Minutes of FSEC Meeting – March 31, 2004



I.                    Attending: John Smith, Ted Benditt, Tim Heaven, Pat Greenup, Pam Murray, Gary Sapp, Linda Reed, Mark Lockhart, Stephanie Belcher.



II.                 The draft agenda for the April 13, 2004 Senate meeting was reviewed and revised as follows:

UAB Faculty Senate Meeting Agenda-April 13, 2004

Hill University Center Room-A&B 7:30-9:30 A. M.


  1. Call to Order
  2. Recognition of Visitors
  3. Approval of Minutes – March 9, 2004 Meeting
  4. Chair Report
  5. Presentations
    1. Mr. David Fine
    2. Vice President and Dean Will Deal 
  6. Senate Standing Committee Reports
    1. Curriculum & Research – Senator Murray
    2. Faculty Affairs – Senator Telfair
    3. Governance & Operations – Senator Mulvihill
    4. Finance – Senator Linda Reed
  7. Academic Unit Reports

a. Phase II Reports Update - Secretary Greenup

b. Phase III – Faculty Governance Reports

(1)   Natural Sciences & Mathematics – Senator

(2)   Nursing – Senator

(3)   Optometry – Senator

(4)   Public Health – Senator

(5)   Social & Behavioral Sciences – Senator

  1. Open Forum

      10.  Announcements

a.       Next Senate Meeting – May 11, 2004 - Penthouse

b.      Faculty Senate Meeting – May 11, 2004 – Chair Smith – Year in Review and Academic Unit reports update and Elections Process for Senators at Large to Serve on the Faculty Senate Executive Committee 2004-05

c.       April 22, 2004 – President’s Reception – Senate/FPPC

d.      Elections Report – Secretary Greenup

e.       UAB.EDU update project – Need Faculty Volunteers – see homepage center icon – volunteer to serve on Faculty focus group



III.               Agenda for FSEC Meeting – President Garrison – April 6, 2004




Administration Building 1070

Tuesday, April 6, 2004




  1. S.T.E.P.S. – Update


  1. Scorecard Metrics – University and Academic Unit level metrics


  1. Bell Wallace – Future Plans


  1. UAB Research – Five Year Plan Including Faculty Retention Plans


  1. Shared Governance Activities at the Academic Units Level


  1. Status of University-Wide Committees – List and Process


  1. Status of Section 2.0 and Appendices A, B and C


  1. Faculty Senate Plans – Academic Administrator Evaluation-Feedback – Fall 2004



IV.              Topics Discussed for Possible Inclusion on the FSEC agenda for April 6, 2004 but not included – documentation of actions to occur for each item.


    1. Faculty Recognition Recommendations

Chair Smith requested that each FSEC member submit 2 ideas to Secretary Greenup by April 21, 2004. On April 28, the FSEC will prepare a process proposal to present to President Garrison on May 4, 2004 FSEC meeting. An email request to the FSEC will be sent ASAP.

    1. Faculty Senate Elections Results – Response Rate

This topic was discussed and the decision was not to place on agenda. We are concerned about the 22% response rate for the election process this time using the electronic process. This is in comparison to 33% last year with paper ballot process. We do not understand this but may be due to computer viruses problems. We know that about 150 faculty members still do not have Blazer ID but we got no complaints about this. We did save about $800.00 by using the electronic process. We will track the response rate next year and evaluate based on process and rates at that time.

    1. Equity & Diversity Sessions – March 17 and 19, 2004

Secretary Greenup will communicate with Madelyn Coar, Senate representative to the Diversity Advisory Council and seek information to assist the FSEC to determine what actions, if any, are needed by the FSEC and the Senate at this time.

Note: Follow up indicated that no further action needed at this time.

    1. Phase II – Periodic Career Review of Summary Report

Chair-elect Ted Benditt will review the summary report and prepare a narrative report for discussion at the April 28, 2004 FSEC meeting. The

                        goal is to place on the agenda for the May 4, 2004 FSEC meeting with

                        President Garrison.


V.                 Items for Discussion – Time Did Not Permit Discussion by FSEC group but Chair Smith and Secretary Greenup reviewed these items to determine disposition and/or placement on the April 28, 2004 FSEC agenda.


a.       Senate space in UAB Reporter

Issues: March 9 Senate summary minutes were delayed 2 weeks and we were told that the length prevented inclusion and that the reports should only be 400 words; Senate election results were forwarded on March 22 and these have not been published; the Senate requested the publication of the listing of the Sterne Library call numbers for the academic unit’s Planning Notebooks, and these have not been published. Chair Smith will communicate with Linda Gunter.

b.      Faculty Senate Standing Committee Annual Reports – Secretary Greenup will send email requests to Chairs indicating that annual report from each committee is due April 28, 2004. This will permit reports to Senate on May 11, 2004.

c.       Faculty Senate budget process – Chair Smith will communicate with Rose Scripa.

d.      Senators-at-Large Election Process – Secretary Greenup will communicate with Parliamentarian Wittig to determine if alternate senators are eligible for these positions. Once it is determined who is eligible then Senate members will be sent a notice of the June election and the need for candidates who are willing to submit a statement of interest and willingness to serve on the FSEC during 2004-05 term.

Note: Follow up – both senators and alternates are eligible for these positions.

e.       Curriculum & Research Report – what action is needed by the Senate to follow up on the following report:


Recommendations to the UAB Strategic Plan

By the UAB Faculty Senate’s Curriculum and Research Committee

(Compiled by Pam Murray, CRC Chair)


Summary & Rationale: The following list of recommendations stems both from issues raised by members of the Faculty Senate over the past year and from the CRC’s review of four key areas of the UAB Strategic Plan: Undergraduate Education, Graduate & Professional Education, Research & Scholarship, & Work Environment (objectives & scorecards). Our review was guided by the belief that thoughtful faculty input is essential for the development and attainment of long-term university goals, especially those related to the academic enterprise. It also seeks to articulate some of the chief concerns expressed by Senators in their recent unit reports.


I. General Recommendation:


Ensure that all faculty are fully apprised of the objectives and scorecards for which they are to be held responsible; offered ample opportunity to be involved in identifying and operationalizing those objectives/scorecards at the school level; and consulted if objectives/scorecards are to be revised. Ensure, too, that scorecard metrics are appropriate for the objectives they seek to measure.


II. Recommendations on Undergrad Education:


A. Organize undergrad educational objectives into more specific categories or areas in which progress is being sought, e.g. enrollment of students w/ ACT scores higher than current average.


B. Link scorecards more clearly w/ the objectives they are to serve. In some cases, this means adding a new metric, e.g. one for advising. There might be another metric or two for the “exceptional curricula” objective (to reflect, for example, a unit’s success in meeting national or international accreditation standards or in gaining other kinds of recognition from which students within that unit are likely to benefit). A metric for “high-quality instruction” is in order, also. Should student evaluations be part of this?


C. Clarify meaning of metrics. For example, who is included (and, not) in the phrase  “graduation rate”? Graduation rate may be an inappropriate metric for some schools at UAB, especially those in which a substantial proportion of the students are transfers (who do not figure in calculations of graduation rates). Perhaps there should be a separate metric for tracking the graduation of transfer students, given that recruitment of the latter is being defined as one of UAB’s major goals.


D. Incorporate data from last few years (not just for the previous one, ’02) as well as for this year.


E. Metrics corresponding to the objective of quality curricula should be determined by the specific programs (and, academic disciplines) involved rather than by a single standard.

F. Make available data from various comparable peer institutions or those with which UAB sees itself competing.



III. Recommendations on Graduate & Professional Education:


A. Objectives & scorecard metrics (e.g. GRE scores) should be geared toward the specific disciplines & programs to which they are to be applied.


B.     To remain competitive, UAB needs to increase the amount of money it offers its grad assistants. It should, in turn, increase the number of assistantships in depts. or programs (e.g. psychology) that have lacked an adequate number of them. It is therefore recommended that this section of the SP clarify the criteria to be used in distributing fellowships & scholarships as well as nature of the latter. Same for graduate assistantships (whether teaching or research). The committee recommends that the new Grad School dean, Dr. Jim McClintock, be invited to address these issues at a future Senate meeting.


C.     Academic units, e.g. schools & departments, should be the ones responsible for ensuring the quality (however defined) of their respective curricula.


IV. Recommendations on Research & Scholarship:


A.     Given that UAB is a comprehensive university representing a vast array of scholarly fields and disciplines, the phrase “research & scholarship” should be carefully defined so as to ensure that scorecard metrics are appropriate to the

      fields and disciplines they represent (or, seek to measure).


B.     Develop means to promote research & scholarly productivity across the university campus—and, not only within the medical (or, applied) sciences. One way to do this is to continue supporting internal seed-grant programs to which faculty from all disciplines may apply, e.g. the recently reinstated Faculty Development Program now administered by the Graduate School. Another way is to address the specific yet often-ignored needs of non-IRB scholars and researchers—especially, those from the 6 schools on the “Academic Affairs” side of campus. Some kind of centralized office--roughly parallel to the current Office of the VP for Research (albeit on a smaller, more appropriate scale)—could serve to greatly boost Academic Affairs’ productivity by providing individual scholars with assistance in identifying and applying for humanities and social science-oriented grants.


V. Recommendations on Enabling Activity-Work Environment:


This section still lacks a scorecard that may be said to adequately measure progress toward the goal of creating a “positive, supportive, and diverse work environment in which faculty and staff can excel” or toward the more specific objectives that comprise that goal. We, therefore, recommend a scorecard that includes at least some of following metrics.


A.     For objective of enhancing faculty and staff professional development:


1. percentage of tenured faculty who participate in an established sabbatical program or who are actually on sabbatical each year.


                  2. percentage of untenured faculty & staff who participate in a comparable (sabbatical-like) program that provides support for time off from regular duties, specifically for activities required for professional development/advancement, e.g. time needed to attend a class leading to a terminal degree or to complete a book manuscript.


                  3. annual percentage of faculty/staff (as applicable & broken down into broad disciplinary categories) whose attendance at out-of-state and international professional conferences received university support, e.g. reimbursement of travel costs. This might be compared to total # of faculty/staff who attend conferences annually.


                 4. percentage of faculty/staff who participate in UAB-sponsored development programs, e.g. the Faculty Development Program and the like—and/or, UAB $$ invested yearly in such programs.


      5. percentage of tenured or tenure-track faculty whose teaching load is comparable to that of faculty at institutions with which UAB currently competes and/or compares itself, i.e. other Carnegie I research universities.


B.     For objective of  “securing funds & developing incentives to ensure competitive wages”:


    1. % of academic departments in which faculty salaries (according to rank) stand at or above the SUG and national averages.


    2.  yearly  % of faculty who leave UAB in order to occupy a position at a comparable research university or institution.  This might be broken down into specific fields, as well.


C.     For objective of creating “rigorous evaluation systems to measure performance” that are linked to promotion and merit salary increases:


1.      % of tenured faculty who undergo post-tenure review. This might be broken down by rank.

2.      % of all faculty who undergo a regular (or, annual) review process whose results are considered in decisions for promotion and raises.


D.     For improving recruitment & retention of underrepresented minorities:


An additional metric tracking the # of units who have participated in the Minority Development Program (or, similar programs).


Secretary Greenup will review this report and compare with a January 2004 C&R report that was presented to President Garrison. Secretary Greenup will prepare a recommendation for Chair Smith concerning the actions needed by the Senate and/or the FSEC. If action by Senate is needed the materials need to be forwarded to Senate prior to April 13, 2004 meeting.


Note: Follow up – a motion was presented to the Senate on April 13, 2004 to forward recommendations I and V to the Provost.


f.        Bylaws Amendments


Secretary Greenup will communicate with John Wittig, Parliamentarian to determine the status of adding appendices and who must approve changes in the appendices in the future (Senate or the FSEC) due to the number of appendices being added in the proposed document. Handout attached to official minutes for the FSEC – March 31, 2004 meeting.


Note: Follow up – John Wittig reported that the Appendices could be revised by the FSEC as needed.


Secretary Greenup will prepare a message to be sent to Senators to encourage review prior to the April 13, 2004 Senate meeting. The files for the current version and the proposed amendments table will be sent to Senators.

Note: Follow up – this message was sent to senators and the current and proposed bylaws were posted on the Senate page


g.       Faculty Senate Representatives to University wide Committees


Secretary Greenup will communicate with Debra Laken, Bettye Wilson, Pat Greenup and Madelyn Coar to request update reports on activities.


                        Note: Follow up

·        Debra Laken – next meeting of FAC – April 16, 2004; no information to share

·        Bettye Wilson – the search process for VP-Human Resources is

Interviewing candidates and hope to complete work by June

·           Madelyn Coar – no information at this time

·           Pat Greenup – the UAB.EDU front page update is ongoing


h.       Senate Status on I.D.E.A. Administrator Evaluation Project


On March 23, 2004 Stephanie Belcher received notification from Sally Garvan (IDEA) that the Faculty Senate will not be charged for the surveys completed during the fall 2003 for 11 academic administrators. The excellent negotiations by Chair Joseph Telfair with IDEA resulted in a “test pilot” status for our surveys and this resulted in “free of charge” for this time. This activity would have cost $2260.00 if we had been charged. For planning purposes for fall 2005, the price will be $150 for each administrator and then $1 for each email sent out. The projected costs for the planned President, Provost and Deans for NSM and Dentistry will be $4,444.00.


                        Note: Follow up – at the FSEC April 3 meeting President Garrison

                        suggested that newly appointed Deans only be evaluated after a 2 year

                        period of service as Dean


i.         Phase I and II Reports – Posting on Senate Web Site


Secretary Greenup will work with Stephanie Belcher to get these reports posted and labeled so that the faculty can easily locate the reports on the site.


j.        University-wide Committee Reports


Stephanie Belcher is currently preparing the reports received to date for posting on the Senate site. Secretary Greenup will review each of these reports to determine which need to be forwarded to Chairs of Standing Committees for review and action if needed.


k.      Phase IV – Best Practices and Communications – this topic will be placed on the April 28, 2004 FSEC agenda.


l.         Status of “tenure time out” question forwarded to FPPC. Chair Smith will communicate with Mike Wyss, Chair of FPPC to determine the disposition of this request to the Senate.


Note: Follow up – Pat Greenup communication with Mike Wyss on April 23, 2004 – the question raised by A&H senator is moot because the current faculty handbook addresses in 7.5.1 of the handbook. No further follow up needed.


m.     FSEC recommendations and disposition of items from previous Senate meetings.

·        Policy for dollar transfer for faculty serving on IRB and CIRB – no action at this time.

·        IRB appeals process – April 28, 2004 FSEC agenda

·        A Staff Senate – not action at this time.





Minutes finalized by Secretary of the Faculty Pat Greenup on April 24, 2004.