.m. at the UC.  All students, faculty, staff or anyone who will be affected by this upgrade are encouraged to attend.  IT will show everyone the interface, answer any questions, and offer some fantastic giveaways.

TEMPLATE – DRAFT: Criteria Checklist for College and Department Bylaws
            Sen. Warner said this is a template to implement the decisions that the Senate made several months back (January 25, 2006) to adopt a set of criteria for college and departmental bylaws.  In that set of recommendations was a statement that said that there will be an annual report submitted by senators from each college.  The motion from the Executive Committee is to adopt the template provided by the Executive Committee.  The first report will be due May 31, 2007.  How to complete the report within each college is up to the senators.  Sen. Warner is going to propose to the senators in his college that they take the template to the College of Education Faculty Executive Committee and suggest that they fill out the template.  The Education senators will volunteer to work with the Committee.  On behalf of the Senate Executive Committee Sen. Warner moved that the Senate adopt this template.  Sen. McNeil provided a second.
            Sen. Trail made an editorial suggestion to change the word “class/es” in (1), (2), and (3) to “category/categories.”  Sen. Warner said this is the original language that the body approved, but this is an editorial change.  No objection was raised to the change.
            Sen. Jowett asked how do senators decide to work through the deans on this.  Have the deans been asked to mandate the departments to do it?  Sen. Warner said that hopefully the deans will be brought in to the process.  Senators in each college are being asked to share the analysis with their dean so that they are involved in the process. 
            Sen. Jowett wondered about who pays attention.  Sen. Warner suggested that the senators in each college chat with the dean about this.
            Sen. Freiberg said FS-CoUG (Faculty Senate Commission on University Governance) met with the Council of Deans.  There was some discussion initially about having the dean sign with the senators but it was concluded that it  might be better if the senators initiated the report.  It could be added that the dean has met with the senators to review it.
            Sen. Jowett asked so no deans objected to it.  Sen. Freiberg said it seemed to the deans a reasonable way to go but they wanted to see how it would be operationalized, which is in the report.  Sen. Freiberg said the discussion took place awhile ago this template needs to be shared with the Deans Council.
            Sen. Jowett said in his college, CLASS, there are a large number of departments and while this template will obviously be useful to review bylaws and make changes, it might be better for the dean to tell all the departments to do this to increase uniformity of the bylaws in the college.  Sen. Jowett asked Dr. Foss if the intent was to have a uniform set of bylaws across the entire University.  Dr. Foss said, in the spirit of shared governance, this would be most effective if this were a recommendation to the Provost’s Office to work with the deans to try to implement.  He added that he didn’t know if a one size fits all, would fit all.  Dr. Foss said that certain issues should probably be addressed in the bylaws which seems to be the sense of this document though he said he had not seen it before today.  He added he didn’t think it was necessary for every unit to have the same exact bylaws. 
            A motion to table the checklist until the next Senate meeting was approved 

BUDGET AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE, CHAIR – Karl Titz
            The next Budget and Facilities Committee meeting was originally scheduled to meet with Dave Irvin to discuss the Science-Engineering-Research Building build-out.  Due to scheduling conflicts, Dave Irvin’s presentation will be delayed until September.  Libby Barlow, Executive Director for Institutional Research, and Sen. Lee reviewed the salary information data discrepancies. The suggestion was to set up a feedback loop from each College and have each college review and verify the salary data to insure it is accurate.  The BFC meeting on Wednesday, April 26, will be at 12:00 p.m. in CNH S250.  Mechanisms for College Review of the Salary Data will be discussed.
            At the Senate meeting Sen. Titz mentioned an additional item.  The committee received some budget data from Dr. Barlow’s office.  Apparently, when the Committee compared the actual budget salary that was obtained in the colleges there is a significant discrepancy and so the BFC wants to caution that this data should not be used for decision making until there has been an opportunity to take a better look at it and clean it up.

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES, CHAIR – Allen Warner
            The Committee on Committees (COC) is in the process of matching preferences stated by faculty for University committee service with open positions on those committees.  The Committee hopes to complete its process and notify faculty of appointments or recommendations shortly after its next meeting on April 21.
            One important part of the process that is problematic is the recommendation of faculty for the University Promotion and Tenure Committee.  The current process involves COC recommending two candidates from each academic unit, and each academic unit recommending two candidates.  Ideally all of these candidates should hold full professor rank, or their qualifications to act on promotions to professor may be suspect.  In addition, those faculty finally appointed cannot have acted on applications for promotion or tenure at the unit level -- thereby excluding anyone serving as a department chair or higher administrative role, or serving on a departmental or college promotion and tenure review committee.  The challenge is further confounded by the expectation that only full professors should vote on applications for full professor.
            The current process is untenable for units with relatively few faculty, and that correspondingly have few full professors.  These units may be handicapped in the promotion and tenure process if no one is fully eligible to serve at the University level to communicate the expectations of the unit for promotion to professor.
            The Committee has initiated discussions with the Provost’s Office to seek some modification to the current process for future action.
            The Grievance Committee election has concluded.  Elected to 3-year terms are:  Maria Gonzalez, CLASS; Nancy Graves, HRM; Susan Robbins, GCSW; and Ira Shepard, LAW.  Elected to a 2-year term is:  James Benbrook, NSM.  Elected to a 1-year term is Ernst Leiss, NSM.  The Committee on Committees expresses its sincere appreciation to all faculty who participated in this year’s election.

EDUCATIONAL POLICIES AND STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, CHAIR – Dan Wells
            EPSAC met April 14.  In attendance were Dan Wells, George Trail, Jeffrey Williams, Craig Pirrong, and Jaspal Subhlok.  Absent were Thomas Albright, Valentini Brady (on leave), Dan Graur, Ross Lence, and David Zimmerman.  The discussion of the textbook policy was once again postponed until Provost Foss makes an official comment.  The primary topic of discussion was a proposal to modify the existing drop policy.  The current proposal is summarized below:

"Beginning in the fall 2007 semester, all students (current, transfer, and FTIC students) will be allowed to withdraw (i.e. drop) a course as often as they wish only through the 5^th week of classes.  After the fifth week of classes all students will only be allowed a total of 5 W's (withdrawals to be used at any time during their college career to drop a course up through the last day to drop a course or withdraw from all courses.)  When these 5 Ws have been "used up' the student must complete all subsequent courses.  Students may not receive a W for a course in which they have been found guilty of a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy.  Medical, financial or administrative withdrawal s will not count toward this 5 W limit. "

       Considerable discussion ensued regarding the goal of the policy and whether or not it was needed in light of the new "30 hour cap."  Other questions that were raised included: 

 (1)  should students be allowed to drop up until the last day of classes;

(2)  should students be encouraged to finish classes by allowing grades received in retaken classes to supersede
previous grades;

(3)  should the 5 course limit be changed to a 15 credit hour limit;

(4)  how should "no show" drops be handled? 

This drop policy (originally proposed by the Enrollment Management Task Force) is also being evaluated by the Undergraduate Council with the hope that an agreement between interested parties will be reached by early next fall.

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, CHAIR – David Papell
      The Faculty Affairs Committee met on April 12 and continued its consideration of the Interim Policy for the Extension of Probationary Period for Emergency Purposes.  The FAC hopes to have something to forward to the Senate at the May 10 meeting.

SCHOLARSHIP AND COMMUNITY COMMITTEE, CHAIR – Suzanne Ferimer
      The Scholarship and Community Committee will be meeting on April 28 with Steven Hall, President and CEO of the UH Alumni Organization, and with Wendy Adair, Associate Vice Chancellor/Associate Vice President for Public Affairs, to talk about alumni perceptions about their interactions with the faculty during their UH experience. 

NEW BUSINESS:  None.

             
The meeting adjourned at 2:05 p.m.