FFA_FSMIN_102203

UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON FACULTY SENATE FALL ASSEMBLY/SENATE MINUTES – October 22, 2003

President Jacobson called the 2003 Fall Faculty Assembly and October 22 Faculty Senate meeting to order in the Farish Hall Kiva at 12:00 noon.

MEMBERS PRESENT: [37]
ARCH:         D. Kacmar
BUS:            S. Khumawala, M. Parks, D. Rude
CLASS:        V. Brady, B. Breitmeyer, B. Byrnes, S. Craig, P. Gingiss, W. Herendeen, A. Jacobson, J. Kotarba, J. Middents, R. Weldon
EDU:           M. Connell, S. McNeil, A. Warner, C. White
ENGR:         O. Ghazzaly, S. Kleis, G. Paskusz
HRM:          K. Titz
LAW:          S. Huber
LIB:            S. Ferimer, J. Myers
NSM:           D. Blecher, P. Copeland, J. Eichberg, G. Etgen, A. Ignatiev, E. Leiss, D. Wells
PHA:           C. Pedemonte
OPT:           R. Manny, S. Quintero
TECH:         C. Goodson
GSSW:         H. Karger

MEMBERS ABSENT: [14]
BUS:            W. Chin
CLASS:       K. Brown, B. Johnsen, G. Jowett, K. Kadish, B. Lange, R. Murray, G. San Miguel
ENGR:          T. Cleveland, R. Metcalfe, D. Shattuck
LAW:           P. Linzer
NSM:            G. Auchmuty
TECH:          K. Greenwood

VISITORS: 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, Elwyn Lee (UHS Vice Chancellor and UH Vice President for Student Affairs), Dona Hamilton (UHS General Counsel), Elaine Charlson (UHS Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and UH Associate Vice President for Academic and Faculty Affairs), Marco Mariotto (Dean of Graduate & Professional Studies), David Bell (UHS Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs), Ed Hugetz (UHS Assistant Vice Chancellor and UH Assistant Vice President for Planning & University Outreach), James Anderson (Executive Associate to UHS Chancellor and UH President), Craig Ness (Executive Director, Academic Budgets & Operations, SVP-AA), Karleen Koen (Collegium), Matt Dulin (Reporter, Daily Cougar)

Dr. Gogue has a reputation as a strong supporter of shared governance, which has been a major concern for UH faculty and a recurrent theme of the 2002 Faculty Climate Survey. This concern led to the Senate’s drafting of the “Principles of Shared Governance,” which the Senate approved as the Preamble to its Constitution during its April 16, 2002 meeting.

In other activities to improve shared governance on the college level, Pres. Jacobson met with the Deans’ Council. She also met with various Deans, some individually and some with senators, to discuss how faculty can have more of a role in the decision-making process within their college and, by impacting more effectively the chairs and deans, can have more of a say in the development of the University. Part of the idea was to look at the chain of communication and various kinds of breakdown that occur within that chain. This concern of shared governance in the colleges has somewhat changed direction, particularly because of the expectation that faculty will be able to work with Dr. Gogue on this issue. Dr. Gogue will bring to it a very strong commitment of faculty inclusion.

One result of this change in direction is the “Principles of Progress,” a draft document that provides a statement about the future direction and needs of the University of Houston. The Executive Committee has been working on this discussion draft. Senators are being asked for critical input, particularly at the next Senate meeting on November 19. Also, critical comments or supportive remarks will be solicited from various constituents on campus. The Executive Committee is considering forming a University-wide ad hoc committee that would be concerned with the implementation of these principles.

There are two efforts for which the Senate is particularly indebted to the initiative and energy of the past Senate President, Joseph Eichberg: the shared governance document and the revision of the Faculty Handbook, which is nearing completion. Several last minute questions led to the Executive Committee approving the work of the Revision Committee with two additional changes on August 18. The Handbook was sent to the Provost and signed by Edward Sheridan on August 30. It is currently with the General Counsel for a final review. The handbook revisions were substantially aided by the immense and amazing systematic efforts of Mary Beth Brantley, the Faculty Senate’s Staff Associate.

The Senate’s 11th Scholarship & Community Conference took place on October 1, 2003. “Bringing Science to Life: A Conversation with Oliver Sacks and Others” had a registration of 301 with an additional 28 participants signing up at the door. Attendees included University faculty, staff and students as well as academics and professionals from across the state, country and Canada. The reaction was very positive with UH’s Interim Provost reporting it to be “a smashing success.” Many faculty remarked that they would like to see more of this kind of thing on campus. The whole session was video taped and it is available for loan through the Senate office. The sessions could be used in classes.

Informational presentations made to the full Senate included an April 16 address by John M. Rudley, University of Houston System Vice Chancellor and UH Vice President for Administration and Finance, on the University Budget and Dave Maggard, UH Athletic Director, on the UH Athletic Department deficit; a May 7 address by Raymond W. Flumerfelt, Dean of the Cullen College of Engineering, on that College’s research initiatives; and a September 24 address Terrie Sultan, Director of the Blaffer Gallery, on the offerings/resources of UH’s Art Museum.

A Search Committee for the new Provost has been constituted. Pres. Jacobson is a member as is Garret Etgen, a Senator from NSM. To aid in the search and to answer a question posed by Dr. Gogue, the Senate currently is focusing on defining the three characteristics most desired in a permanent Provost. In turn, this effort has led to the Executive Committee drafting the “Principles of Progress,” a statement that discusses the future direction and needs of the University of Houston. The Senate will be working on refining this document.

Other issues the Senate has raised and is active in attempting to resolve include the definition of research of excellence, the revision of the academic honesty policy, establishing the University Commission on Women, proposals about indirect cost return, and questions about benefits. The Senate has also worked with Staff Council on staff issues including, for example, pay increases.

Finally, the Senate’s new committee now called the Scholarship and Community Committee has been put in place. It is getting a more solid identity. The Senate is indebted to Joseph Kotarba for the work he has done as the initial chair of the committee as indeed, it is to all the committee chairs, Senate Secretary and the other members of the Executive Committee. The Senate staff have proved yet again to be invaluable.

Keynote Address: University of Houston System Chancellor and University of Houston President: Jay Gogue

I am delighted and honored to be with you today. I want to also say how much I appreciate the kindnesses that you have extended to me and to my wife during the time that we have been in the Houston area. We feel very much a part of the Houston family. I also want to thank you because in any search for a new chancellor/president faculty are critically important, so I appreciate your willingness to allow me to serve as chancellor/president and I always will be indebted to you for your efforts of support.

One of the decisions that we have made that I think is a good one is to ask Jerald Strickland to serve as our Provost. I am indebted to him for being willing to serve on an interim basis. He will not be a candidate for the position but will provide leadership certainly in the academic areas of this institution.

Probably, anyone who is in this role makes the following comment: As I go out in the community, as I have a chance to visit with people, I have to tell you that the history of this institution is solid. When I meet our graduates in all walks of life and I look at the many things they have done, some relate their experiences from the 1940s and 1950s so this includes the individuals who occupied your chairs before you, and they talk about the quality of the education that they received; the education that allowed them to go forward and to reach their hopes. I would just say thank you to you for what you do every day; for the things that are incredibly important for the lives of our students.

(1) University Commission on Women. Pres. Jacobson mentioned the creation and the formulation of the University Commission on Women. This is important to me. The bylaws were prepared a few months back, but we are in the process of making sure that those appointments are in place and that this commission does the kind of work that is important to all of us. I need to be very clear. Many of the issues that they want to look at are not issues of particular gender. They are male and female issues on this campus. I am going to give great support and do everything that I can to help them. I believe strongly in the principles contained in the preamble of their bylaws.

(2) Deregulation of Tuition. The legislature deregulated tuition this year, so today we are allowed to set tuition by our Board of Regents. This is a tremendous responsibility as well as a great opportunity for us to look at our campus as we begin to make changes, not only here, but throughout the system. This morning I received the latest numbers for tuition nationwide for the fall of 2003. For four year public institutions the average tuition is $4,694, an increase of 14.1% over the previous year or a little less than $700. At four year private institutions tuition rates will average this fall $19,710, an increase of 6% or $1,200. Our tuition is still below that of many institutions in the State of Texas. It is interesting to me that our tuition is cheaper than it is at UT-San Antonio, UT-Arlington, North Texas, and cheaper than other research universities in this state. I think it is important for us to understand why our tuition rates went up. I think it is important for us to be able to articulate these reasons because we have received lots of comments, some from legislators and some from students. Universities were given a new freedom and a new responsibility. For some legislators we exceeded the balance of what they had in mind with the deregulation of tuition. Several reasons why our tuition went to the level it did are: (a) This campus received a $9.2 million budget cut that was part of the state appropriation process. (b) In addition to that, it received a $6.7 million cut in the Tier I funds. (c) The utility bills on this campus went up $3.5 million the last year. (d) We had an insurance increase of about $3.5 million; I think part of that had to do with the monies that we received from claims due to Tropical Storm Allison. (e) UH also had to absorb about $1.5 million in debt funding for bonds that we were expecting the state to pay. These are some of the reasons why tuition went up on our campus. I hope that you will help me share these reasons with the legislators and certainly with folks who raise questions about our tuition increase. I have been in states in which they have had that deregulated power for many years. What often happens is that the state will have what they call a tuition credit, for example the state gives you $1,000; you raise your tuition 10% to $1,100 so in the next session the legislature reduces your state money by $100 so we have to be cautious as we look at our tuition.

(3) A Strategic Plan for the System. In coming to a new role for various established universities, it is not unusual to find some document that more or less gives you the principles and lays out for you what it is that we as a system are trying to do. We will begin an effort shortly in which we will try to set out in a very simple way issues that are important to each one of you. Academic excellence, number of students, what is going to be our position on research and a variety of issues that effect the very heart of the campus will be components within our strategic plan, not only for UH but for the System. There are two very interesting views about UH: (a) There is a view that the original Cullen mission of the university to serve the working men and women in Houston and their sons and daughters should be the mission of this institution. (b) There is also a view that says we need to be the very best university possible because we serve the community, Houston and beyond. I don’t think these views have to be exclusive but they have to be part of a very important discussion as we move forward with the strategic plan.

(4) Private Fund Raising efforts of the institution. We completed a campaign that raised a little less than $400 million back in the early 1990s. Typically, in universities there is one quiet year before you begin your next effort to raise funds. It has been about a decade since the last campaign. The effort being undertaken now is to find someone to do a feasibility study of the institution, to see what skills we have within our development offices, both at the university and college level, for stewardship, for the registering and logging of gifts, for writing thank you notes, etc. The goal would be to assess where we are internally and to help us decide what would be a reasonable figure to try to raise. The timeline to complete this would be Spring. The consultant will also talk with us about what should be counted. This institution has always counted cash, but many institutions that have billion dollar campaigns, count cash, gifts-in-kind, deferred giving and pledges as part of their final figure. For example, a company or individual may give software instead of cash. In a comprehensive campaign there is no public announcement or fanfare until you have raised about 40% of the goal. A lot of time is spent trying to build friends whose support will be key to having a very successful campaign. As faculty one of the most important things you can do is to assure that the areas you know are high priority needs are included in that overall plan. Faculty should work with their deans on these priorities.

(5) The bureaucracy of the university. As a young graduate student, I went to work for the biggest bureaucracy in this country, the federal government. There I was given a one page private authorization that says you may travel in the lower 48 states for one year. If you are going to Alaska, Hawaii or outside of the U.S. you have to get a different approval or an international written approval. Employees were to use this permission wisely. If you went to a place you weren’t supposed to, they refused to pay you for it. The reason I raise this is I literally see hundreds of travel requests coming in which somebody has had to sit down and type, estimate the potential cost and get about eight signatures before the individual can travel. Then the person travels, brings back receipts and fills out more paperwork. There is room for efficiency in the way we do business. For example, there are debit cards that can be designed to allow you to make certain purchases as part of your duties. Think about the cost savings versus doing a voucher request. It would provide to be a lot more efficient and a lot more cost effective for this institution. I ask each of you who know of some processes that annoy you to think of ways to improve them. If you have any ideas on that I would like to hear from you.

(6) The Provost search is a national search. It is an open search. I met with the search committee on the very first day and gave them a charge, then excused myself. I won’t be involved in the search again until you give me 3 to 5 names. I hope that you will take the time to encourage colleagues who you feel would be great for the provost position to consider UH. This is a very important position for us. I have given an unrealistic timeframe to the committee, asking for a Provost by January. Help us meet that deadline by identifying key candidates who may have an interest.

(7) Shared governance. Your culture and your traditions in shared governance are different than mine. I have never worked in any university in which the basic decisions of the university did not gravitate to the Faculty Senate in all areas; research, teaching or whatever. So this is a little different for me. The greatest protection that a President of a university has is to be able to sense the will of the faculty. Discussion of your “Principles of Progress” is important. The Senate is extremely important in what we do. Shared governance to me is clearly very important. I have never been any where in which it was not an integral part of the president making a decision. Though there will be times in which I as a president can’t do what you want, I need to know your reasons for your position and you need to understand the reasons for my position.

(8) The enrollment in the UH System is up and I would particularly say a word of congratulations to this campus. Your enrollment figures are up because of your retention numbers. I know that you have a number of very solid programs to improve retention of students and I applaud you for that. Looking at the growth in the sophomore, junior and senior levels makes you feel good. The graduation rate for six years is about 38%. That is not typical for an urban institution but we are not just an urban institution. We need to figure out how to get that number up.

(9) Progress. For a young university, 75 or 76 years old, this institution has made remarkable progress. When I looked at the beginning year of 212 students at a two year institution and look at today with 56,000 students at a multi-campus system, it makes me proud of those who were able to figure out how to provide the quality of education that our graduates have received over the years. I would encourage you to think about the decisions that we can make today that will have a long term impact. UH is going to be here for literally centuries to come. It is important for us in the formative years of the university to make the kinds of decisions that will guide this institution, not only next year, but in 25 and 50 years and longer. This is important to keep in mind.

(10) Relevancy of the curriculum. One thing I talked to the deans about this week is controversial and that is the importance of our curriculum, whatever the field, to be extremely relevant for the world that the students will face in the next forty years. I have been at certain institutions that didn’t do a very good job of this. One place was producing an absolutely stunning graduate for the year is 1982, but it was 1995. I encourage us to engage people outside of the academy to get their ideas. This does not mean that you should rush back and completely change the curriculum, but it does mean that it is important to have advisory boards. People who are out working in a particular field every day get some assessment and some idea of the types of skills that will be necessary for this student to be successful in the decades to come.

(11) Innovation. In closing, I would encourage us as a group to think about what we could do a lot better and a lot differently. I am delighted to be with you and I have to tell you that it is heartfelt when I tell you how much I have enjoyed my first six or seven weeks. We have been working early in the morning and late at night. The biggest change for me has been going to so many black-tie dinners. I made the comment that I wanted to hit the ground listening. When I came here and everybody talked about black-tie fund raising events, I thought back to the way I was trained. You don’t raise money by getting people together in groups, you raise money one on one. Special events fund raising typically would cost you about $.80 on the dollar to as high as $1.20 on a dollar, so I didn’t think much of these events. I have changed my mind. When I look at what the business school was able to raise and the law school and the various programs that I have been to and you see $.05 million raised in a night. Somebody in NSM told me that they raised $3.2 million at a black tie gala. I had to change my mind. So I am glad I hit the ground listening.

Sen. Craig said the Provost Search Committee has excellent representation of parts of the university but some faculty are worried that diverse research efforts are not represented. Are there any plans to use the endowed chairs committee as a supplement? Dr. Gogue responded that the thought sounds like a good idea. Looking at research and scholarship on this campus, there has been a dramatic increase and progress in the last five or six years. There are tremendous opportunities for UH in the areas of research and scholarly activities.

Sen. Copeland asked, what are the mileposts that the faculty might use two years from now to see if you as President are doing a good job? How are you going to judge yourself in the roles of president and chancellor? Dr. Gogue responded that that is a good question. How do you judge yourself as president and chancellor and how do your colleagues judge you? His hope is that, as in most institutions, the strategic plan that will be agreed upon is the tool with which to evaluate -- not only the president, but the key administrators, deans and the entire campus. Dr. Gogue added that the strategic plan he was talking about is not a 300-page document to put on a shelf, but some very specific targets that are measurable that everyone will be able to see.

Dr. Curry noted that Dr. Gogue mentioned a style of shared governance and bureaucracy. He asked if the President had encountered any other problems in the past six or seven weeks that he had not anticipated before he arrived. If so, how does he plan to address them? Dr. Gogue responded that other problems include communications, which are not as good as they ought to be. In particular, communications at the chancellor and vice chancellor level is not as thorough or as complete as he would expect it to be. Dr. Gogue said he wondered how much of the information from the administration is translated to the deans and below. He said he didn’t know how much of the information actually flows to everyone. Is the information meaningful to people? Are they aware of what is going on? That is an area that needs some study. The President said he has begun the process of expanding the administrative council to provide more ears and to be involved in the discussions. That can help a little bit. Dr. Gogue said he is not surprised that parking is an issue. He added that he has asked Dr. Rudley to spend some time to examine the costs of parking garages. A third area would be improving information related to admissions. Dr. Gogue asked if a recent high school graduate had great interest in going to school at the University of Houston, where would he start? The process is not particularly clear on where one might go first.

Sen. Gingiss asked about Dr. Gogue’s example of disciplines being antiquated. What sort of things did he find outdated? Dr. Gogue said a specific example at his previous institution was a College of Landscape Architecture that had exceptional faculty and some of the university’s better students. He felt confident about an accrediting board visit, but the visiting team pointed out that the graduates were still doing watercolor design and not using current technology. The immediate response of the College was there wasn’t space to put in the needed computers. The accrediting body proposed throwing away the drawing boards as no one uses them any more. They gave the college two choices: Take the five-year program and make it four with a one-year required internship in the industry where graduates can get the skills, or mandate the acquisition of computers to allow the students to do the work that is necessary. The college chose the latter.

Sen. Quintero asked if are there any plans for an investiture. Dr. Gogue said he would ask for the faculty’s advice. At his previous institution, he didn’t want a big deal. Investitures are very expensive. It is not unusual for institutions to spend $100,000 or more. Dr. Gogue suggested that when there is an appropriate audience, i.e., graduation, that about seven minutes be taken to have the investiture. He said that would be his preference but he is willing to concede to the traditions and culture of the campus. Dr. Gogue added that the national average of the tenure of a college president today is 3.2 years, so the faculty may be planning investitures for a long time.

        Kudos to Donna Kacmar for winning the 2003 Design Award from the Texas Society of Architects for her design of the Round Valley Texas Office Building and Garage, located in Bellaire.

        Kudos to the C. T. Bauer College of Business as its AIM Center for Investment Management has been named one of the top eleven (11) classroom designs in the country by “American School and University Magazine.”

        The Senate would also like to offer kudos and thanks to everyone who participated in this year’s Scholarship & Community Conference. Pres. Jacobson thanked the Planning Committee members: Carolyn Meanley, Peter Copeland, Joseph Kotarba, Sara McNeil, and Steve Brown. Joe Kotarba headed up the poster session and Sara McNeil created the wonderful Website for the conference. She thanked the Deans and Directors who donated funding with a special thank you to Art Vailas for his contribution, which was a timely gift but came after the program and its list of underwriters had been published. Pres. Jacobson also thanked the Senate staff, Brenda Jones and Mary Beth Brantley for their hard work behind the scenes.

The second issue concerned the use of Ledger 2 money. The committee asks the EC to address the use of Ledger 2 money to hire instructors with the Provost. It seems this practice is not uniform across colleges.

Pres. Jacobson said somebody told her recently that a junior faculty in NSM was having a problem getting equipment installed. The faculty member said that things that were handled in the department and the college were fine, but the minute he had to go outside everything was impossible and this had a dramatic impact on his research. Sen. Copeland said he was talking to Dr. Rudley yesterday and suggested that there ought to be some sort of code for assistant professors who have to buy equipment. Faculty with tenure ought to be willing to let the junior faculty go to the top of the pile because when it is time for that assistant professor to go up for the third year review or for tenure no one wants to hear that it took too long to get their equipment purchased. Dr. Rudley said he would talk to Dr. Charlson about this. This is a practice that the Senate needs to encourage as assistant professors need prompt and timely support to succeed.

      The Educational Policies and Student Affairs Committee met on October 15. Patrick Daniel, the Director of Learning and Assessment, was the invited speaker. Mr. Daniel spoke about the history of course evaluations at UH and gave the committee an overview of the course evaluation process. Mr. Daniel brought copies of the different course evaluations used across campus and highlighted the types of questions and responses. Mr. Daniel noted that revising the format and questions on course evaluations rests with the individual colleges, and that he is available to provide assistance in the revision process.
        The Measurement and Evaluation Center (MEC), a part of Learning and Assessment Services, provides many types of evaluation services to UH and the community through institutional tests, exam scoring, focus groups, and survey research. There is no charge for consultation, developing electronic grade books, or scoring course exams for UH Departments. There is a nominal fee for other services.   Contact Patrick Daniel at pdaniel@uh.edu.   Learning and Assessment Services, Student Service Center, 743-5434, http://www.las.uh.edu/
        Academic Honesty and the Task Force Recommendations: The recommendations of the Academic Honesty Policy Task Force were approved in July and are reflected in the Student Handbook for fall 2003 (see pages 9-13 of the Student Handbook 2003-2004). The Committee has recommended developing a one-page handout for faculty about the policy and distributing information about the policy throughout the Colleges.
        Textbooks with Non-Returnable Workbooks: The committee is working with Dr. John Rudley to review the policies regarding textbook adoptions with non-returnable workbooks.
       Sen. Myers said in addition to any other publicity given to the faculty about the Academic Honesty, she has repeatedly asked that it be put into the next edition of the Faculty Handbook. Sen. McNeil said it will be; but a shorter version is needed.

The following committee members were present: Bruno Breitmeyer, Suzanne Ferimer, Donna Kacmar, Ruth Manny, and Ralph Metcalfe. Guests included: Wendy Adair, VP for University Relations, and Mike Cinelli, Executive Director of University Communications. Topics for discussion included:

       The University of Houston is about to go into the fifth year of its five-year positioning campaign, aimed at key influencers in the community. The prime audiences are key executives, community leaders, human resources professionals, alumni, faculty, staff and students with an emphasis on the Houston market, where UH’s reputation is still soft. The campaign was designed to move the position of UH from that of a commodity based on accessibility and low cost to one of quality based on outstanding programs and educational opportunities.
        From 2000-2003, print and TV ads featured prominent faculty and their outstanding work with the Shasta mascot overlooking each of them. Prominent alumni appeared in the second series of print ads. A total of 36 ads have run during these first two phases. UH has conducted independent research each year to track the changes in opinion and the effectiveness of the campaign.
        This research has shown that it is time to evolve the campaign to another level that reinforces the quality of education and quality of faculty messages that were received so strongly after the first year of the campaign. UH wants to keep the overall theme and the cougar image, but look at new creative ways of delivering the message. UH is planning to roll out the new creative the first week of November. The new creative will tell more stories about the amazing things that are being done at UH by faculty and students and how these successes have an impact on the community and world. UH will launch two new televisions ads and eleven new print ads over the next few months.

Next Meeting - The guest will be a representative from the UH Development Office.

Regarding the UH List-Serv Wendy Adair said that there are three university-wide list servs that have been created. These are used a lot for emergency information. There is a faculty one, student one and staff one. The faculty one goes through the Provost office and Brian McKinney in Elaine Charlson’s office is the gatekeeper of that. Ms Adair said she is the gatekeeper for the staff one goes through Mike Cinelli office. She is also the gatekeeper on the student one although Elwyn Lee, Vice President for Student Affairs, has access. Gatekeepers try to keep from creating spam. There is also a list serv that just goes to administrators, directors and above. Student use of the UHEDU e-mail is thoroughly limited and so faculty may want to encourage their students to direct their yahoo.com e-mail thru UH so that when emergency messages are sent out, they will get it.

        Pres. Jacobson said the Executive Committee has drawn up the first draft of the “Principles of Progress.” She said the most productive discussion will be after people have a chance to look at it. One thing the Senate could discuss today is the purpose and formula of the document. One thing that is important about the document is that it provides an entrance for shared decision-making.

        Sen. Myers said in just looking at this quickly she had a number of comments, one of which is a minor editorial change in B: there is no other institution like UH. That should be a university such as UH. On a substantive level, she said that she likes the stress on some directions in which UH needs to grow and build. It stresses critical thinking skills and imaginative intelligence, which is a wonderful phrase. The things talked about here are what used to be called higher education and basic knowledge. Sen. Myers said the first little dash under the first paragraph should be that the university through education of its students contributes to the development of an educated and informed citizenry. There is a great of market-driven language in the document. There is a perspective that UH trains instead of educates. Training is having to use technology to do landscaping design. The extent to which UH does training needs to be training in the tools and processes that are used in the modern world, but if all people wanted was training they wouldn’t come here. Sen. Myers said she would like to see a strong emphasis in this document on educating.

        Pres. Jacobson said there was a preamble to the document that discusses the concept of education, but it needed to be stated with a kind of elegance that was not possible in twelve days. The document definitely needs a preamble that affirms the importance of education. Another sub-point or dash is would be about attracting industry in connection to research universities. Pres. Jacobson asked everyone to e-mail her with suggestions (AJJacobson@uh.edu). The document is going to have to be expanded and it will have to have a preamble. She added that she would recommend retaining the point on shared governance because there is not enough in the way of faculty peer review on very major decisions.

        Sen. Huber said the document must fit on one page. It can’t say everything of importance. It needs a beginning of “this is a statement of principles for the University of Houston.”

        Sen. Wells said he agrees that education is critical, and that scholarly and artistic activities are critically important, but in reading this, it seems like the document is slighting science and engineering research. It isn’t necessary to do that. There is plenty of room to make sure that all of these things are included as critically important. Pres. Jacobson said the document includes research in scholarship. Sen. Wells said he didn’t read it that way and thought it should be made clear.

        Sen. Wells said he has heard general murmurs that the Faculty Senate is becoming more anti-research. He wants to make sure that other people reading this document don’t get the impression that as a body, the Senate is anti-researcher. Research is as important as it has always been. Pres. Jacobson said she has been trying to increase the emphasis on research. She pointed out that the Scholarship and Community Conference was unusually research oriented, and that the Scholarship and Community Committee was similarly involved with issues about research at UH.

        Sen. Karger suggested that the document read that UH is a research-intensive university. Sen. Kotarba said the word research is part of the actual name label for the university. It is a research university. That is what UH is. He added that scholarship is a word that a lot of people, like himself, use because it is inclusive. Research to some of the other people on campus sounds a little bit too much like people doing only scientific things.

        Sen. Well raised a question about using scholarship instead of research and scholarship. He suggested that to scientists the word scholarship sounds like work that is not laboratory based. It feels like it is excluding the scientist. He recommended that research and scholarship be used together to catch everything.

        Sen. Weldon said the Senate should be concerned that the document is not too market oriented. This statement should emphasize substance. Certainly, aim for a strong national reputation, but the way in which these three principles are stated is almost as if UH is going to represent local folks to the nation. It should be very clear that there are all sorts of reasons that are important that UH sustains a national reputation. The faculty are here because UH is an urban university. Pres. Jacobson said the document started off with just A, B and C and this is a research university and this is what UH is about. One of the concerns was, what audience would this document address? The Executive Committee decided the first audience for the document would be the new provost. Another concern and possible audience is the Board of Regents. That group has gotten out of contact with the University. This statement might give them a sense of the contribution this university makes. Another possible audience is Alumni. There are many people who want to see the University of Houston as a service only and they don’t see that the quality of the service is greatly elevated by having vibrant, productive research faculty and a national reputation for the University. They don’t understand the connection.

REPORT FROM AND DISCUSSION WITH UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SYSTEM INTERIM SENIOR VICE CHANCELLOR & UH INTERIM SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS/PROVOST: Jerald W. Strickland

Dr. Strickland thanked the Senate for its confidence in his leadership. He mentioned that Dr. Gogue expects presentations to be done in seven minutes or less. He would plan to do this.

Congratulations to the entire group for the Scholarship and Community Conference. It really was smashing success.

Dr. Strickland said he would like to order the regular presentations by the Provost to the Senate in a way which is most useful to the senators. There are certain topics that need to be covered every time and there may be special topics that faculty want covered. He added that he didn’t want it to be a random event. He wants his presentations to be just the information that he thinks faculty ought to hear. He said he will work with the leadership to make sure some of the same touch points are covered each time so that everyone is on the same page at the end of the meeting.

Dr. Strickland reminded the Senate that there was a real reduction in the academic affairs budget of about $5.6 million this last year. That is substantial considering the size of its budget. UH has 35,000 students on campus now. System-wide there are 56,000 students. That does not count the on-line courses which adds another 20 or some thousand to that. This is a very large organization with a very complex communication issue. When he has the opportunity to communicate he likes to do it in an orderly manner so that everyone will benefit.

Dr. Strickland reported that his predecessor and current staff did renovate 50 classrooms this summer and have plans for renovating 50 more in the next nine months. He added that he had a chance to meet with students earlier this week and several of them had experienced taking courses in the classrooms prior to the time that they were renovated. UH is not quite finished with all 50 classrooms but will do that during the holidays. The next group of renovations will begin in the springtime. Dr. Strickland thanked Elaine Charlson for leading that group.

The Provost said he wants UH to revisit the white paper that was prepared in 1995/1996 on Medical Center Initiatives. Richard Scammel from Business was the chair. Dr. Strickland has already talked to the President about that. He has had an opportunity to meet with folks at the medical center, too, so that will happen.

Finally, Dr. Strickland said the issues that Dr. Gogue mentioned about access, cost, and quality are the kinds of issues that the Senate will want to address as a group. It might be that the group finds that maybe access and quality might fit together; but cost is a variant. Those are conflicting values. One might say two out of three isn’t bad. But it would be nice to have two out three with maybe parts of three or two and a half out of three, but those are values that this body will want to discussed within a very short period of time. Particular, as the system begins its strategic plan. The Senate needs to make sure that these pieces are part of that discussion.

Sen. Craig asked about the merit pool. Dr. Strickland said the total amount available is 2.5% of all faculty salaries. $158,000 came off of the top of that for promotion and tenure funds. That left a little over 2% to distribute to all the deans. The deans will now have their merit pool and a small equity pool. In better days it would have been good to keep some equity in the Provost’s office to utilize as it was done in the past. There was so little money that he distributed it all to the deans so the deans have the guidelines. They have the dates. Obviously the department chairs are now receiving this information.

Pres. Jacobson said she wanted to register a small concern. Dr. Gogue talked about development and its relationship with faculty priorities and working through the deans to establish faculty priorities. Pres. Jacobson said she would like to flag the fact that working through the deans puts interdisciplinary programs at a great disadvantage. Trying to get 3, 4, 5 deans to get together is really hard. Dr. Strickland said he gets 14 together every couple of weeks. The process for inclusion typically begins at the department level. It is seldom that the dean sets the priority and then passes it on to the provost. Eventually, they do get filtered. Pres. Jacobson said the thing about starting in the department is that departments have a disincentive to engage in interdisciplinary work.

        Sen. Karger said some of the deans are coming up for reviews this year. What is the process for review? Will it be done by faculty or will it be done only by the administration? What is the timeline? Dr. Strickland said two deans are up for a review, Engineering and Architecture. Social Work is next year, but the Provost said he would check this. The process is simply to first of all inform the deans that they are going to be reviewed. Typically, when they are hired they are told when they are going to be reviewed. A committee, which is faculty driven, will be identified. There will be an outside chair, a person outside of the college. It is a process that has gone on here for years recommended by the Faculty Senate. That is essentially what is done. Eventually, the recommendations come to the Provost. A good heart to heart talk occurs. A report goes back to the faculty on the outcome of it. It is a developmental review. Dr. Strickland said it is a very positive review, having gone through it twice himself. It occurs every five years. It is the best advice and counsel that a dean gets on a regular basis.

       Pres. Jacobson said, as a point of information, there has been some feeling in the Faculty Senate that perhaps the deans could get that advice more frequently. Dr. Strickland said he has heard that from individuals but mostly he has heard that about the provost.

        Dr. Strickland said he would seek the Senate’s advice and counsel on the format of his presentation, including the length of time, to make sure that he covers the regular pieces like personnel, money, the Library and all of the most important things. He requested the faculty to make suggestions.