UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON FACULTY SENATE MINUTES – April 20, 2005

President Warner called the April 20 Faculty Senate meeting to order in the Farish Hall Kiva at 12:15 p.m.  

MEMBERS PRESENT: [31]                                                       
ARCH:    D. Kacmar
BUS:      W. Chin
CLASS:   V. Brady, B. Byrnes, S. Craig, T. Karner, J. Kotarba, D. Mazella, J. Middents, D. Papell, F. Schiff, G. Trail
EDU:      M. Connell, J. Freiberg, A. Warner
HRM:      K. Titz
LAW:      S. Huber                      
LIB:        D. Camille, S. Ferimer
NSM:      D. Blecher, P. Copeland, J. Eichberg, D. Graur, A. Ignatiev, G. Johnson, T. Lee, E. Leiss, D. Wells
OPT:       R. Manny, S. Quintero   
TECH:     K. Greenwood                                                                            

MEMBERS ABSENT: [18]                                                                                                          :          
BUS:      J. Berkowitz, S. Kadipasaoglu, R. Keller             
CLASS: K. Brown, W. Herendeen, N. Houston, R. Lence (w/Notice)
EDU:     S. McNeil (w/Notice)                             
ENGR:   O. Ghazzaly, T. Helwig, G. Paskusz, J. Richardson, D. Zimmerman                     
LAW:    M. Duncan (w/Notice), R. Schuwerk
NSM:     T. Albright
PHA:     C. Pedemonte
GSSW:   H. Karger (w/Notice)      

MEMBERS RESIGNED: [3]                                                                                                                   
CLASS:  J. Rushing, G. San Miguel
LIB:      M. Thomson

VISITORS:  
Morgan Dunn O’Connor (UHS Board of Regent Chairman), Jay Gogue (UHS Chancellor and UH President), Jerry Strickland (Interim UHS Senior Vice Chancellor and UH Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs/ 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), Spencer Yantis (Interim UHS Vice Chancellor and UH VP for University Advancement), Elaine Charlson (UHS Executive Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and UH Associate Vice President for Academic and Faculty Affairs), Ed Hugetz (UHS Assistant Vice Chancellor and UH Assistant Vice President for Planning & University Outreach), James Anderson (Executive Associate to UHS Chancellor/UH President), Agnes DeFranco (Interim Assistant Vice President for Undergraduate Education), Craig Ness (Executive Director, Academic Budgets & Operations, SVP-AA), Brian McKinney (Director, Academic Program Management),  John Powell (Executive Speechwriter), Theresa Monaco (Professor of CUIN), Joseph Papick (President, Staff Council)

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES:  The March 30, 2005 minutes were approved. 

ADDRESS BY AND DISCUSSION WITH UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SYSTEM BOARD OF REGENTS CHAIR:  Morgan O’Connor
            Pres. Warner introduced Board of Regents Chair Morgan Dunn O’Connor with a brief biography.  He added that she has been extremely active, taking part in the delegation that went with Dr. Gogue to Washington, D.C. to talk to policymakers.  On UHS Day in Austin, she also led a delegation of Regents to meet with the Governor, Lt. Governor, Speaker of the House and 15 or 20 other policymakers.  Pres. Warner said he was very pleased that she could find the time to meet with the Senate today.
            Chair O’Connor thanked Pres. Warner for his introduction and expressed her appreciation for the invitation to address the Senate.  She added that she has enjoyed working with Pres. Warner.  She said she knows a number of the senators  and invited everyone to share his/her opinion  with the Regents. She added that from personal experience, she knew that the faculty do feel free to let the Board know what they are thinking and that is important to everyone.

            These are exciting times for the University of Houston and for the UH System.  The legislative session is in full swing which is exciting and a little bit terrifying.  At the same time the UH System is beginning to implement the strategic principles that will guide us for the next decades.   Enrollment, construction, and faculty hires are up.  And the institution is laying the groundwork for a capital gifts campaign or comprehensive campaign.
            Foremost in all our minds is the ongoing 79th Legislative Session, which started January 11 and supposedly will end May 30.  You never know if they are going to end or end up with a special session.  I talk to Grover Campbell on the telephone probably five days a week.  We have been going to Washington about every six months.  With the legislature in session, we have been going to Austin at least monthly with Dr. Gogue and other Board members and we are calling on leadership and we are calling on the Gulf Coast delegation and we are doing our best to keep the UH issues and the issues for higher education in the forefront. 
            As you know, the Legislature meets every two years.  The decisions made during this session will have an immediate impact for the next biennium.  Their decisions are going to effect how we can provide access to a larger and larger number of students.  You are all familiar with the Coordinating Board initiative of “Closing the Gap.”  They have expanded the number of students they think that we need to get into the system BY 2015 to 600,000. 
            As of this week, both the House and the Senate have approved their version of the Appropriations Bill.  For us that funds basic educational services, capital construction, libraries, special items, and other uses. 
            I am cautiously optimistic to note that both versions show an increase for our UH System universities over the current biennium, with the Senate version, as is usually the case, being more generous.
            All of us are holding our breath in anticipation that, after the two bills are reviewed by the conference committee, their final decision will be advantageous for the UH System.   We are going to Austin on Monday and Tuesday again with Dr. Gogue and the Regents to talk with the leadership and to also talk with members of the Conference Committee as the final version of the appropriations bill is going to be knock out in the conference committee.
            These are our principal funding priorities, and their status as of this week, but they can change by the end of the week.
            General Revenue—This constitutes the bulk of state funds allocated to all public universities, using a formula based on enrollment by level and discipline, and predicted space needs. If you will recall, the last Legislature reduced formula funding, and our priority this year is to restore it to the levels necessary to ensure basic educational services. 
            As of today, it appears that general revenue will be increased for our universities.  Under the Senate bill, the University of Houston stands to gain $7.3 million per year, and under the House, the gain is $2.1 million, per year, over the current biennium.
            Capital Construction—The 2003 Appropriations Bill did not fully fund debt service on existing tuition revenue bonds, or TRBs, requiring us to absorb un-funded debt payments.  Tuition revenue bonds fund major construction projects at Texas public universities, including our own Science and Engineering Research and Classroom Complex, for example. 
            We are happy to note that, in the current versions of the Appropriations Bill, both the Senate and the House have restored full funding for the existing TRBs.  We are not sure if they are going to fund new TRBs.  The last word I heard about that is they had $750 million that they might allocate to new TRBs but there are requests from the universities from all over the State of Texas that total $5 billion.   How they would allocate $750 million among the $5 billion in projects is anybody’s guess.   
            Another of our top capital priorities is the Higher Education Assistance Fund, or HEAF, which is used to pay for renovations, equipment purchases and library books among other things.  It can be used for construction.  This is the most flexible money that we have.  The HEAF was created to supposedly compensate the non-PUF schools for the fact that we don’t have any our own PUF.  It certainly is great money.  We appreciate it and hope that they are going to increase the fund. 
            Both the House and the Senate, in identical bills, have recommended re-authorization of HEAF funds at substantially higher levels, providing UH with an additional $11.4 million, per year, for the next biennium.  Dr. Rudley said UH gets $26 million for the main campus.  That would put the fund up to $37 million per year for main campus.  The problem is, as of last week, they haven’t identified the funding source for this increase. They have identified funding for keeping it at the level it was for the last ten years.  They have not identified the funding to increase it.  That would take care of all the universities in the State of Texas that are not in the PUF fund.  There are some 28 who receive money from the HEAF.
            Research Development Fund (Tier One)—This has been one of our top legislative priorities for some years.  This is the fund that will help the University of Houston move up to the level of “flagship” research university. 
            Our elected officials have fully embraced the idea that Texas cannot continue to lag behind California, New York, and Massachusetts in the number of Tier One research universities.  California has ten, New York has eight, Massachusetts has eight and Texas has two.
            With Gov. Perry’s approval, a bill was passed two sessions ago creating a Research Development Fund.  Unfortunately, the funds were vetoed after the last session.   Through work with the Legislative Budget Board we did get funding restored for one year.
            We are encouraged to see that both versions of the Appropriations Bill restore some of this funding. 
            If approved, our share will allow the University of Houston to attract the best scientists and researchers, and the brightest students in areas vital to the state economy requiring a highly skilled workforce, such as life sciences, bio-nano technology, the environment, and health and medicine.
            Tuition—During the last session, we were given the authority to set tuition rates.  Debate continues almost daily in Austin on whether to rescind this authority.  As a result, it is incumbent upon public universities to act prudently when setting tuition rates, in ways that enable our institutions to achieve our academic and research goals, while remaining affordable to students.  On April 6, the Board of Regents approved new tuition and fee rates for the University of Houston that we believe satisfy both of these criteria.
            As the cost of a college education goes up, we must simultaneously increase the availability of financial aid to assist our students who have financial needs.  Over the past several years, the state has provided support through the TEXAS Grant program, which awards scholarships to students with high levels of academic achievement and demonstrated financial need.  Unfortunately, this program is now threatened.  While more than 75,000 students qualified for TEXAS Grants this year, the state appropriated funds to cover only 67,500 students.  If this trend continues, lower income students will be even less likely to attempt a college education.   In addition, a bill has been filed that will make TEXAS Grants conditional upon the loan forgiveness criteria of the B-on-Time program.  That program requires that the student graduate in four years with no more than 3 hours in excess of degree requirements, while earning at least a 3.0 GPA.   Given the non-traditional nature of our students, with their work and family responsibilities, it is likely that few, if any, of our students will continue to reap the benefits of the TEXAS Grant program if it is merged with the B-on-Time program.  I am sure that you have seen that Senator Rodney Ellis from Houston has been working very hard to prevent this from happening and we have done our best to support him in his efforts on that.
            Working together, we—legislators, UH System regents, administrators, alumni, and friends—are all doing our best to secure the funding that our students deserve to complete their degrees, fully preparing them to join the workforce of this great state of ours.

            Noting that she was also asked to touch on the topic of strategic principles and initiatives, Chair O’Connor continued:

            As you may know, there are eight strategic principles and 30 initiatives in the plan approved by the Board last summer.  These were arrived at through a process of town hall meetings and various levels of input and research throughout all the different campuses.  These principles and initiatives will serve the institution in many ways.
            Foremost—and that is Principle Number 1—the principles will help our four universities strive for excellence in our instructional, research, and public service programs.
            Other initiatives will help us with student access, diversity, research, partnerships with key segments of the community, faculty and staff recruitment and retention, the PK-to-16 process, and finally, accountability.
            Today, I would like to touch on three or four of these initiatives…
            Strategic Principle Number 1, Initiative Number 2, is the creation of a University of Houston Health Science Center in the Texas Medical Center area.  This will be one of the most important, if not the most important, milestone in UH history.  This is the Board of Regents number one priority.
            The recent affiliation with The Methodist Hospital is an important step in accomplishing this endeavor, and will also go a long way in helping UH reach flagship status.  Collaboration between UH and Methodist is not new, however.  We have dozens of individual researchers working on joint projects with Methodist, as well as many, many other projects with other universities and entities related to the Texas Medical Center.  We need to continue to facilitate existing partnerships in the health sciences and cultivate new ones.  Special item funds have been requested from the Legislature do so.
            Principle Number 4, Initiative Number 13, calls for increased alliances with key Houston industries and entities to advance research at the University of Houston.  Just one example of these key partnerships is the Alliance for NanoHealth, which received wide press coverage six months ago when it obtained federal funding for the first time—$2.8 million from the Department of Defense.  The Alliance for NanoHealth is a coalition of five Houston area research institutions of which UH is a founding member.  Our partners are Baylor College of Medicine, the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Rice University, and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.  Discoveries stemming from this research have the potential to greatly enhance our ability to diagnose, treat, and prevent disease at the molecular level
            Principle Number 4, Initiative Number 14, calls for continued efforts to secure state funding to elevate the University of Houston to Tier One status.  I covered this topic earlier, and suffice to say that this is a key initiative we are all working to support.
            And finally, Principle Number 5, Initiative Number 16, calls for implementation of a comprehensive fundraising campaign for the UH System.  Spencer Yantis and his group made a presentation at the Board retreat last weekend, and I can tell you that the process is continuing at a fast pace.  A preliminary report to identify priorities and needs has been completed, resulting from a process that started with faculty, department chairs, deans and all the way up to the provost and then through Dr. Gogue to the Board of Regents.  From what I was told we didn’t use this bottom-up process last time. I think it is a much better process to start bottom-up because we need to know what your priorities are so that we can sell them to these potential donors for funding.  The total, as you can imagine, runs into the billions of dollars.   We spent time this weekend discussing how you go through the process of identifying a reasonable goal and that is continuing.  Mr. Yantis has consultants in town right now to start working on that weeding out process.   The next step, and the next challenge, is to pare the list down and come up with realistic priorities we can all agree upon.  Once that is done, the firm of Grenzebach and Glier will conduct a climate audit in the community.  They will get input from key leaders and donors about the priorities that have been established, whether they are realistic, and whether they are of value to the city and the state.  This audit will also help determine the final dollar goal for the campaign.
            All of us on the Board of Regents are very excited about the campaign, and really proud of the process, which has involved faculty at the grassroots level.  A capital campaign is a lot of hard work.  It doesn’t just raise funds, a campaign gives all of us an opportunity to tell the story of the University of Houston which we cannot do too often.  That is a very exciting part of the campaign to educate more and more the people in this area and even throughout the nation.
            I want to extend, from all the Board of Regents, our pride in the faculty at UH and who you are and what you do and what you represent.  You are there everyday, in the trenches.  You are the human face to our students, and you are the ones who guide them, teach them, inspire them, and ultimately, set them on a course that will define their lives and their fortunes.  You are the ones who do the research, and make the discoveries, and find ways to apply them to our everyday lives.  And in doing so, you play a part in bringing in the funds from the state and the federal government, and from agencies and private donors.  You are the heart of the University, devoted and caring, and for that we are very grateful.
            Thank you for your invitation to speak to you today and I will be happy to answer questions.

            Sen. Craig said everyone on campus really appreciates the strategic plan.  There is a shortage in this country of high quality universities.  Building a real research university takes resources.  Sen. Craig said he knew the Board spent a lot of time and effort worrying about resources.  Clearly one real source of resources comes from the students.  This year the Board set a much lower tuition rate than what was recommended from this campus from the same kind of bottom up process that she had praised for the other elements.  Lack of funding is a big burden on this campus.  Lack of funding is going to slow down achieving the strategic principles.  UH is looking at a real hardship this coming year.  Right now, UH is priced $400 to $500 a semester less than similar quality institutions in this state.  Even a difference of half of that amount would make a huge difference to keep promoting quality. What is the Board’s strategic plan to raise more funds from the students to accomplish the strategic principles?  Chair O’Connor said the decision on how to set tuition was very difficult, but the Board of Regents has to find balance for all of the interests involved in this university.  The Board wants to retain good faculty and staff and increase the size of the faculty and staff.   The Board wants to continue education to be affordable for the students.  Politically, the Board has to be smart about what it does because it matters in Austin.  When they first talked about deregulating tuition two years ago, the legislature asked UH what it thought and UH responded that deregulation was not an issue for it.  That is an issue for other universities in the state.  They asked what amount would UH raise tuition if it is deregulated, and UH responded about $5 an hour.  The legislature deregulated tuition and UH raised it $19 an hour, so Austin wasn’t happy.  Things did happen to the University between asking for $5 an hour and putting the budget together that require the increase.  UH had to do more to retain faculty and staff, and it had to deal with greatly increased insurance premiums after Tropical Storm Allison, so tuition went up $19 and UH lost some credibility in Austin.  This is the first time the legislature has been in session when the Board is setting tuition.  The Board has had some pressure from the Senate bill to keep the rate at a reasonable amount.  Counting on the new money that would be going to the formula, the Board budgeted a very modest amount for an increase in the tuition.  If the legislature increases it more, the Board hopes the budget will be closer to the Senate version, then that money will go back into faculty and staff and the other issues priorities.  It is going to take a little longer to get to where UH wants to go.  The capital campaign is going to be helpful, too.  The reality is that Texas and all the states are putting less and less money into higher education.  Once they get through with public schools finance, higher education is an easy thing to cut. 
            Sen. Craig said since deregulation UH has raised its tuition about 60% as much as these other institutions, but UH’s costs aren’t that much less than the other universities.  UH can’t achieve the quality that the Board has set without additional resources.  If UH was only $100 or even $200 cheaper than the similar institutions, it would have the resources to achieve quality.  What is the Board’s plan to narrow the gap between Texas Tech, Texas A&M and UT.  Chair O’Connor said another issue that the Board had to look at was that UH’s enrollment is down; not the semester credit hours but the headcount enrollment on this campus is down 500 to 800 students.  The Board has to assume that some of that decrease is because of the cost.  The Board has to consider the students.  The Board is aware that it has to continue to raise tuition.   That is a fact of life. That will be an inflation type of factor but UH has to raise more money from private sources, and it has to get more research money.
            Sen. Craig said the problem is that, according to the strategic plan, this campus is not just a quantity campus but it is a quality institution.  The real question is what institution in this city can provide the Houston Metropolitan area with a quality research education.  The quantity of students can be handled by UH Downtown, but to deliver the quality education described in the strategic plan costs money.  Now the money won’t be there.  UH’s costs aren’t 60% of that of UT and A&M.   To make improvement and the strategic plan gain sustainable, there has to be an increased source of funding.  Chair O’Connor said the Board didn’t cut the budget.  It raised tuition by 5%.  It is bringing in more money through the tuition dollars.  The reality is with UH’s student body is that this is going to have to be a gradual process.
            Sen. Craig said that is why he asked how the Board planned to close the gap between UH and these other institutions over time.  Chair O’Connor said the Board is going to do it, but it is not going to happen as quickly as everyone would like.
            Sen. Huber said he would like to add a footnote to the discussion of tuition.  The 5% cap doesn’t apply to graduate and professional studies.  Chair O’Connor said happily, for some reason the Texas legislature does not have any limits on tuition for graduate and professional programs.
            Sen. Papell said in the last salary survey of the American Economic Association’s 74 PhD graduate departments, the average salary for full professor was $20,000 above the average professor salary in his department.  That is probably representative of all the departments of this university.  A 4% raise is not going to keep the University moving along and hoping to escalate.  He said he is looking at a train wreck.  How does he keep professors in his department who are looking being paid $30,000 under their market value?  They can get outside offers and it becomes a lot more expensive to keep them. UH is in a situation where the most productive faculty are so underpaid that they have to go out and look for outside offers to raise their salary to the market.  Chair O’Connor said the Board is working on that but it is just not going to happen in one year.
            Sen. Ignatiev said one of the strategic principles is the increase of alliances and partnerships.  Along with that goes the interest in generating directed federal funding, but UH is woefully short on this campus in terms of getting the federal folks to take interest and support activities here.  What can the Board of Regents do to further enhance UH’s position as a university in the federal arena to be able to garner some of the resources that go elsewhere for ideas that sometimes are not as good as those generated at UH?  Chair O’Connor said she would give credit to Dr. Gogue.  Since he came on board there has been much more time spent in Washington.  She added that she didn’t know if any Board of Regents ever went to Washington before Dr. Gogue came.  About a month after Dr. Gogue was hired, a delegation went to Washington and spent three days talking to 25 of the 35 legislators there.  The group has been back for target visits.  The delegation has visited with those people in their home districts, too.  Progress is being made.  UH is getting good support from both Texas Senators and from several of the Texas Congressman and Congresswomen. 
            Sen. Kotarba said the Faculty Senate is getting more involved with the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletics (CoIA) and there is a growing dialogue about the university Presidents who really run the NCAA and the various Athletic Directors in their organizations. How does the Board of Regents see the role of Athletics in the broader university system?  What does the Board plan to do to help curb costs?  Chair O’Connor said Athletics are very important to any big university or even medium-sized university.  It creates excitement for the students.  It creates a sense of ownership and belonging to the university.  It keeps students involved in extracurricular activities.  When she first came on the Board of Regents she wondered just how important Athletics was and now she thinks it is very important to have Athletics.  It is also important for the student athletes who are doing better and better on their graduation rates and their GPAs.  Some of the teams are doing much better than the general population of students.  She added that she thinks the emphasis needs to be on student athletes as these young athletes are students.  The Board put in place a plan a year or two ago to decrease the subsidy given to Athletics from $10 million to $5 million.  In the first year it was reduced by $ 1 million.  The figures for the second year aren’t available yet.  The Board has put a lot of pressure on Athletics Department to do more with their external fundraising, and they are doing a good job of that.  They are doing a better job than they have done before.  Another area is to get more Athletics scholarships endowed so that UH doesn’t have to provide money for those scholarships.  There is a plan in place.  Chair O’Connor congratulated the Athletic Department for working toward that goal.  She added that she knew Sen. Kotarba’s group was planning to meet with the Board of Regents in the Fall to work together on problems facing Athletics.
            Sen. Johnson saying that UT-San Antonio has a nice campus, but now Texas A&M is going to build a large campus on the southeast side of town, he asked if Chair O’Connor anticipated anything like that happening in Houston?   Ms. O’Connor said anything can happen.  There is a lot of controversy about that campus because they want it to be a free standing university.  The Coordinating Board has a pathway model that states it can’t be a free standing university until it has a 3,500 headcount and she believes that university has a very low enrollment.  The world of higher education is more and more competitive.  Houston is an area of which other institutions in the state are envious.  It is the largest city in the state.  Houston is growing faster than any other city.  There is a lot of competition for that.  It could happen.  One thing that UH System is doing to protect itself is with the Multi-Institution Teaching Centers (MITC).  There is one in Sugar Land and one starting in Pearland.  Another MITC is being planned for the 290 corridor and one in the Texas Medical Center.  That is what UHS can do to protect itself.  Competition is good and Chair O’Connor would like to think that the UHS will rise to that competition and excel.
            Sen. Copeland said the Board of Regents has the ability to decide what amount of money the Athletic Department may spend.  The Board could set Athletics budget just the way it does for the academic departments.  All departments have budgets.  Athletics never meets their budget.  Ms. O’Connor said the Board has told them that Athletics will be subsidized to a certain level, and the subsidy will become less and less.  She added that when she looks at the statistics for all the athletic departments in the United States, very few are fully funded.
            Sen. Copeland said the Athletic Department can’t even meet its own budget.  It say it is going to spend this amount, then the Athletic Director comes back and says oops he spent $8 million more than that.  Ms. O’Connor disagreed.  She said they haven’t spent $8 million more than their budget.  They have spent what the Board has told them.
            Sen. Copeland said in the middle of last semester a young woman student came to his office because she was worried about how she was going to do in class.  Sen. Copeland talked to her about it.  She said she was taking 18 hours and he responded, then of course, she would be having problems in class.  He asked her why she was taking 18 hours.  She said it was because she was involved in athletics, in particular a Spring sport.  This was the fall and she had been counseled to load up on courses in the fall because she needed to spend her time in practice during the spring.  It is that kind of cruelty to the students that needs to be taken out of the system.  Telling students to take 18 hours in one semester because it is better for the coach isn’t good for this University.  Ms. O’Connor said she would like to think that was an isolated incident. 
            Sen. Copeland said he could give her more examples.  Ms. O’Connor said she would defend UH’s coaches as they are very committed to their students getting a good education and graduating with skills.  Sen. Copeland said he once had a student to tell him that she was encouraged by her coach to change her major because it got in the way of practice.  Ms. O’Connor said she was going to defend UH’s coaches.  The ones that she has had interaction with do care.
            Pres. Warner said that UH has approximately the same number of full-time tenure track or tenured faculty now with the 36,000 students that it did when there were only 30,000 students.  He told Ms. O’Connor that was part of the reason behind some questions. 

REPORT FROM AND DISCUSSION WITH THE UH SYSTEM CHANCELLOR AND UH PRESIDENT:  Jay Gogue
            Dr. Gogue said the new Provost Donald J. Foss will officially arrive at UH between July 1 and July 15.  He spent Saturday working with the Provost’s office and staff.  Dr. Foss attended the Board of Regents Retreat, too.
            The Retreat covered two areas.  Sunday was spent discussing the capital or comprehensive campaign.  The number of requests is rather large:  about $1.5 billion for the system and for this campus about $1.1 billion.  There will be a process by which those requests will be reduced to around $750 million.  A prospectus will be developed and the consultants will meet with the people who will most likely support this campaign.  This should begin during the summer.  Dr. Gogue said the consultants shared some important information about giving.  The rule of thumb for a comprehensive campaign in the1970s and 1980s was that 20% of the people provided about 80% of the money raised.  In today’s world 99.6% of the money will come from a very small fraction.  The success of a major campaign for the entire system rests on around 350 people. 
            There have been discussions for many years on what the various campuses are called.  Dr. Gogue said he was recently informed that in the history of the University of Houston there have been 16 name changes.  At the retreat it was decided to leave the names as they are.
            Dr. Gogue said that in response to the comment about Texas A&M San Antonio if UH use its system well, it is unlikely that other schools will set up official operation in Houston.  If the system isn’t used well, clearly there will be interest from other institutions.  They would like very much to be in the Houston market.  The key is not necessarily to make changes to this campus but to use UHCL, UHV, UHD and the MITCIs to protect the Houston market.  There may be some rapid expansion for UHD to locations where it serves the Houston market.  There is clearly an underserved population in this area that the UH System will serve or someone else will.
            The recommendations for a tuition increase were much higher than what the Board of Regents chose.  In all the options the President felt strongly that a 4% compensation package was important.  The Regents went with the 5% increase. It is important for everyone to understand some of the Board’s thinking that went into the decision.  This fall there will be a session with the Regents on Tuition Philosophy and Rationale.  The Senate leaders have been invited and it will involve all the campuses.  Very good data is needed to explain why rates should be higher.  The logic in the Board of Regents point of view included:  (1) The legislature was grossly surprised by and angry at the initial tuition increase by UH.  When Dr. Gogue arrived a year and half ago, he got letters from the legislators that basically said UH was dishonest.  That for an entire session UH said it would raise tuition $5/credit hour but raised it by $19.  In fairness to the last administration there were actions made by the state late in that cycle that caused the increase in tuition, but the legislators fussed at Board of Regents because of that increase.  (2) The fact that UT announced way back last fall that their tuition increase would be less than 5% and Texas Tech followed suit.  What other universities charge should not be part of the decision that UH makes.  It should focus on what the University’s needs are, nevertheless, that was in the minds of some people as the discussion evolved.  (3) A number of bills have been filed to either place a dollar limit on tuition credit hours or to have only a 2% increase per year and so forth.  Dr. Gogue said to his knowledge none of those had been passed by the House, but the Senate passed one.  (4) The headcount enrollment on this campus is down.  UH is not funded by headcount; it is funded by student credit hours, but this still concerned the Regents.  They had seen a presentation by the C. T. Bauer College of Business in the last three months that showed around 6,200 students in the school.  It showed that they increased their academic standards which dropped the student count to 5,500. The President said he didn’t know if those were accurate numbers but it was something to that effect and it concerned the Regents that cost might be driving students out.  All of these factors to some extent led to the conservative view by the Board of Regents.
            The arguments that the President would make for a larger increase:  (1) Budget cuts and rising costs.  UH is talking about getting some new money out of the legislature, which is great, but the state started this session by requiring budget proposal to have a 5% budget cut; this is 5% from every state agency.  A 5% budget cut from this University is $6.72 million, so UH started out with a loss.  The light bill went up $5 million.  Now UH is pushing a $12 million shortfall going into the session.  These are real expenses that have to be paid and have to be calculated into the budget process.  (2) UH’s proposed increase is far less that that of comparable NASULGC institutions.  One typically get comparative data from the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges (NASULGC), the Association of American Universities (AAU) or the Association of State Colleges and Universities (ASCU).  NASULGC has 163 universities in it.  Looking at tuition rates for that group, UH is in the bottom 30% in the cost that students pay.  If that grouping is further reduced by taking out tribal colleges and historically Black schools, then UH is in the bottom 10% in terms of tuition cost. Being in the bottom 10% is not the mix of numbers necessary to make any kind of measurable and sustainable change to this University’s growth and improvement.  (3) The student to faculty ratios at UH are exactly what the cost is.  UH is about eight in the State in tuition cost.  UH is about eight in the State in the faculty-student ratio.  Only UT San Antonio has a worse student faculty ratio.  To be fair, statistically UT student-faculty ratio is about 18 to 1; UH is about 22 to 1; everybody else is pretty close so if enrollment dropped at all and UH picked up another 50 faculty it probably would be third in the state.  (4) Space.  UH is the most space deficient university in the State of Texas.  Dr. Gogue said a year ago he was fussed at in the Senate because everywhere one looked there were buildings being built but there was no salary increase.  That was part of the reason why he said there had to be a salary increase.  UH still has the greatest deficit of space of any school in Texas.  The exact square feet that comes out of the Texas Higher Education coordinating Board is 632,000 square feet.  That is a huge amount of space that impact the lives of students and faculty and the way classes can be scheduled.  (5) Salary numbers that are used by the State would show UH salaries for assistant professors and associate professors being lower than the institutions to which UH compares itself.  CB data would show that the salary of a full professor at UH is higher than at Texas A&M, ranking UH second in the State.  Dr. Gogue say that UH faculty salaries are less than its peers.  Better data is needed to be able to show that.  (6) National average of tuition.  If one looks at the past two years of deregulated tuition and compares UH’s tuition increase to what has been done nationally at the public state universities, UH has only increased tuition about 60% of what other states have increased. 

REPORT FROM AND DISCUSSION WITH THE UH SYSTEM INTERIM SENIOR VICE CHANCELLOR AND UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON INTERIM SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS/PROVOST:  Jerald Strickland
            Dr. Strickland reported the search for a Vice President for Advancement is continuing.  There were three telephone interviews last week and several candidates are expected on campus in the next 10 days.  The Faculty Senate Executive Committee will be involved in interviewing the candidates.
            The transition for the new Provost has begun.  Dr. Foss is expected to visit the campus next week.  Dr. Strickland has been briefing him.
            The budget hearings for the colleges have been completed.  This year for the first time senators were present at these budget hearings.   A debriefing meeting was also held.  The Senate representatives were Senators Thomson, Craig, Leiss, and Keller.
            The Faculty Awards Ceremony will take place Wednesday, April 27, at 4:30 p.m. in the Rockwell Pavilion in the M.D. Anderson Library.  Faculty were urged to attend.
            Dr. Strickland reminded everyone that commencement ceremonies for UH would occur May 13-15.  He again urged attendance by faculty.

BUDGET & FACILITIES COMMITTEE, CHAIR – Karl Titz
            No Budget and Facilities Committee meetings were scheduled since the last Faculty Senate Meeting.  The Provost invited the Faculty Senate to participate in the College Budget Hearings.  The Budget and Facilities Committee – College Budget Hearing Subcommittee included Mary Beth Thomson, Steven Craig, Robert Keller, and Ernst Leiss.   The College Budget Hearings were held from March 28 – April 1, 2005.  The Provost held a subcommittee debriefing on April 13.  At the debriefing, the Provost reported his desire that faculty inclusion in the process be institutionalized.  The Subcommittee will report back to the Budget and Facilities Committee at the next scheduled meeting on April 27.  

COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES, CHAIR - Jerome Freiberg
            The COC will meet on Wednesday, April 27, at 1:30 p.m. in the Senate conference room, 351 CPH. 
            At the March 30 Spring Faculty Assembly the UH Faculty Senate Committee on Committees presented a slate of candidates to fill the seven vacancies on the University Grievance Committee.  The election was conducted on-line thanks to the Faculty Senate Secretary, Sara McNeil.  There were 170 ballots cast.
            Elected to fill the five three-year terms are:  Karim Alkadi (PHA), Hannah Decker (CLASS), Irma Guadarrama (EDU), Audrey Taylor (LIB), and Lois Zamora (CLASS).
            Elected to fill the two two-year terms are:  George Gamble (BUS) and Yali Zou (EDU).
            The Faculty Senate thanks everyone who participated in the election.

EDUCATIONAL POLICIES & STUDENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, CHAIR – Dan Wells
            The EPSAC has a meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 27, at 9:00 a.m. in room 220 Ezekiel Cullen, the President’s Board Room.  The committee will continue to work on issues raised in the last report.

FACULTY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, CHAIR – Katy Greenwood
            The Faculty Affairs Committee has a meeting scheduled for Monday, May 2, at 11:30 a.m. in the Senate conference room, 351 Cullen Performance Hall.
            The Faculty Affairs Committee met April 18, 2005.  The following members were in attendance:  K. Greenwood, Chair, D. Blecher, V. Brady, B. Byrnes, M. Duncan, D. Mazella, J. Middents, D. Papell, and C. Pedemonte.  Guest:  Allen Warner

Items on the agenda for this meeting included:

1. a request to examine the differences in the current Faculty Handbook and the previous Faculty Handbook regarding the tenure process;
2. a request to examine what other Universities are doing in passing resolutions that pertain to the way faculty members can influence or discourage the rising cost of research journals;
3. a request to examine the wording of a revision of copyright and royalty policies at the University, as developed in the Intellectual Property Committee.

All of these items are still under review and will be reported on again at the next Senate meeting.

            The following resolution is an action item for the April 20, 2005 Senate meeting:

  UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON STAFF COUNCIL/FACULTY SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION
to Institute an Ombuds Program at the University of Houston

WHEREAS, The University has expressed the goal of becoming an employer of choice of both faculty and staff (hereafter called “employees”),

WHEREAS, That goal is incorporated in the University’s Strategic Principle #6, Initiatives #21 and 24,

WHEREAS, Those sentiments are articulated in Governor Perry’s “Best Practices for the Prevention and Detection of Fraud”, #2, “Creating a Positive Workplace Environment,”

WHEREAS, That goal can be fostered by promoting an atmosphere that permits employees to voice their concerns and encourages employees to resolve misunderstandings as quickly as possible in a safe and non-judgmental environment,

WHEREAS, Best employment practices suggest that employers provide such an unbiased and non-threatening avenue of appeal,

WHEREAS, Best employment practices include both formal and informal avenues of appeal,

WHEREAS, Current methods of appeal and/or grievance available to University staff and faculty do not cover all possible problems,

WHEREAS, The loss of good employees who feel that they have no avenue of appeal both limits the depth of experience of the university workforce and costs money to hire and train replacements, and

WHEREAS, Some staff and faculty who feel that they have no where to go with their complaints or that they are not being heard may take said complaint to court, which would cost the University money for lawyer’s fees and court costs, even if the University eventually won the lawsuit;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the University of Houston Staff Council and Faculty Senate  urges the University to establish an Ombuds Office to handle disputes involving employees and hire an Ombudsperson with mediation skills to run said office,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Ombudsperson report to the Office of the President,

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That this Ombudsperson position/office be established as soon as possible and be funded in the FY 05-06 budget, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,  That both faculty and staff representatives be involved in the selection and annual evaluation of such a person, and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, That the University develop policies and procedures that would allow and encourage faculty and staff members to use such a system to resolve disputes.

            Pres. Warner said the motion is on the floor as a recommendation for the FAC and requires no second.  He opened the floor for discussion.
            Sen. Huber said this is not a new idea.  He teaches about ombuds service using an article by Mary Rowe, who has been the Ombudsperson at MIT since 1990.  This is not something innovative, imaginable, original or different.  It is a well established, standardized process.  Clearly, it is the right thing to do.
            Sen. Manny asked how the person or the office would interface with the current Grievance Committee.  Sen. Greenwood said the ombuds office has a different function.  Hopefully, it can resolve some problems before they become grievances.
            Sen. Leiss asked how this person will fit into the administrative structure.  Pres. Warner said he wasn’t sure.  He suggested that once the new Provost arrived there would like be some more administrative changes.
            Sen. Leiss said that is a very crucial issue.  Sen. Greenwood said this resolution states it will report to the President. 
            Sen. Freiberg said one issue that needs to be resolved is the support system for the ombudsperson.  The resolution reads one individual, but in some cases there are two individuals or there is administrative and/or secretarial support, etc.  He added that somewhere in the resolution there needs to be a clause about providing appropriate administrative or secretarial support.  Sen. Greenwood read, “That this Ombudsperson position/office be established as soon as possible and be funded in the FY 05-06 budget.”  Sen. Eichberg said he interpreted the resolution as a general concept the details of which still need to be worked out.
            Pres. Warner said Staff Council has already acted on this as it currently exists.  The Senate is being asked to concur so it will be a joint resolution.
            Sen. Huber said the person isn’t supposed to report to anybody.  With regard to the functions, this is in no way a substitute for any existing processes.  Typically in Sweden, where this practice was started, they used senior former ambassadors, people with diplomatic skills, who could get a hearing from senior officials.  It is not designed to make rules, and it is not to create a substitute channel for existing processes.
            Sen. Leiss said he was simply trying to gauge where the interaction is.  Obviously, an ombudsperson can’t resolve things on his/her own.  There has to be some interaction with somebody who can make a resolution.  There are complaints and issues; just having a person who listens to them is not enough.  There has to be access to people who can actually make a change if need be.  The other issue that needs clarification is what work load is anticipated for this person?  Is this going to be a full time job?  Is this going to be somebody who already has a full time and who now gets another job?  The Senate knows how the University sometimes operates with some people getting more and more jobs piled on them.
            Sen. Greenwood pointed out that the proposal is for a joint position to work with staff and faculty.  The subcommittee anticipated the ombudsperson would begin as a mediator.  They should be highly skilled in mediation skills and would be there for both faculty and staff.  It would be a full time person.
            Sen. Leiss said he was not objecting.  When he was Faculty Senate President, he did some counseling; people sought him out to request his help.  He was very happy to do that because he thought it was the right thing to do.  He added that he was trying to see where the power of this office derives.
            Sen. Freiberg called the question.
            The motion passed by unanimous vote (voice).

SCHOLARSHIP & COMMUNITY COMMITTEE, CHAIR - Joseph Kotarba
            The SCC met on April 6, 2005.  The following members were in attendance:  Joe Kotarba, Wynne Chin, Suzanne Ferimer, Sara McNeil, and Fred Schiff.  We discussed the following items:

• Faculty Recognition  Ms. Gayle Mongan, Director of Special Events for the President, met with the Committee to develop a proposal for a faculty recognition event.  Main components of the proposal will include referring to the event as an anniversary dinner party; attended by approximately 150 faculty and guests; at the first event to be held in fall 2005.  The SCC is preparing a proposal to be discussed by the Executive Committee at its May 4 meeting.  The plan is to deliver a detailed proposal to President Gogue by the end of May.

Future agenda items include:

• Meeting with vendors to design a university medal to be presented to distinguished guests, lecturers, and supporters (at the request of Dr. Strickland).
• Meeting with FS President Al Warner to design the Scholarship and Community Conference in Fall 2005.
  

New Business:  None.

 
The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.