The Faculty Senate Meeting
Minutes of Faculty Senate Meeting
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
Chair John Smith called the meeting to order at A quorum was present.
The minutes of the
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: http://www.uab.edu/sacs. 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.
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
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?
neutral by peers
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
would form a departmental committee to resolve such disputes.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 A. M.
Minutes prepared by Pat Greenup, the Secretary of the Faculty.
The following questions are to consider the processes related to tenured faculty in each academic unit.
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.
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.
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.
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