University of Alabama at Birmingham

The Faculty Senate Meeting

Minutes of Faculty Senate Meeting

October 14, 2003

7:30 – 9:30 A. M.

Location: HUC Meeting Rooms A&B



PRESENT: Dr. John A. Smith (Chair), Dr. Theodore Benditt (Chair-Elect), Dr. Pat Greenup (Secretary), Dr. Tim Heaven (Past Chair), Dr. John Wittig (Parliamentarian)


SENATORS:  Dr. Peter Anderson, Dr. James Broome, Dr. Alison Chapman, Dr. Edwin Cook, Dr. Susan Davies, Dr. Alan Eberhardt, Dr. Daniel Givan, Ms. Sara Grostick, Dr. Louis Justement, Dr. Lynn Kirkland, Dr. Timothy Kraft, Ms. Jennifer Long, Dr. Joe March, Dr. Warren Martin, Dr. Bruce McComiskey, Dr. Jiri Mestecky, Dr. Stephen Moser, Dr. Jacqueline Moss, Dr. Beverly Mulvihill, Dr. Gary Sapp, Dr. Donald Urban, Ms. Martha Verchot


ALTERNATE SENATORS: Dr. Madelyn Coar, Dr. Zoe Dwyer, Dr. Clyde Guidry, Dr. Russell Kirby, Dr. David Ku, Ms. Debra Laken, Dr. Mark Lockhart, Dr. Jay Meythaler, Dr. Pamela Murray, Dr. Cheryl Palmer, Dr. Jay Smith, Dr. Joseph Telfair, Dr. Kenneth Tilashaliski


GUESTS: Ms. Reba Belcher, Ms. Lesley Early, Mr. James Lowery, Dr. Sadis Matalon, Ms. Tanta Myles




Agenda Items


  1. Call to Order


Chair John Smith called the meeting to order at 7:30 A.M. A quorum was present.


  1. Recognition of Guests: - No additional guests recognized other than those listed above.


  1. Adoption of Minutes of September 9, 2003 Meeting.


The minutes of the September 9, 2003 meeting were approved as distributed.







4.   Chair Report – Chair Smith requested that all senators assist the Secretary and

      use the Senate Standing Rules of the Faculty Senate when speaking to the body,

      please stand, identify yourself, and identify your academic unit. This will assist

      the Secretary and help senators to know our colleagues in the Senate. Chair John

      Smith announced that the State of the University Address will be presented by

      President Carol Garrison on November 13 from 3:30 to 5:00 pm. The location

      will be announced later. Provost Capilouto has sent a letter (Grievance Report)

      to the Faculty Senate indicating that no grievances were filed or no Grievance

      Committees were required to date during the year 2003. The Faculty Senate

      provided a STEPS appreciation luncheon for the STEPS implementation group

      on September 16. Chair Smith reported on the Status of the revisions to the

      Faculty Handbook, Section 2 and Appendices A, B and C and that Provost

      Capilouto has appointed an administrative review committee consisting of Harold

      Jones, Edward Kennedy, Marilyn Kurata and Rose Scripa to review the Faculty

      Senate recommendations for revisions to Section 2.0 and Appendices A, B and C

      of the UAB Faculty Handbook and Policies. It is anticipated that this committee

      will complete its review by early 2004. Chair Smith described the process for

      Phase II reports by the Academic Units to the Faculty Senate. A listing of

      questions (Appendix A) related to periodic review of tenured faculty and

      participation of faculty evaluation of academic administrators was distributed.

      Senators were requested to prepare responses to the questions and then to give a

      oral report at the assigned time during the coming monthly meetings of the

      Senate. The questions will be distributed electronically to the senators to assist in

      the preparation of the reports.

      The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate has been discussing Periodic

      Review of Tenured Faculty for several months and believes that it is in the best

      interest of the Faculty to have a unified process of periodic review of tenured

      faculty. The goal is to achieve a supportive periodic review process that can be

      used across all academic units. The general philosophy is to design a system to

      reward the high achievers and to remediate the low achievers. A periodic review

      of tenured faculty would focus on career development, workload issues, and

      quality assessment by faculty colleagues or peer review. The survey of current

      practices in academic units will support the Faculty Senate to develop and

      recommend general principles and guidelines that are supportive of the Faculty.

      Chair Smith announced the appointment of the new dean for the Dentistry, Dr.

      Huw Thomas. Chair Smith reported on the SACS Accreditation process and the

      appointment of the SACS Compliance Audit Teams and described the SACS

      process that will be occurring prior to March 2005 when the SACS Review Team

      will visit UAB. The Processes carried out by the Compliance Audit Teams will be

      summarized on the UAB website at: Chair Smith

      reported that the proposed academic calendar for 2004-2005 has been

      distributed and the final version will be available soon. While there are still

      concerns related to spring break and the AEA week dates, faculty concerns about

      these dates have been considered by UAB administration and are being

      considered in the development of the 2005-2006 academic calendar.


5.  UAB Research Activities Update – Dr. Sadis Matalon, Vice President for



     Dr. Matalon reviewed a PowerPoint presentation entitled “On Enhancing and

     Improving Interactions Among the Faculty and Administrative Units.” This

     material is posted on the Faculty Senate web page at Scroll to PowerPoint presentation for

     October 14, Dr. Matalon.


     During the presentation, Dr. Matalon responded to these questions from



           Question 1 – Who is the Vice President for Medicine?


            Response – The Dean of the School of Medicine.


           Question 2 – Why are the indirect costs values lower on the graph for “extramural

            funding in?”


            Response – Contracts from industry pay less for indirect costs and this

            component of the UAB research portfolio is increasing. There is a need for

            more space and faculty to increase the number of grants and contracts. The

            OGCA annual report that is currently being prepared will include information to

            further explain about the levels of extramural funding.


           Question 3  Can new hires in the OGCA be added to overhead related to grants?


            Response – Yes, there are plans to add more new hires.


           Question 4 -  Why does OGCA permit Department Chairs and Deans to forward

           grants to Federal funding agencies or foundations when the submission criteria of

           the grant and contract agencies have not been met?


            Response – The current practices at UAB are that the Dean and the Department

            Chair have the decision authority to release grants and contracts after meeting

            OGCA requirements. The Senate is encouraged to review this information and

             consider a recommendation to be submitted to the VP for Research.


           Question 5 – Do academic units have a review process for grants and contracts

           that would relieve some of the time pressure on the OGCAs?


           Response – No, this is not a current practice at UAB.






           Question 6 – What does “University signing off on a grant or contract” mean?


            Response – Signing off means that the indirect costs are correct and that the

            Department Chair and Dean certify that space required for the research has been



           Question 7 – Is it feasible to consider an internal review grant committee to have a

           ‘science and budget quality’ review for grants prior to documents leaving UAB?


            Response – This is not the current practice at UAB. This type of peer review

            would require faculty time and commitment. Dr. Smith indicated that at the

            Massachusetts General Hospital the Committee on Research thoroughly reviews

            each grant or contract prior to submission and that this is done well in advance of

            the submission date.  Dr. Matalon indicated that friends of his were on the

            Committee, and the use of such a process explains why a grant from Harvard

            stands out as so much better than other grants when they are reviewed.  If the

            Senate wants to consider submitting a recommendation, then the VP for Research

            will consider such a recommendation.


           Question 8 -  What is the UAB average for getting funding from Federal funding

           agencies or foundations? Do we have peer institution data?


           Response – For NIH about 35-40%; however, all data is not yet available. This

           information will be in the annual report. As for peer data, this will be done in the



           Question 9 – Are the CIRB and IRB independent or neutral bodies? Who has final

           authority for grants and contracts, Deans, Department Chairs, VP of

           Research and what is the current status of this line of authority?


           Response – At the present time, the authority is with the Dean and/or Department

           Chair. Any recommendations from the Senate would be considered by the VP for



           Question 10 – The CIRB and the IRB are part of the research compliance program

           at UAB. As such they have the power to directly restrict faculty activities

           regarding research to maintain research compliance with Federal Regulations.

           They often delegate their authority to the Departmental Chairs who act as their









           Explain why the CIRB and the IRB cannot directly remove this authority or

           restrict the authority of a Chair without first going through a Dean?


           In the various scenarios if a Chair violates standards in the oversight for research

           compliance: (1) by having a Conflict of Interest of their own; (2) violating

           confidentiality with regard to CIRB regulations; and (3) in most egregious of

           cases, makes false claims regarding the research.

           Why can’t the CIRB or the IRB take action to redelegate this authority? These are

           neutral panels staffed by peers. As such they are neutral oversight committees that

           are suppose to have the ultimate responsibility for human research compliance.


           Response – This is the process at UAB. The authority is through the Deans, and

           the VP for Research cannot directly change the authority for this supervision. As

           Chair, I would form a departmental committee to resolve such disputes.  Again,

           recommendations from the Senate will be considered by the VP for Research.


           Question 11 – Does the UAHSF have a CIRB and is there any interaction between

           the UAB CIRB and the UAHSF concerning conflict of interest issues?


          Response – Yes, however, there is very little interaction between the CIRBs at the

          UAHSF and UAB.


           Question 12 – Based on the 2002-2003 industry contract numbers is there any

           probability that there will be an increase in indirect costs recovered from industrial



           Response – Future negotiations will address this need to revise the amount that

           industry contracts pay for indirect costs; however, UAB cannot renegotiate

           existing contracts.


           Question 13 – From the data presented in the presentation, it appears that UAB’s

           share of federal dollars has decreased 9%. This is in conflict with the UAB School

           of Medicine goal to be in the Top 10 in 2010, as well as contrary to

           goals in the UAB strategic plan, can you comment on this?


           Response – This information will be included in the OGCA annual report and will

           need to be reevaluated.


     These questions identified issues that include: (1) the absence of

     communication between CIRB processes of UAB and UAHSF; (2) lapses at

     the Chair and/or Dean level to assure that submitted grants meet the

     guidelines for grant submission, proscribed by the Federal funding agency or

     foundation;  (3) the need for mechanisms whereby the IRB or CIRB

     redelegates the supervisory authority of a Chair or Dean, when perceived or

     real violations of their supervisory authority occur.  For example, research

     compliance might be breached by:  conflict of interest of Chair or Dean,

     violation of confidentiality by Chair or Dean, and false claims regarding

     research conduct by Chair or Dean.


     For some topics of concern, suggestions were made that the Faculty Senate

     consider possible recommendations to be forwarded to Provost Capilouto.


     Dr. Matalon will return to speak to the Senate in a few months to describe

     other research related administrative units. Dr. Matalon requested that

     senators submit to him any other questions they have about the OGCAs and

     the CIRB.



     6.  Senate Standing Committee Report


         a. Faculty Affairs Committee – Chair Senator Telfair


         Chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee reported that the administrator evaluation

         process for deans is proceeding. In this cycle of review, deans for Joint Health

         Sciences, Medicine, Dentistry and Natural Science and Math will not be included

         due to the current status of dean appointment timeline. The Senate is working with

         IDEA for the administration of an online process and this time is a pilot for the

         basis of determination of future academic evaluations by the Senate. Faculty will

         receive a letter within several weeks explaining the process. When IDEA completes

         the data analyses, the reports for the deans will be submitted to the Senate and the

         Senate will review the report process with the Provost and President. Faculty in

         academic units completing the online evaluation will receive feedback on the

         evaluation of their dean. It is expected that this dean evaluation process will be

         completed by the end of December 2003.



         b. Faculty Policies and Procedures Committee – Past Chair Tim Heaven


         Past-Chair Tim Heaven and Senate representative to the FPPC presented an FPPC

         recommendation for approval of the Report of the Committee on Handbook Issues

         and Archival Process and forwarding of this report to the Provost and President.

         This report addressed recommendations related to the electronic version of the

         Faculty Handbook, the printed version of the Faculty Handbook, effective date

         statements and recommendations for long-term preservation of the current

         administratively approved version of the UAB Faculty Handbook and Policies. The

         Senate approved the FPPC recommendation for the Senate to forward this report to

         Provost Capilouto. The written report/recommendation from the FPPC is

         Attachment B.


        c. Governance and Operations Committee


        Senator and Chair Beverly Mulvihill reported that the committee met on October 6

        and considered three topics: (1) monitoring of senator attendance at Senate meetings

        as defined in the Senate bylaws; (2) the Senate elections process; and (3) review of

        the Senate Constitution and Bylaws. Chair Smith added that the current officers for

        the Senate are writing job descriptions to include activities and estimates of time per

        week required for Senate responsibilities. This information will be made available to

        the senators and will be used to recruit candidates for officer positions during the

        2004 election process. Chair Smith reported that the Senate Executive Committee is

        working with Provost Capilouto to determine the status of UAB-wide university

        committees that are listed in the activities of the Senate standing committees’

        sections of the Senate Bylaws.


      7.   Academic Unit Reports – Reports were presented from two Academic Units


  • Senator Suzy Davies, School of Public Health reported that the faculty members were polled and reported concerns related to space, faculty salaries and resource allocation as had been reported by other academic units. The three issues of concern presented were: (1) enrollment and the need to increase enrollment and response to issues such as need for guidelines for appropriate increases in view of the decrease in international student enrollment following the events of September 11, 2001. Additionally, there are concerns about the cost to Public Health and students for the provision of appropriate education for graduate students; (2) recruitment and retention of diverse faculty to include encouragement of women and minorities and concerns for how to “grow our own faculty” and possible incentives to encourage increased numbers of women and minority faculty within the school; and (3) need for improved administrative support for grants and contracts related to accounting and financial issues that affect faculty in the school.


  • Senator Ed Cook, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences reported a summary of issues identified by polling faculty in the academic unit. These faculty expressed concerns similar to those presented by senators affiliated with other academic units. Additionally, the SBS faculty identified these concerns: (1) the absence of graduate assistantships and the need for teaching assistants support; (2) return to departments of salary funds covered by research grants; and (3) status of the Ullman building and the need for renovation or replacement with a new building for the programs currently housed in the Ullman building.




      8. Open Forum


          Chair Smith opened the floor for introduction of new items or concerns to the

          Senators. No new items were introduced for discussion.


  1. Announcements


    • Chair –Elect Ted Benditt encouraged the senators to support two UAB affiliated candidates for election to the Board of the Teacher Retirement System. The candidates are John Smith and Ralph Johnson. Faculty will receive TRS ballots via the mail after October 22, 2003. All senators were encouraged to make other faculty and staff aware of these candidates and to support their election.
    • Chair Smith announced that the next meeting of the Faculty Senate will be November 11, 2003 and that the academic units scheduled to report their summary of the Phase II survey are: Joint Health Sciences, Business, Dentistry, Education, Engineering, and Art & Humanities. Chair Smith reminded all attendees about the November 13, 2003 State of the University Address by President Garrison.
    • Reba Belcher from Human Resources Management and Benefits Office reminded all senators about the open enrollment period and deadlines for decisions about health benefits packages.


        10.   Review of Action Items from October 14, 2003 Meeting


a.       Chair John Smith will forward the Senate approved recommendation and report from the FPPC to the Provost and copy the President.

b.      The Executive Committee will review the concerns presented by the academic units to determine what future discussion and or actions are needed as a follow up.

c.       Secretary Greenup will forward an electronic version of the Phase II questions to all senators in preparation for academic unit reports during the next three months.

d.      All senators who have questions related to Dr. Matalon’s presentation should forward those questions to Dr. Matalon.

e.       Secretary Greenup will forward a message to all senators to encourage distribution to colleagues in academic units to mark on their calendar the November 13 date for President Garrison’s State of the University address.

f.        Senators are requested to encourage faculty participation in the online evaluation of deans in all academic units except Medicine, Dentistry, Joint Health Sciences and Natural Science & Math.

g.       Dr. Matalon’s PowerPoint presentation will be posted on the Faculty Senate web page at the links for faculty icon and then scroll to power point presentations.


     11.   Review of Action Items from the September 9, 2003 Meeting


a.       Chair Smith forwarded a letter to the Provost and President on September 23, 2003 concerning the Senate approved recommendations from the FPPC.

b.      The Executive Committee discussed the academic unit reports at the Executive Committee meeting on September 23 and integrated these issues into agenda items for the October 7 meeting with the President and Provost.

c.       Chair Smith has reported on October 14, 2003 that some of the Senator volunteers whose names were submitted for SACS Audit Teams have been appointed.

d.      The appointment of Debra Laken as a senate representative to the Athletics Advisory Committee is pending. Chair Smith has forwarded this information to the President.


              12.   Written Materials Distributed to Senators


a.        Agenda – October 14, 2003 meeting

b.        Minutes – September 9, 2003 meeting

c.        FPPC Report of the Committee on Handbook Issues and Archival Process

d.        Proposed 2004-2005 academic calendar

e.        Phase II – Academic Unit Reports to Faculty Senate – questions

f.          Paper version of Dr. Matalon’s PowerPoint presentation


              13.    Adjournment 


                       The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 A. M.


                        Minutes prepared by Pat Greenup, the Secretary of the Faculty.












Attachment A


Phase II – Academic Unit Reports to Faculty Senate


Periodic faculty review process


The following questions are to consider the processes related to tenured faculty in each academic unit.


  1. Does your academic unit have a process for periodic review of Faculty over and above its merit review evaluation process?  Yes___No___


  1. If so, describe the policy as to
    1. How frequently are these reviews scheduled to occur (e.g., every 3 years)?
    2. Who completes the evaluation (e.g., Chair)?
    3. What is the outcome expected from the review (e.g., a summary letter sent to the Faculty member and placed in her/his personnel file or a verbal report to Faculty member)?
    4. Are Faculty peers involved in the review process?


  1. When evaluation of a faculty member’s performance is determined to be exemplary, what mechanisms are available to recognize or reward this identified achievement by a Faculty member?


  1. When, following an evaluation, it is determined that improvements in a Faculty member’s performance are thought necessary, what supportive mechanisms are available to that faculty member in your academic unit?


  1. In instances of consecutive reviews demonstrating under-performance, if any, what mechanisms are in place for follow-up action in your academic unit?


  1. What is the desirable frequency (e.g., 3 years) for periodic faculty reviews?


Academic Administrator Evaluations by Faculty Senate


The Senate Executive Committee needs input from senators related to the planning of future academic administrator evaluations.

            Do Faculty in your academic unit want to have a role in the evaluation of these 

            academic administrators, using a Faculty Senate evaluation process?

1.      President:  Yes___No___

2.      Provost:  Yes___No___

3.      VP Research: Yes___No___

4.      Graduate School Dean:  Yes___No___

5.      Dean: Yes___No___

6.      Department Chair:  Yes___No___

       Note: This document will be distributed to senators as an electronic file via email.


Attachment B

Report of the Committee on Handbook Issues and Archival Process


I.                   Electronic Version of the Faculty Handbook


The Office of the Provost shall maintain the electronic version of the UAB Faculty Handbook and Policies, which represents the current administratively approved version of the handbook.


The Office of the Provost shall develop a title page with effective date and include this with the current administratively approved version of the Faculty Handbook.


The Office of the Provost should maintain an introductory section prior to the title page of the current administratively approved version of the Faculty Handbook. This section, which may include copies of the President’s welcome, the UAB vision and mission statements, and other such introductory documents as deemed appropriate, is introductory to and not part of the actual handbook.


The Office of the Provost shall also maintain updates electronically to show changes to the current version.  The current version shall include a preliminary table with revision dates to document all changes occurring during the calendar year.


The Office of the Provost will notify all deans, library directors, and department chairs of the location of the current administratively approved version of the Faculty Handbook.  The deans, directors, and departmental chairs will refer present and potential faculty to the current handbook.



II. Printed Version of the Handbook


The Office of the Provost shall at the end of each calendar year print complete copies of the current administratively approved version of the Faculty Handbook and route to the directors of the Mervyn H. Sterne and Lister Hill libraries.  The Office of the Provost will include with the annual printing an update table listing all revisions made to sections of the Faculty Handbook during that calendar year.  The libraries will bind these copies and make them available for use.


Superceded issues of the Faculty Handbook shall be sent to the UAB Archives for permanent retention and use.


Printed copies of the Faculty Handbook for personal use may be downloaded from the faculty handbook website. 


In order to protect changes made in an electronic environment, the Office of the Provost will maintain an updated hard copy of the entire Faculty Handbook whenever a revision occurs during the calendar year and within three days of each revision shall send hard copies of the changes to the libraries.


III. Effective Date Statements


The title page of the current administratively approved version of the Faculty Handbook shall include the date for the calendar year (ex. January-December 2003).  Revisions made during the year to the sections of the current administratively version of the Faculty Handbook will be dated and tracked with an update table.


IV. Recommendations


To be consistent with other universities, including those in Alabama, the Committee on Handbook Issues and Archival Process makes the following recommendation.  The current administratively approved version of the Faculty Handbook should be maintained electronically by the Office of the Provost in both a standard, non-proprietary format (i.e. HTML) and as a PDF file.  The Committee also recommends that the electronic files be updated at the same time, but that the HTML file takes precedence over the PDF file.


To provide easier access to the Faculty Handbook for the University community and for prospective faculty, the Committee on Handbook Issues and Archival Process also recommends that the main UAB homepage have a link directly into a faculty resource and information site.  This site will be maintained by the Office of the Provost and may offer links to the numerous other University sites containing information relevant to the faculty.



Report submitted to the FPPC, September 19, 2003

Rose Scripa, Carolyn Walden, Nancy Clemmons,

B.J. Stephens, Philip Musa, and Tim Pennycuff