people   committees   meetings   resources    home
    officers       standing       senate       archives  
    members       special       executive       bylaws  
          proclamations       sites  

Faculty Senate Budget Committee Meeting
Monday September 23, 2002
University Center 203

MINUTES prepared by Lou Gross Approved at Oct. 14, 2002 meeting

Members Present: Davies, Dewey, Greenberg, Gross (Chair), Reed, Reidy

Members Absent: Davis, Hedrick, Lyons (on leave), Mulkey, Scheurer

I. CALL TO ORDER, 3:40pm

Agenda was approved as distributed previously, with the modification
that a presentation of additional information on the UT System budget
situation this year would be delayed to a future meeting as Sylvia Davis
was not available to lead full discussion at this meeting.

III. The minutes of the August 26, 2002 Committee meeting were approved
with corrections of two minor grammatical errors.

IV. Reports.

1. A brief report on discussions regarding faculty hourly wage calculations
with Alan Chesney and Clif Woods was given by Gross. It seems this is
mostly a matter for the Senate Faculty/Staff Benefits Committee to take up,
if they wish, with Alan Chesney. The mani concern is that there be no loss
of benesfits associated with a formal policy that codifies hourly wage
calculations. The main reason for this policy seems to be to remove any
ambiguity that has arisen by having different units calculate hourly rates
in different ways.

2. As a representative of the Committee, Gross will be attending the
Campus Executive Planning and Budget Committee meetings.

3. The F&A Task Force was discussed and Greg Reed agreed to serve as the
Committee representative on this.

V. Old Business

1. We began a discussion of ideas on any modifications of current
procedures on campus related to financial matters that would help faculty
excel. It was pointed out that a Committee has been appointed with
Dean Michael Blackwell as Chair to work on streamlining a variety of
budgetary and financial matters. Problems discussed include requiring
too many signatures up the chain, problems with the personnel implementation
within IRIS, requirements of too much re-entering of data within IRIS
(people keeping shadow books to make up for out-of-date bookkeeping in
IRIS), and it not being clear why faculty offer letters go out through
HR rather than from Department Heads. The Committee was charged to bring
a list of problems they and their colleagues are aware of to the next
meeting. Gross will find out who is on the Streamlining Committee.

2. As part of a discussion of improving the budget planning process for the
next year, the Committee focused initially on Auxiliaries. We felt it would
be appropriate to have a standard way of assigning costs (utilities,
space utilized, other indirect costs) and benefits (funds provided through
mandatory or non-mandatory transfers to the general operating budget,
funds generated and benefiting other university operations such as student
scholarships) to Auxiliary enterprises. Such an assessment would be
appropriate for considering further privatization, as has already happened
with food services and custodial services. It was also requested that
a determination be made of what happens to Auxiliary funds

VI. New Business

1. An extensive discussion of the new Summer School policy statement was
held. Major points of concern were that the policy was set without
following the policy in place for providing faculty input, and that faculty
are expected to perform a variety of duties in the summer for which they
are not compensated. It was not clear how the salary cap in the new policy
was arrived at. We concurred with a suggestion of Anne Mayhew that a
Task Force be formed to look at the entire summer school picture,
taking account of the data provided that indicates that considerable
revenue (over $4M) is generated from summer school tuition above
tyhe amount paid for instruction. The Task Force should include
faculty and Department Heads from units with major summer school
enrollments. At the same time, it was felt that the new policy be
scratched temporarily (at least in part) until several aspects such
as the cap on compensation are discussed further. Gross was charged
with sending a note to Provost Crabtree to voice our concerns.

2. There then followed discussion of a request from the Provost for
input on policies for deciding allocation of funds to new faculty lines,
salary increases, or other options. It was argued that a one-size-fits-all
approach (say with $80K and $100K lines) is not appropriate. Different
units need different things, and it is appropriate to encourage
decentralization of decsionmaking about resource allocation. Some
descion-making about the allocation of new funds to new lines, raises,
and operating budgets should be made at the Department level.





back to top


If you have any questions concerning the UT Faculty Senate, or would like more information, send an email to

To offer suggestions or comments about this web site, please email the webmaster.