FS Minutes - Nov. 19, 2003

President Jacobson called the meeting to order in the Farish Hall Kiva at 12:15 p.m.

BUS:      W. Chin, S. Khumawala, M. Parks, D. Rude
CLASS: V. Brady, B. Byrnes, S. Craig, W. Herendeen, A. Jacobson, J. Kotarba, J. Middents, R. Weldon
EDU:      M. Connell, S. McNeil, A. Warner, C. White
ENGR:    S. Kleis, D. Shattuck
HRM:      K. Titz
LAW:      S. Huber, P. Linzer
LIB:       S. Ferimer, J. Myers
NSM:      G. Auchmuty, P. Copeland, J. Eichberg, E. Leiss, D. Wells
PHA:       C. Pedemonte
TECH:    K. Greenwood
GSSW:   H. Karger

MEMBERS ABSENT: [19]

ARCH:    D. Kacmar
CLASS: B. Breitmeyer, K. Brown, P. Gingiss, G. Jowett, B. Lange, R. Murray, G. San Miguel
ENGR:   T. Cleveland, O. Ghazzaly, R. Metcalfe, G. Paskusz
NSM:     D. Blecher, G. Etgen, A. Ignatiev, K. Kadish
OPT:     R. Manny, S. Quintero
TECH:   C. Goodson

RESIGNED: CLASS: B. Johnsen, T. Tilley

VISITORS: Jay Gogue (UHS Chancellor and UH President), Jerald Strickland (Interim UHS Senior Vice Chancellor and UH Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs/Provost), Charles Shomper (UHS Vice Chancellor and UH Vice President for Information Technology), Marco Mariotto (Dean of Graduate & Professional Studies), Ed Hugetz (UHS Assistant Vice Chancellor and UH Assistant Vice President for Planning & University Outreach), Matt Dulin (Reporter, Daily Cougar)

November 19 is the deadline to make a nomination for the Esther Farfel Award, the highest honor accorded to a UH faculty member. Nominees must demonstrate excellence in all areas of faculty responsibility, including the significance and national/international impact of the candidate's research or creative activity; evidence of outstanding teaching ability; and distinctive and exemplary service to the University, the profession, and the community.

Nominations for the 2004 Teaching Excellence Awards are due on December 2 by five p.m. in the office of Dr. Elaine Charlson, Associate Vice President for Academic and Faculty Affairs. There will be six faculty and two teaching assistant/teaching fellow awards. Nomination guidelines are available on the web through the Provost’s site, from deans and chairs, or from Dr. Marilu McGregor at 713-743-9187.

Kudos to the College of Natural Sciences and Mathematics and the Department of Geoscience for their international agreement with PEMEX (the Mexican National Oil Company) to offer masters degrees in Geology and Geophysics for PEMEX employees. The programs, which will be taught by UH faculty on site in Mexico, have been made possible primarily through the work of the Chair of the Department, Jack Casey, and Don van Nieuwenhuise, who will be the director of the new off-site degree program.

Kudos to Cara Frasco, Pediatric Resident in the College of Optometry, who will receive the 2003 Terrance Ingraham Pediatric Optometry Residency Award from the American Optometric Foundation. Dr. Frasco was selected as this year's recipient from a strong pool of applicants from all optometry schools in the country.

Kudos go to Vincent Donnelly, Professor of Chemical Engineering, who received the Prize for Science & Technology from the American Vacuum Society's Plasma Science & Technology Division for development and application of optical diagnostics to elucidate the physical chemistry of plasma processes.

And special kudos to Ben Ostrofsky, Professor Emeritus of Industrial Engineering, who was awarded his second Eccles Medal by the Society of Logistics Engineers for activity as a member of the LOGTECH committee. Dr. Ostrofsky has been a fellow of the society since 1972.

Pres. Jacobson attended the semi-annual meeting of the Texas Council of Faculty Senates in Austin on October 24-25. Two of the biggest news items are (1) the Coordinating Board’s desire to increase uniformity in course titles and numbering. This is to make it easier for students to transfer. There was in the discussion some suggestion that there is going to be pressure for more uniformity of content of courses state-wide. (2) Harrison Keller, Senior Policy Analyst for Speaker of the House, Tom Craddick, has been charged with getting background information and formulating early policies on the legislative desire for a more rigorous assessment of higher education in Texas, particularly to look at the way in which higher education meets the needs of Texas. One of the early questions about this process is how do they know what the relevant effects are? Pres. Jacobson said this is an opportunity for universities to be engaged in these discussions.

Sen. Leiss said it is intriguing that in the same session two basically opposed ideas are being discussed. On the one hand uniformity, which means the lowest common denominator. And on the other hand an attempt to define excellence. Pres. Jacobson said the discussion was not about defining excellence. This was defining benefits. Pres. Jacobson said the uniformity concern comes from the Coordinating Board. The representative wants to know about very measurable benefits to the state, which may not have much to do with excellence.

Sen. Leiss asked if anyone opposed the uniformity idea? Pres. Jacobson said there were a lot of questions about the uniformity idea. And people were very, very concerned about the idea of more outcome measures. I think that what a lot of people felt is that From the comments made, a lot of people seemed to feel that once one starts to privilege certain outcomes, that can change the persona of education enormously.

Pres. Jacobson said she would be going to Austin to talk to Harrison Keller. She said she would take the Boyer report with her.

Sen. Eichberg said at the meeting TCoFS is starting an electronic newsletter and they also established a web site. The Senate Office will send out the URL. Senators may be interested in looking at what is going on with this organization.

Sen. Leiss said as far as the uniformity idea is concerned Florida is the enough of an example. Florida has total transferability, so it has become rather difficult to establish any course that is different. It is all lowest common denominator and a really a bad idea.

Pres. Jacobson said the TCoFS newsletter is a great thing. Sen. Eichberg is one of the people spearheading this.

Pres. Jacobson said some community colleges are starting to offer selected bachelor degrees and people are concerned about this trend for very obvious reasons. People were saying that it is a very different relationship between community colleges and their local politicians and universities. In fact this was getting to be a very political situation for people.

Pres. Jacobson said many universities in Texas are establishing a position for an ombudsman or ombudsman person. The President’s Commission on the Status of Women recommended that faculty have access to something like a mediator. That recommendation is very close to a recommendation of ombudsman that the Executive Committee will discuss with Dr. Gogue.

Pres. Jacobson said the Faculty Senate has not been very outcome driven. It expresses its opinion on ideas that it would like to take to the administration for action. Pres. Jacobson said she drew up a list of action questions that the Executive Committee has discussed over the past three months. A number of conversations with the upper administration has involved background discussion of issues. For example, what the survey looked like. And what are current problems in some of the colleges. Pres. Jacobson suggested senators look over the areas that have been discussed. If a senator would like to discuss any of these topics or give some input, please let Pres. Jacobson know (AJJacobson@uh.edu), or one of the Executive Committee members or Mary Brantley.

Pres. Jacobson pointed out that the Principles and Goals document is on the same sheet as the action items. She stated that took the general statements and put them at the top and translated the statement of principles for decisions into goals. Sen. Linzer asked if is there was anyone in the world who would disagree with these things? He added that any place in the world could use this statement. They are all true but they are not controversial. It is fine to produce this statement but it is meaningless.

Sen. Myers said but these are principles and goals. She added that she liked this so much better than the version presented at the last meeting.

Pres. Jacobson said she didn’t agree that the statement is meaningless. The first item “promote learning informed by active inquiry” is something that UH doesn’t do. Faculty teach and do research, but have done nothing or very little to bring the importance of research to teaching. That should be the primary goal that research universities have. The second item is “honor and reward successful innovative teaching on our campus.” Does UH do that? Sen. McNeil is doing a lot of stuff that Dr. Jacobson had never heard of until she got to know her on the Senate. Most of the teachers on campus live very isolated lives. They meet their classes, but they don’t discuss teaching technology. The third item, “develop a visible role for research, scholarship and artistic activity on the campus” is just about zero on this campus. The kids come to UH. Most of them are from cultures that are unaffected by higher education. She said these sound overly negative because she is trying to emphasize the point.

Sen. Linzer said that her comments about this are all correct and very valuable, but the statement itself is meaningless. The broad statements can be said about every place. What she said is very important, and he supports that tremendously.

Pres. Jacobson said finally there is a list of provost criteria, which she asked the senators to review for discussion at the next Senate meeting on December 10. The provost selection committee is in the middle of a considerable argument about this. She added that she didn’t feel she could influence that discussion very much but this list is something to communicate to Dr. Gogue who will have the final decision on hiring the provost.

Sen. Linzer noted that Dr. Gogue has said that he wants to have a provost by January. What is the point of waiting until December to come up with the criteria if by that time the process may be over? The Senate should be talking about it right now. If the Senate waits; it may do a better job but it will also be irrelevant. This is a very good list.

Pres. Jacobson said the airport interviews are set for mid-December, so the Senate will get the criteria to Dr. Gogue by then. Sen. Linzer said the meeting is on the December 10. It is unlikely that there will be a solution the day the list is debated. Pres. Jacobson said the Senate could debate this list rather than the Principles.

The committee met on October 29 with Vice President for Research, Art Vailas. Nancy Ward, Director of the Research Information Center, and Selesta King, Division Administrator, attended.

Dr. Vailas provided a summary of FY03 expenditures of Indirect Cost (IDC) funds.

The formula for use of IDC is to direct 29% of the IDC generated by a project to the department, 37% to the office of the appropriate dean, and 34% to the office of the VP for Research. Under current policy no IDC funds are returned directly to the principal investigator but may be made available to the PI by the college or department.

Of the 34% retained by OGC, some is used to take care of ongoing obligations such as dealing with hazardous waste, animal care, and consulting and contractual services. This last category includes lobbying and $80K to maintain software used to keep track of budgets administered by OGC (PeopleSoft is not used for this function).

Dr. Vailas said he felt some of the important issues for research funding in the future will be the allocation of HEAF funds to support research, PeopleSoft funding, and infrastructure costs.

Sen. Copeland reported that Dr. Vailas will be speaking to the Research Council on Friday, November 21, at 1:30 p.m. and that meeting is going to be very similar to his meeting with the BFC. Any committee members who missed the last meeting are encouraged to attend this meeting of the Research Council.

Sen. Kotarba asked why OGC does not use PeopleSoft to keep track of their budget. Sen. Copeland responded that his impression was that they were not confident in its results and they are willing to spend thousands of dollars to get something better.

Sen. Pedemonte said he understood that all university offices were obliged to use PeopleSoft. Is this a decision taken by the department? How do these things work? Sen. Copeland responded that those in charge of individual offices often make such decisions.

Sen. Myers said one of the questions that came up early was, how does UH maintain certain research facilities? She asked Sen. Copeland if after this meeting he felt that the administration has a better grip on that issue. Sen. Copeland said he thinks Dr. Vailas and Dr. Rudley are both concerned about this issue and each wondering what the other is going to do about it. More needs to be done on this issue. He added that he thinks they both care about this issue and they both want to do something about it, but the issue is not yet resolved.

Sen. Eichberg asked what is the actual total dollar amount? Sen. Copeland said he didn’t bring those notes with him but he would circulate that information by e-mail.

Sen. Eichberg said he was surprised at high percentage for emergency contingencies. Sen. Copeland said it is a reserve fund that Dr. Vailas says he doesn’t spend until seven months in the year have gone by. Sen. Copeland said he got the impression that Dr. Vailas holds on to that money carefully until the last half unless there is a true emergency. Sen. Copeland said Dr. Rudley thinks that that using a portion of IDC money for emergency repair of labs is a good idea and that UH ought to be trying to find ways to help assistant professors in purchasing equipment. It has been suggested that purchase slips for untenured junior faculty be on a different color piece of paper or marked in some way so that these faculty who are under great pressure receive priority. Dr. Rudley was very receptive to the idea.

This committee is working on two main topics: (1) To help create materials for faculty on the new academic honesty policy that took effect this year. (2) To look at some textbook policies for faculty. On this topic, the committee is meeting with the Faculty Affairs Committee so that both the faculty perspective and the student perspective are included. The group is meeting also with Dr. Rudley and Dr. Charlson on this issue. At present the committee is gathering data, but hopes to report to the Senate in December.

The following members of the Faculty Affairs Committee were present for this meeting: David Blecher, Valentini Brady, Brian Byrnes, Michael Connell, Steven Craig, Stanley Kleis, Jonathan Middents, Dale Rude, Roberta Weldon, and the Chair, Katy Greenwood.

The committee members identified the need to clarify of the scope and purpose of the University of Houston Human Resources along with the need for comparative data from other major research universities regarding comprehensiveness of human resources, including leave policies, level of benefits available, and nature of advocacy for faculty needs.

Sen. Linzer, who is on this committee and had to leave, asked Sen. Greenwood to say that for the first time in many years he is excited about the University and wants the Senate to make sure that UH has its views of the new provost discussed.

SCHOLARSHIP & COMMUNITY COMMITTEE REPORT - Joseph Kotarba, Chair

The committee met to examine the work of the UH Office of Development. The guest was Johanna Wolfe, Executive Director of Major Gifts. The following are highlights of Ms. Wolfe’s presentation:

Sen. Auchmuty said almost every other major function in the University has a faculty advisory group. Sen. Chin noted that would seem to be one potential mechanism for creating this sort connection.

Pres. Jacobson recommended that this is something that the committee should pursue. Other people may have different experiences, but after interacting with faculty there is a continual refrain that development is useless, that a faculty member goes to the development officer in the college and still has to do all the work.

Sen. Kotarba said it seems that the development officers are, ironically, more interested in looking after very large amounts of money for very extensive, long-term projects. If a faculty member wants to set up a startup, a center, or group or limited project in which (s)he is primarily a PI, it is often difficult to work with development officers. They seem to prefer that departments and colleges put together proposals and work at that on a broader level.

Sen. Kotarba said the committee is going to stay with this topic and is going to talk to the development people at the college level.

Sen. Herendeen asked the Scholarship and Community Committee to consider being the liaison for the Senate to the Administration once the capital campaign gets underway.

Last year the committee began a series of meetings with chairs and contacts for the UH Standing Committees to find out how well the committees are functioning, what issues they are working on, and what, if any, problems or challenges they are facing. These meetings also provide the individuals an opportunity to ask questions of the Committee on Committees (COC) or to bring problems to the COC or the Senate. All of these meetings have been well received on both sides and provided another path of communication to and for the Senate.

The meetings continued on November 10 when the COC met with Abel Garza, Executive Director of Affirmative Action Office (AA0). Mr. Garza is the contact person for both the Sexual Harassment Board and the Title IX Grievance Committee.

Both groups serve as a pool from which members are selected to create hearing panels for cases in the respective areas. The Sexual Harassment Board oversees cases related to sexual harassment or sexual assault. The Title IX Grievance Committee oversees any other grievances for staff or students; most involve discrimination, whether age, gender, race or sexual orientation.

Sexual Harassment complaints are handled with great sensitivity. Few ever reach the hearing stage, perhaps a handful each year. All complaints are investigated and there are three levels of appeals for both the complainant and the respondent. The long standing Interim Sexual Harassment Policy is moving toward permanent adoption. This should have by the end of the year. One change in the policy is the proposed removal of the Ombudspersons (faculty, staff and students have three each). Little use has been made of these members in the past with most complainants preferring to come directly to the Affirmative Action Office. If after two or three years a need is seen to restore these positions, then the policy will be revised.

In most sexual harassment cases there are three possible situations: (1) proof of sexual harassment exists; (2) a complaint is determined to be false; or (3) the result is one person’s word against another. The most common complaint arises when two an affairs ends and one party seeks revenge. Often what is key to determining an outcome is whether there has been retaliation.

There is a list of 15 possible outcomes ranging from giving an apology (private or public) to a warning or reprimand and up to dismissal. The most common outcome is that an individual must go through training.

Mr. Garza pointed out that President Gogue is very supportive of UH being pro-active in training. AAO is working on condensing a four-hour training program that covers everything and will provide attendees with a handbook for reference purposes.

The Title IX Grievance Committee receives 18 cases per year. Most of these involve staff complaints related to promotion or merit pay. When asked if a mediation process would be beneficial for UH, Mr. Garza said the former legal counsel, to whom the AAO reports, allowed only for conflict resolution, not mediation. Mr. Garza added that all members of the AAO are certified mediators.

The COC raised the idea of having a faculty advocate or ombudsperson. Mr. Garza pointed out that the AAO deals with staff and students. Academics go through the Provost Office or UH Grievance Committee. The group discussed the merits of such a faculty position. It requested that the Executive Committee (EC) of the Senate look into this idea. The COC requested that the Ombudsman from Rice University be invited to meet with the EC. The group further requested that Mr. Garza and the COC be included in this meeting.

After Mr. Garza departed, the COC continued to meet. It agreed not to fill the ombudsperson vacancy on the Sexual Harassment Board, pending the new policy changes. It did fill one regular seat on the board.

*From the floor Sen. Copeland nominated Steven Craig, CLASS, for member-at-large. Sen. Craig accepted.

Sen. Eichberg said a Voter's Guide will be sent to senators prior to the next meeting. An absentee voting process will be available again this year. Eligible senators can go to the Faculty Senate Office in room 351 Cullen Performance Hall between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays beginning Wednesday, December 3, and ending Tuesday, December 9. The senator must sign a registration sheet to record that the individual has voted. Then the senator will be given a ballot that, once marked, can be deposited by the senator into the Faculty Senate Ballot Box. That box will be brought to the December 10 Senate meeting for attending senators to vote. All ballots will be opened and read during that meeting. No ballots will be mailed to senators and no ballots will be accepted after the official counting occurs.

PRESENTATIONS BY CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT-ELECT [5 minute limit]

President-elect Candidate Joseph Kotarba said I want to thank my colleagues who encouraged me to serve as a candidate for President-elect of the Faculty Senate. I am honored to be placed on the same ballot with my good friend, Al Warner.

I will briefly state my position on what I feel are two key aspects of my candidacy.

I want to continue the use of our strong committee system to conduct the work of the Faculty Senate. I have learned from the current committee chairs the value of delegating initial responsibility for addressing issues to the relevant committees. This allows us to begin work on issues quickly, yet affords us the time needed to carefully deliberate them. Getting to work quickly on issues is especially important in light of the new administration’s willingness to seek as well as be open to our input.

I am a strong believer in structured and efficient meetings. All meetings should be designed to produce propositions and calls for action.

Finally, I would like to secure the stature of the Faculty Senate among our colleagues. Recent Presidents have worked hard to convince the faculty that we represent them, their needs and concerns. As President, I would continue the practice I began as Chair of the Scholarship and Community Committee of visiting the colleges and departments to get a first-hand sense of local issues and as well as local accomplishments.

Recent Presidents have worked hard to establish policy for the Faculty Senate, such as Anne’s (Jacobson) Principles and Goals document, Joe’s (Eichberg) revisions of the Faculty Handbook, and Jerry’s (Freiberg) idea for a Faculty Survey. I would like to build on those statements with proactive and programmatic activities. I would support interdisciplinary and collaborative activities, while keeping in mind that a great university must have excellent work in both science and humanities, research and writing, discovery and interpretation.

One of my pet projects would be to work closely with the Athletics Department in terms of three issues: their budget, the academic performance of student-athletes, and scholarly opportunities for faculty and other students. With the world of intercollegiate athletics in great flux now, we as Faculty Senators have the opportunity to help extend the benefits of the Athletic program to the entire university community, while helping to control its costs. The Athletics Advisory Committee I chair, for example, is looking into increasing scholarly opportunities available through conference membership (e.g., faculty exchange and research support).

Finally, I would work hard to enhance our role and identity as “professors.” All other issues, such as salary, research support, benefits, and even parking, are shaped by the degree to which the administration and our broader audiences recognize us and celebrate us as the intellectual leaders of our community. I will continue the work of the Scholarship and Community Committee I have been chairing to improve university communications and development. I will also support the Faculty Affairs Committee’s forthcoming policy recommendations on faculty leave, including academic leave. In parallel fashion, I will also continue the Faculty Senate’s admirable efforts to enhance the role and identity of our hard-working staff as “professionals.”

President-elect Candidate Allen Warner said as Joe Kotarba mentioned, we have a mutual admiration society here. I have three points I would like to make just very, very briefly. I am not going to be as specific as Joe as my experience is things change too quickly on us. We are constantly running from behind trying to keep up with things. My three points are very simple: (1) accepting an invitation, (2) building a community of scholars, and (3) searching together for standards of excellence.

We have, in my thirty years of experience on this campus, a fairly unique opportunity at this moment. We have an invitation from the President and, by extension, an invitation from the Board of Regents to be involved in decisions. There is a major change taking place. That major change is going to necessitate changes in our operating style as a Senate and as a faculty. By the same token, I think we have a fairly narrow window of opportunity. If we don’t do it, someone will do it for us. Many of these things have to be done in a timely manner and if we as a Senate aren’t active, if we aren’t responsive, they will still get done.

Like Joe, I think we need to build a greater sense of shared governance at the department and college levels. As we do that at the campus level and as that tone is set between the Senate and our administrative leadership, we need to assure that tone is reflected at the department and college levels. And we need to go back and re-look every now and then at the continuum of shared governance that is in the report of the survey that we published a year ago.

It strikes me that our model of the university began in the middle ages as guilds of individual entrepreneurs. Somehow along the way we sometimes lose that sense of being a guild, of being responsible for ourselves and for our colleagues. We allow others to take responsibility for us. When we do that, we lose our collegial spirit.

Second, we need to work on our sense of being a community of scholars. The University of Houston is an urban commuter campus, and that descriptor applies to us as faculty as well as to our students. As I commented in another session recently, one of the problems in building a sense of community is that we can say goodbye to one another at the end of the day and, in this metropolitan area, be 100 miles apart in an hour. Some of you live in the Woodlands, some live in Clear Lake, some in Rosenberg. This is not Lincoln, Nebraska. We don’t tend to live next door to each other most of the time. We have to work hard to build a sense of the community among ourselves. And in doing that we have to get away from us-versus-them types of syndromes; debates over whether research is being favored too much and not the humanities, or are the humanities getting too much emphasis and not scientists, or research versus teaching. A rising tide lifts all boats. We need to find ways to work together.

Finally, we need to reach out for our colleagues, staff and students in a common search for standards of excellence. I don’t believe that standards of excellence can be defined at the macro level. I don’t think they are best defined by seeking peer institutions. I think they are better defined by recognizing the diversity and uniqueness of this institution. We have highly reputed folks in Theatre who didn’t build those reputations through referred journal articles or by getting NSF grants. We have absolutely wonderful researchers who bring millions of dollars in external funding. We have incredible opportunities. We sit here in the middle of a land of opportunity. We have to find ways to capitalize on that. Perhaps a the best approach is a process in which each unit (department, center or college), defines what its standards of excellence are and we institute a bottom up approach -- rather than top down which is too often what we have faced in the past.

Let me close with a quote from John Gardner. Forty-two years ago John Gardner published a book called Excellence. In that book he had a quote that I will paraphrase. It is one of my favorites whenever I think about how we deal with excellence and the issue of diversity. He said that any society that fails to recognize excellence in plumbing because plumbing is a humble activity, but tolerates shoddiness in philosophy because philosophy is an exalted activity, will have neither pipes nor ideas that hold water. We must have both pipes and ideas that hold water. This is best done by the building excellence from the ground up. Thank you again. It is an honor to be a candidate for president-elect. I wish you all the best. However the election comes out I’m going to be here working with you.

DISCUSSION: “Principles of Progress”

Principles and Goals
Draft 11.19.03: FOR DISCUSSION ONLY

Original point of (1)-(3): a justification to the incoming provost for goals/principles in (A)-(C).

Education in a research university richly productive in research and scholarly and artistic activities has a special excellence that develops in students both the critical skills and the imaginative intelligence that will enhance the rest of their lives.
The national reputation/status/recognition of a university like UH depends foremost on the productivity of the faculty.
As one of the major research universities in Texas, UH’s ability to respond to the accelerating need, on the local, state and national level, for highly trained graduates makes it a very important resource for economic, technological and cultural growth.

Priority Goals for “moving the University forward”:

A. Education:

Promote learning informed by active inquiry.
Honor and reward successful innovative teaching on our campus.
Develop a visible role for research, scholarship and artistic activity on the campus.

- shared governance
- research excellence at university level
- teaching excellence at university level
- institutions like UH (system, large, urban, public, research)
- public service and community relations (as an educational administrator)
- promoting diversity
- leadership
- communication
- accessibility and engagement

REPORT FROM AND DISCUSSION WITH UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON SYSTEM CHANCELLOR & UH PRESIDENT: Jay Gogue

Dr. Gogue mentioned several items: (1) Stories. At the last Senate meeting there was a discussion of the branding campaign, a part of which questioned how certain people are chosen for the campaign and others are not. Dr. Gogue tried an experiment to see what would happen. He sent out an e-mail requesting people to respond with stories about the exciting things they are doing. He had 32 responses in the first afternoon, which tells him that there are good stories in many areas. The proof will be what is done with these stories. Dr. Gogue indicated that he was pleased that people responded. He added that he should send out the request once a month to continuously remind folks that the administration is looking for information about what the faculty are doing and stories that need to be published. (2) Tuition. As president one spends an awful lot of time with tuition related issues. Last Friday the Lt. Governor issued a statement asking universities not to set tuition for fall 2004. Obviously this is an important issue. At the federal level bills have been introduced that are in essence price control within tuition. The President confided that he didn’t think the bills would pass, but he promised to work hard on that particular area. There is a growing interest on the whole question of tuition. It was reported in the newspaper this morning that UT had voted to delay implementing tuition increases. Dr. Gogue said he had a chance to visit with UT’s president who described some of the things that UT is doing with tuition within the UT system: (a) They will reduce the tuition rates for freshmen. The rates are picked up at the sophomore, junior and senior year. This is to get the student into the system to see if (s)he could be successful and then retaining that student. (b) Some UT System institutions are calling for plateau tuition; that is, a student pays for 12 or 15 credit hours but any credits taken above that number are at no additional cost. They have done that for a couple of years on a trial basis and they do see that retention improves and graduation rates go up. (c) They are changing rates at certain campuses based on the time of day that classes are offered. (d) They offer rebates if a student graduates in four years. They have done this, too, and their four-year graduation rates have moved from 32% to 38%. (e) Finally, the most interesting area was that out of their tuition increase dollars they pooled 28 or 29%, which they use to scale tuition. The most vocal group about tuition involves students with family income in the range of $40,000 to $110,000, so a UT student with a family income of less than $40,000 would pay zero tuition increase. If the family income is up to $60,000, the student pays 25% of the new tuition increase; up to $80,000 around 50%; and up to $110,000 one pays 75% of the tuition increase rate. This morning the legislative affairs people indicated that there will be hearings held either in January or February to look at tuition rates. (3) Two issues from the Board of Regents are: (a) Transferability within the UH System. Can a student who is enrolled in any school in the UH system transfer to another? If the person is on academic probation at one institution, can he/she transfer to another institution within the system? It turns out that it depends on the university. A person on academic probation at UH could transfer to UH-D. Dr. Gogue said he wasn’t’ sure that this is a bad thing. It is an indication that a student who is struggling on one campus, may turn out to be not so bad at another institution. (b) The other question had to do with debt. If a student owes money at one campus, can (s)he transfer to another campus? In general the answer is no if there is any substantial debt. A parking ticket, maybe, but as a general rule a student can’t transfer with a debt. (4) A number of administrators were at the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant College meeting. UH is a member of NASULGC. A major part of the discussion had to do with international students and visiting scholars, including entry and re-entry. Dr. Gogue said the administration is in the process of trying to make sure the federal delegations are aware of the issues. In terms of student visas, it takes much longer to get a student visa, but the actual number of applications being rejected is relatively small. There was considerable discussion about a person who is in the U.S. on a visa, goes back home for some reason and then has difficulty getting back into this country on a timely basis. The biggest issue that affects the scientific community deals with a visiting scientist that UH wants to come to a conference. It seems that 90% of all people requesting a visa today have to be interviewed by the FBI, so think about professional colleagues in other countries who want to come to a professional meeting in the U.S. for four days. There is a 90% chance they will have to be interviewed by the FBI. Those international scholars find it distasteful and demoralizing and are not supporting international conferences with their attendance. (5) In development there are college development officers who do a great job of engaging their faculty but at the same time there are others who do not engage their faculty very much. Finally, one of the biggest threats in American higher education today is the fact that higher education is on the agenda of elected officials. It is on the agenda of governors, speakers, and presidents-pro tem of Senates. And they get together and get some anecdotal story from Florida. There are huge accountability reports, five or six inches thick, for every candidate. And so they come back with the idea that this would be a great thing for all states to do, so increasingly higher education is becoming much more like other states because they pick up ideas from each other. One of the things that Dr. Gogue will try to do is to use UH’s governing board in a much more proactive way. They have not been used very much, but they are gubernatorial appointees and the goal is to try to get those individuals where they understand the issues so have higher education can have a broader and better voice.

Sen. Kotarba commended Dr. Gogue for his quick followup on the discussion at the last meeting regarding communications and publicity. He then suggested the President pick a couple of those 32 messages out and forward them to the people in communication. Dr. Gogue said that is a good idea.

Sen. Craig asked whether there has been any discussion about differentiating the tuition of the professional schools. Dr. Gogue said professional schools at virtually every university in the country have dramatic differences in professional school tuition. UH does differentiate tuition.

Asked about the Provost Search Committee, Dr. Gogue said he has taken a complete hands-off approach to the provost search. He formed the search committee, charged the committee, but he has had no discussion with the committee since that first day. Dr. Gogue said he didn’t know how many candidates are under consideration. He won’t intervene in this process until after they have completed their airport interviews and have delivered to him three to five names. At that point he will take the criteria the Senate has developed, take his experience and try to select the best provost.

Sen. Craig asked if the search committee involved the endowed chairs in this process. Dr. Gogue said he asked Dr. Estess to send a letter to each endowed chair in order to ask for names, but does not know if the letter was sent.

Sen. Copeland asked to comment on demonstrations on campus reported by the Daily Cougar. Sen. Copeland said he was a little dismayed to find out that, in these many acres of public property, there are things called free speech zones where one has to ask permission for speak freely. Dr. Gogue said the University has three designated areas for free speech, but this applies to any group who plan to have a large crowd. Dr. Gogue said a student has free speech any where on the campus, if there is not going to be a large crowd or disruptive behavior. Sen. Greenwood said free speech has been abused in the past. Last year there was a small group who came to campus and had a spontaneous demonstration and they were cited. Dr. Gogue said this needs to discussed. He added that he has addressed this issue at a couple of campuses. Generally a campus is entirely free speech unless it is a disruptive activity.

Sen. Copeland suggested that it would sound better if the campus had demonstration zones but the notion places where you can speak freely and those that we can’t most distasteful. Dr. Gogue said that is a good point and ask Dr. Strickland to make a note on the point.

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 said: (1) UH currently has 56 faculty searches in all of the colleges on this campus. (2) The Faculty Handbook. He has received definitive information that it will be finished at the first of the year 2004, shortly after January 1. The General Counsel and Associate Provost will have the work done. (3) With regard to students, UH has 35,066 enrolled. Around 33,000 are expected in the spring. The student senate is very interested in the outcomes. They sent things forward to the president and to the provost often and expect outcomes the same day. (4) Ted Estess, who chairs the Provost Search Committee, yesterday told the Council of Deans that the process was going well and that they had an increasing number of good candidates. (5) The process of evaluating deans was mentioned at the last meeting. Dr. Strickland said he has provided Pres. Jacobson with a document that outlines the process by which deans are evaluated. There are two deans to be evaluated this academic year (Architecture and Engineering). There will be two evaluated next year. (6) With regard to the damage report from the storm on Monday, UH did have major damage in the Law Center. The floor leaked again. In the case of Melcher Hall, the roof leaked. Sewage backed up in the UC and other leaks occurred in Farish Hall, M.D. Anderson Library, and Hofheinz Pavilion. On the second floor of Ezekiel Cullen alone, three people lost vehicles while going home. (7) Dr. Strickland has begun working with the System Provost Council and with individuals on this campus to revive interest and to establish a new interest in the Medical Center initiative. Dr. Strickland promised the Senators would hear more about this project each time he comes before them. (8) Dr. Strickland attended the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant College meeting over the weekend. It was incredibly useful to him to visit and listen to the issues other provosts and vice presidents were facing. One issue relates to the National Research Council, evaluation and grading of graduate programs. Dr. Mariotto said it looks like the NRC evaluations are on. For those who don’t know, the NRC is a subsection of the National Academies. They oversee doctoral substance. There have been two evaluations done, the last in 1995. The next evaluation is scheduled to be done in 2005. UH will be starting an enormous process in January that is critical to give this University the kind of information that is critical to the assessment of where UH is and where it is going. In January programs and departments will be inundated with mass communications from the Office of the Dean of Graduate and Professional Studies. There are probably 20-28 doctoral programs that will be involved. Dr. Strickland said as he understood it, the criteria are that there had to be at least five hundred Ph.Ds granted nationally in a discipline over the past five years to be included. This will be a major effort for part of the faculty and particularly the chairs of those departments and the deans. (9) UH completed 50 classroom renovations this last summer and will be doing another 50 this spring and summer. Over the Christmas break, work will be done on the hallways of the classrooms renovated last summer. (10) Dr. Strickland attended several other meetings: (a) a two-hour session on the role of the arts in the university and (b) a two-hour session on recognizing, promoting and measuring excellence in the humanities.

Pres. Jacobson asked how the Provost measures excellence in humanities. Dr. Strickland said he will tell her dean first.

Sen. Herendeen asked about the NRC (National Research Council) evaluations. It would help if Dr. Mariotto had a list circulated to the senators. Dr. Strickland asked Dr. Mariotto to do that. Dr. Mariotto said this Friday the semi-final program list will be out and he agreed to send it to the faculty. Dr. Strickland said this is very important to UH. This is how UH’s peers are going to look at this University. It is also how graduate students will look at UH and compare it to other groups.

SCHOLARSHIP & COMMUNITY COMMITTEE REPORT - Joseph Kotarba, Chair

NEW BUSINESS: