NOTE:  Red text indicates Executive Council response and UT changes following 1995 survey recommendations

Preface
I.	Salaries
II.	Incentive Plans
III.	Teaching
IV.	Annual Reviews
V.	Mentoring and Faculty Development Programs
VI.	Promotion and Tenure
VII.	Post-Tenure Review
VIII.	Orientation
IX.	Annual Contract and Benefits
X.	Policy Formulation, Communication, Implementation, and Relationship of Faculty and Administration
XI.	Research
XII.	Collaborative Efforts
XIII.	Clinical Practice and Community Service
XIV.	Support Services and Technical Support
Conclusions and Comments
IFC Priorities

Preface

The 1998 Faculty Satisfaction Survey (FSS) was conducted during the fall semester of 1998 in all UT-Houston units as a follow-up to the 1995 Faculty Satisfaction Survey. While modifications were made, the design of the questionnaire remained similar to the 1995 survey to allow for comparison. The purpose of the 1998 Faculty Satisfaction Survey was to assess faculty satisfaction and to follow up the 1995 survey recommendations and initiatives begun thereafter. The overall response rate was 35.7% (377 respondents). The majority of the faculty members who responded were full-time (89.7%), Caucasian (84.8%), males (64.7%), from the Medical School (59.9%). Respondents were assistant professors (35.7%), associate professors (30.5%), professors (30.5%), tenured (40.1%), tenure-track (18.5%), and non-tenure track (41.4%). The survey evaluated satisfaction in the areas of salary, administration, orientation, annual review process, post-tenure review process, research, collegiality, clinical service, teaching, community service, support services, technical services, benefits, promotion and tenure, policies, and UT recognition. The responding faculty members were a representative sample of the HSC faculty. The summaries below are written from the perspective of the responding faculty and, of course, may not represent the faculty as a whole. However, the ‘recommendations 2000’and comments are made with careful thought to the overall faculty and to university well-being and growth.

NOTE:

This document combines the results and recommendations from the 1998 FSS, the recommendations from the 1995 FSS, and the Executive Council’s response and the university accomplishments since the 1995 recommendations were made. This is done to provide continuity of thought on the subjects of the survey.

1998 Faculty Concerns

I. Salaries

Summary: Faculty responses indicate a perception that UT salary levels are below the national average and that there has been inadequate salary increases over the past several biennia.

Recommendations 2000:

1. Gather information to confirm or refute this perception.

1. Compare UT salaries with national salary data. [See Data presented to IFC, September 2000]
2. Review the history of UT faculty salary increases over the past 10 years.
3. Communicate results to faculty.

Summary: Faculty responses indicate incentive plans are inequitable or that incentive plans are not available.

Recommendations 2000:

1. Revisit and improve existing incentive plans.
2. Establish an incentive plan for teaching (refer to Ad Hoc Teaching Committee report)
3. Where incentive plans are available, educate faculty regarding their application.

1. Perform an independent analysis of competitiveness of salaries/benefits, cost of living, and salary compression; correct salary inequities found in above salary study.
2. Construct salary policy (by school or university-wide) to create standards for compensation by rank, tenure, experience, and productivity, and for reimbursement of professional expenses.
3. Overhaul incentive plans to provide for uniform, fair, and equitable incentives for productivity.
4. Reimburse legitimate professional expenses.

Salary policy and incentive programs

1. Each school charged with developing and communicating a formal salary administration policy in FY95.
2. EVP RAA Thomas Burks developed and proposed a base compensation plan for all faculty in FY96; the plan is still under review and is pending resolution.
3. Over past three years, each school either developed an incentive program or revamped their existing incentive program (FY99).

This issue evidently arose from a frequent compliant in a particular school relating to budgetary resources available to departments for subsequent allocation to faculty for travel and professional development. Greater involvement of faculty in planning and budgeting processes will increase faculty awareness of resource constraints. Greater openness about resource availability should promote understanding of budget allocations.

III. Teaching

Summary: Faculty are dissatisfied with the recognition and reward for teaching and recognize the need for better evaluation methods. The Interfaculty Council charged an ad hoc committee to evaluate teaching at the UT-HHSC and make recommendations.  Based on the survey findings, the review of the literature including identifying characteristics of supportive teaching culture, and the work of the Ad hoc Committee on Teaching, the following recommendations were made.

Recommendations 2000:

1. The HSC must value teaching/education of students as one of the critical faculty activities, without which the University could not exist.
2. The HSC must recognize teaching as a faculty activity comparable in importance to the University missions of research and clinical service.
3. Each HSC School should redraft its Promotion and Tenure document to include guidelines for awarding promotion and tenure for the scholarship of teaching. The guidelines would include ways that the candidate can document substantial teaching activities, including peer and student reviews, as well as the documentation of disseminated educational products.
4. The HSC and UTH-HSC schools should reward educators with promotion and tenure.
5. The HSC Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Committee should redraft its guidelines to reflect the changes implemented at the school level.
6. Faculty Development Plans negotiated by the faculty and chair that indicate effort in teaching, research, and service must be used in consideration for promotion and tenure decisions.
7. The composition of the Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committees of the UTH-HSC schools must reflect a cross section of each school’s faculty at the associate or professorial level including clinical educators.
8. Educational training sessions should be held for Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committees to prepare them to understand, review, and determine appropriate rewards for the scholarship of teaching.
9. Educational training sessions should be held for department chairs to prepare them to understand, review, and determine appropriate rewards for the scholarship of teaching.
10. Educational training sessions should be held for faculty to prepare them to document their scholarship of teaching and/or the use of teaching portfolios.
11. All Schools must employ strategies in the hiring process to determine whether applicants for faculty positions can demonstrate teaching excellence.
12. All Schools must support faculty development in teaching and the scholarship of teaching for their faculty.
13. All schools must develop and implement a method of documenting the scholarship of teaching to increase the opportunity for promotion and tenure of its teaching faculty.
14. The IFC Ad Hoc Committee supports the development of Teaching Excellence Awards, a Teaching Academy of faculty who have demonstrated excellence in teaching, and an Excellent Teacher Certification process.
15. The IFC Ad Hoc Committee strongly encourages the development of an HSC Faculty Development Center or Center for Teaching Excellence to support the scholarship of teaching.
16. The IFC Ad Hoc Committee strongly supports the formation of another Committee to shepherd the above Recommendations.

1. Provide uniform, fair guidelines for teaching requirement in promotion and tenure.
2. Provide incentives for teaching with recognition, monetary reward, credit for promotion and tenure.
3. Consider measures for providing job security for clinical faculty.
4. Provide formal training and/or mentoring opportunities in teaching.

Training/mentoring/incentives in teaching. Develop guidelines for teaching requirements related to P&T. Recognize teaching efforts.

Accomplishments:

1. Various school and university teaching awards annually. President's Scholar Award (Teaching) established in FY93.
2. SPH program on teaching skills developed (FY94). DB program on Teaching in the Clinic developed (FY98).
3. MS provided training in teaching in the PBL environment for all faculty participating in the implementation of PBL.
4. Office of Educational Development and Research developed a variety of seminars and short courses in 1996; received good evaluations, but limited participation. Informatics Task Force developed proposal for creating a formal informatics program as well as training opportunities for faculty in new technologies.
5. Task Force on Learning and New Technologies developed a strategic plan for UT-Houston with involvement in training and development of electronic curricula for the TMC virtual environment. Multi-media scriptorium established at OAC in 1997.
6. Priority for requests for resources made by Task Force on Learning and New Technologies will be placed on faculty development opportunities.
7. University created Health Informatics Department and recruited chair and faculty in the SAHS. Participation and cross appointments of faculty in other UT-Houston schools are ongoing.
8. University instituted fellowships and/or development leaves for faculty specifically to improve teaching methods and skills in 1997-1998.
9. A Task Force led by Dr. Miguel Da Cunha, charged with assessing the needs of the faculty and proposing a Center for Teaching Excellence was established in 1999. Recommendations are anticipated to be presented to the Executive Council by the end of this fiscal year.
10. Advances in Teaching and Learning hosted by Research and Academic Affairs and the School of Allied Health Sciences in February 2000 and featured innovations developed by UT-Houston faculty. Over 200 faculty and administrators attended.
11. Strategic Thinking Session on "Expectations of Teaching" (April 1998), Center for Teaching Excellence (February 1999), and Clinical Faculty Development (April 1999)
12. Dr. Charles Glassick, co-author of Scholarships Assessed, visited UT-Houston in October 1998 to continue dialogue initiated by Dr. Ernst Boyer, on the assessment of the scholarships of teaching, discovery, application and integration. A preliminary proposal for a federal grant to explore ways to documents and assess teaching was submitted in October 1998.
13. The university community will continue exploring objective means of assessing teaching and clinical contributions as contributions to scholarship and thus "credit" for tenure candidacy.
14. An ad hoc task force of the IFC, led by Drs. Paula O’Neill and Bill Schnapp, investigated the role and issues pertaining to rewarding teaching on this campus. Recommendations were submitted to the Executive Council and a new Task Force led by Dr. O’Neill, with support from the AVP for Academic Affairs has been established to define teaching excellence and identify methods for evaluating excellence in teaching.

Summary: Survey results indicate 27-46% of the responding faculty members were omitted from the review process. The SON faculty was most satisfied with the effectiveness, goal setting, and input into the reviews. The MS, DB, and SPH faculty were either not satisfied or equivocal. There is room for improvement in this vital process. Faculty was unfamiliar with the final review by the dean.

Faculty recognize the annual review process as a powerful tool for academic administrators and faculty members alike. When optimally utilized, the review process should:

1. Facilitate achievement of UT-HHSC missions by purposeful alignment of faculty, departmental, and school goals with these missions;
2. Facilitate a shared vision and goals between academic administrators and faculty;
3. Review faculty career goals and accomplishments and how they contribute to the dept/school missions and goals;
4. Facilitate faculty development;
5. Give guidance to individual faculty members to clarify and facilitate achievement of personal career goals;
6. Be a venue for mentoring, exchanging ideas, and negotiating responsibilities for the year;
7. Clarify and document accomplishments needed to reach goals of promotion and/or tenure;
8. Facilitate faculty members toward promotion and/or tenure;
9. Facilitate the 6-year post-tenure review process.

1. Educate academic administrators responsible for the annual reviews.
2. Educate faculty on importance and utility of and personal role in annual review.
3. Implement the annual review policy in all schools for all faculty members.
4. Implement a mechanism to ensure accountability of academic administrators in review process.
5. Educate faculty on the role of the dean in the annual review process and in the outcomes.

1. Train administrators and evaluators in fair and equitable faculty evaluation.
2. Improve performance review process, particularly at Medical School.
3. Construct criteria for evaluation that are consistent with missions and goals of UT-H.

Train evaluators. Link evaluation criteria to UT mission and goals.

Accomplishments:

1. Published Academic Administrators Guide October 1995.
2. Academic Leaders Retreats May 1996 and May 1997 – featured content and role-plays on faculty performance evaluation by academic administrators.
3. Executive Council assured that all schools have current job descriptions and performance expectations of academic leadership positions (FY97). Executive Vice President for Research and Academic Affairs maintains.
4. The Interfaculty Council Faculty along with University administration developed new HSC policies and procedures for annual evaluations of all faculty (FY97).

Accomplishments:

1. Prior to original iteration of mission statement, initiated comprehensive campaign to gather insight of faculty members into mission and institutional priorities. Since that time, released an annotated version of the mission, elaborating each major point, in response to faculty requests for more clarity about "the model health sciences university." Mission statement reviewed in May 1998 and editorially modified in October 1998.
2. President and executive vice presidents conducted town meetings in each major facility at least once each fiscal year since FY94.
3. President speaks at least annually to each school faculty about the university mission, goals, and state of the university.
4. Strategic Directions (institutional strategic plan) disseminated to faculty in FY96 and FY00 (April).
5. Instituted annual planning requirement to relate school mission and goals to university mission and goals and to include faculty in process (FY93).

Accomplishments:

1. Implemented policy/process to evaluate deans in FY95. Department chairs evaluated annually with thorough departmental review each five years in the Medical School.
2. Implemented annual report in FY91; hold hearings with deans each year on annual report as well as operating plan for forthcoming year.
3. President and EVPs conduct town meetings in each major facility at least once each fiscal year since FY94.
4. President interacts with small groups of faculty in such venues as Strategic Thinking Sessions at least once each month during each academic year.
5. President and EVPs continue town meetings, Administrative Case Rounds, Strategic Thinking Session; all notes and information from such meetings are posted on the WWW.
6. Process to evaluate vice presidents was implemented. Evaluations of EVP for Administration and Finance, John Porretto, October 1996; evaluation of EVP for Research and Academic Affairs, Thomas F. Burks, in 1998; and evaluation of VP for Development, William Taylor, in 1998.

Summary: Responding faculty indicate mentoring programs are overall unsatisfactory with lack of availability a very important factor. The SON was 34.8% satisfied with experiences being mentored, while the SPH was 27.9% satisfied with the presence of mentoring programs. However, even in the SON and SPH, 20-40% of faculty indicated mentoring was not available. The DB shows the least availability of mentoring programs and experiences. Instructors were 33% satisfied with mentoring programs and experiences.

Faculty development programs at the school and HSC levels are unsatisfactory. Large proportions of faculty are unaware of faculty development programs. The SON was the most satisfied with programs at the school level (41.6%) and the HSC level (33.4%). The DB is the least satisfied with programs at both the school and the HSC levels. Instructors were the most satisfied with faculty development programs and Assistant professors the least satisfied.

Recommendations 2000:

1. Educate academic administrators and faculty members about the mentoring process.
2. Implement mentoring programs throughout the HSC schools.
3. Educate faculty and academic administrators about available faculty development programs at the department/school/HSC levels.
4. Create faculty development programs where none currently exist.

1. Mentoring program desired.

Establish Mentoring Program

Accomplishments:

1. School of Public Health (SPH) faculty established faculty mentoring in 1994.
2. School of Nursing (SON) implemented "buddy" system for new faculty in 1990.
3. First university-wide conference among academic leaders held in May 1996 focused on theme of junior faculty development (mentoring) by academic administrators.
4. Mentoring topic of several Strategic Thinking Sessions, 1996-1998.
5. President charged Task Force on Faculty and Institutional Development in 1995 with proposing tactics for junior faculty development resulted in Putting the Pieces Together document and management development for chairs.
6. Committee on the Status of Women (CSW) and President Low established annual award program for outstanding mentors of women in FY96.
7. New UT-Houston Faculty Welcome/Orientation program initiated in FY96; each school now has formal new faculty orientation programs. The SON is in the process of revamping orientation and establishing mentoring support. SPH is revising and updating the SPH Faculty Handbook.
8. Medical School (MS) Office of Faculty Development established in FY96; Dental Branch (DB) Office for Professional Development established in FY97.
9. Mentoring Task Force created from strategic thinking sessions and charged with recommending tactics on a variety of mentoring needs for the university to adopt and implement. Task Force report and recommendations were approved for implementation by the Executive Council in February 1997 (see URL: http://www.uth.tmc.edu/ut_general/admin)_fin/planning/mentor/mentrpt.html).
10. UT-Houston has since been recognized within UT System as a leader in establishing mentoring efforts.
11. Academic Leadership Development Program includes a significant allocation of time to mentoring.

Summary: Overall faculty are unsatisfied with the criteria, the application of the criteria for awarding P&T, and tenure track evaluation. Large proportions of faculty are unfamiliar with the role of the P&T committee at the HSC level.

The SON is more satisfied than the other schools in all areas. The SPH is least satisfied with the criteria, the application of the criteria and the tenure track evaluation. The DB is least satisfied with the role of the P&T committee at the HSC level. Professors are most satisfied in all areas with Assistant Professors the least satisfied in all areas.

Recommendations 2000:

1. All schools, faculty and academic administrators together, should review their criteria for P&T for appropriateness in today’s university environment.
2. All schools should review how their FAPTC administer the criteria.
3. Educate faculty on the role of the promotion and tenure committee at the HSC level.

1. Unify criteria for type and amount of research and publications required.
2. Include teaching load and quality in evaluation.
3. Clarify paths and tracks, particularly with clinical faculty.

Unify P&T process/procedures.

Accomplishments:

1. Combined efforts of university APT/IFC committee to review/recommend revisions of promotion, tenure, and tenure grievance policies FY96.
2. Executive Council endorsed IFC recommendations regarding tenure in FY96. (NOTE: UT System Office of General Counsel refuses to support the proposed changes.)
3. Executive Council meeting 12/95 devoted entirely to tenure issues at UT-H.
4. Putting the Pieces Together, booklet created by Task Force on Faculty and Institutional Development (FY96), published to aid junior faculty career planning.
5. University committed to communicating criteria and dissemination of information to new faculty on attaining tenure (Strategic Thinking Session, Case Rounds, Offices of Faculty Development).
6. Strategic Thinking Session on "What Tenure Means at UT-Houston" (9/96) with follow-up in May 1997.
7. MS Office of Faculty Affairs sponsors workshops on promotion/tenure process.
8. In FY97, APT committee at each school reviewed and developed guidelines to assist candidates for promotion and/or tenure and evaluators of candidates. Guidelines suggest individual faculty attributes to be considered with accomplishments relative to specific criteria. This is now part of the faculty review policy.
9. Ad hoc committee on Tenure and Promotion met with representatives from UT System Office of General Counsel to discuss revised tenure and promotion policies that were subsequently submitted for final review by UT System in March 1998 and approved for implementation in July 1999.

Summary: Overall, faculty reviewed was satisfied with the fairness, appropriateness, and timeliness of the review. Faculty was not satisfied with the timeliness of outcome notification.

Recommendation 2000:

1. Future questionnaire(s) to assess PTR process

Summary: The orientation of faculty to job expectations, compensation and benefits is unsatisfactory in all schools except the SON. Instructors were the most satisfied in all orientation areas (delineation of job expectations, compensation, benefits, administration, and resources). Associate professors were least satisfied with orientation in 3 areas (delineation of job expectations, administration, and available resources). Professors were least satisfied with orientation in compensation and benefits. A large proportion of faculty indicated that orientation was not available to them.

Recommendations 2000:

1. Rethink initial orientation process, i.e., when, how, who
2. Provide an "orientation" information checklist to all faculty to facilitate new faculty members understanding of available resources and information and give "older" faculty a guide to update their knowledge of resources and information.
3. Create an orientation information web-site with links to appropriate areas, i.e., benefits, administrative structure, Faculty guide book, policies, HOOP, mentoring, annual review process, P&T criteria and rules, etc. Give new and ‘old’ faculty the web site address.

1. Provide a pre-arrival package including licensing information, maps, resources, etc.
2. Formal orientation on UT-Houston overview to include, school (organizational structure), resources, job expectations, benefits, grants and contracts, etc.

Provide pre-arrival package and orientation for new faculty

Accomplishments:

1. SPH, SON, MS and university developed programs for orienting new faculty. University established a new faculty orientation reception in FY96.
2. Updated and enhanced Faculty Guide in FY99 and disseminated via WWW, making it accessible to faculty prior to relocating to Houston.
3. MS developed a diskette with a variety of orientation information for new faculty members.

Summary: Communication regarding annual contracts and benefits need improvement.

Recommendations 2000:

1. Communicate benefits and contract information/changes more effectively.
2. Distribute annual contracts promptly.

Summary: Faculty was dissatisfied with policy formulation, communication, and implementation by the Deans of the DB and the SPH, as well as effectiveness in their leadership roles.

Recommendation 2000:

1. Evaluate Deans of DB and SPH on policy formulation, communication, and implementation, and on leadership style.

1. Improve the mechanism for seeking faculty input on policy changes, administrative restructuring, budget, major expenditures, hiring, etc. (particularly at Medical School and Dental Branch).
2. Improve process for communicating policy and procedures, plans, and results through all levels.
3. Clearly define and discuss mission and goals (president and deans). (Confusion and disagreement remains with definition of UT–Houston as a "research institution"; further explanation encouraged.)
4. Improve visibility of UT–Houston with Texas Legislature through education about our activities, needs, priorities.
5. Improve public relations (media leaders on UT–Houston board for more local coverage).
6. Institute a mechanism for demonstrating accountability of administrators.
7. Emphasize an open atmosphere with trust and respect for faculty members. Minimize paper trail necessary to justify activities and professional expenses. Eliminate barriers to free expression of ideas and opinions.
8. Internal paper desired for news and opportunities.
9. Create mechanism for reporting, investigating, and acting upon allegations of physical abuse within institution, similar to sexual harassment committee.

Increase faculty involvement in institutional governance.

Accomplishments:

1. Established faculty governance organizations at all schools.
2. Revitalized faculty governance in specific schools. School of Nursing revamped their governance policies/procedures; new bylaws are pending approval (January 2000)
3. Increased inclusion and involvement of Interfaculty Council in a variety of governance issues over the past eight years.
4. University leaders agreed that faculty must be included in planning, policy formulation, etc. (FY92)
5. University widely disseminated information about strategic planning and budgets via internal media and various planning meetings. Deans asked to commit including faculty in operational planning and budgeting processes at school and university level during planning and budgeting process for FY98 and beyond.
6. Members of the faculty have been included in Planning and Resource Allocation retreats in FY98, FY99, and FY00.

Accomplishments:

1. Published HOOP on World Wide Web (WWW) in 1995.
2. Published Academic Administrators Guide FY95; on WWW FY96.
3. Published Faculty Guide on WWW in FY95 and extensively updated/hyperlinked in FY96. Faculty Guide updated and republished in FY99.
4. On-line HOOP made searchable by key word early in FY97.
5. Revision/currency dates are added to on-line HOOP policies as they are revised.
6. A listserv/hypermail established on WWW to enable faculty and others to comment on/become aware of proposed policy revisions.
7. Policies pending review of Executive Council or UT System and their status are posted to the HOOP Web site for review.
8. Selected HOOP policies will be revised to include a summary of key points.
9. Online HOOP declared "official" version in 1998.
10. Monday Morning features periodic policy change/explanation articles.

Accomplishments:

1. Special Assistant to the President for Governmental Relations, Liz Gettings, maintains close relationships with legislators, staffs, and UT governmental relations staff. Assistant Vice President for Resource Management, Terry Ansell, maintains close relationship with Legislative Budget Board staff.
2. President meets with members of Harris County Delegation at least once each year and meets with other legislators on specific topics as needed.
3. UT-Houston retains Vinson & Elkins to aid governmental relations at the federal level.
4. University creates information pieces as handouts for legislators/staff on each major UT-Houston effort during each session.
5. University communicates UT-Houston formal legislative strategy and disseminates supporting materials to faculty before each session.
6. University created UT-Houston Legislative Session "home page" with issues information and periodic updates from Austin during session as well as links to important information resources during session in 1997 and 1999.
7. UT-Houston SPH provides key Harris County legislators with student interns during the sessions ( 96-98).

Summary: The value of research for promotion and tenure is clear to faculty. Support for research, particularly in the MS and DB, is unsatisfactory.

Recommendations 2000:

1. Provide more actual support for research in the MS and DB, e.g., professional writers to review grant proposals and papers prior to submission; administrative support to facilitate clinicians who often have no research background, through the grant writing and submission process; etc.
2. Educate faculty as to the actual support currently available.
3. Consider ways to make more protected time available for research.

Summary: Faculty was satisfied with the opportunity for collaborative efforts, but dissatisfied with the mechanisms for recognizing potential collaborators.

Recommendation 2000:

1. Reassess mechanisms for identifying collaborators on the UT-H campus.
2. Educate faculty regarding mechanisms currently in place.

1. Provide more awareness of available opportunities for funding and collaboration.
2. Increase funding for start-up support and bridging grants.

Funding opportunities

Accomplishments:

1. Office of Research Services (ORS) developed a variety of WWW applications (referred to as the Pre-Award System) to support increased awareness of funding opportunities by faculty in FY96.
2. Courses by Office of Research Services (ORS) and senior faculty members on grant getting presented at least twice annually. Research Day established in FY96. Each school within UT-H addressed this issue and attempted – with varying degrees of success – to allocate moneys for seed funding.
3. Research Strategic Plan adopted in May 1995 determined that bridge funding and start-up funds were the province of the schools, not university administration.
4. President and EVP RAA provided a variety of programs to distribute seed funding for past five years. The total amount of such funding exceeds $3.8 million.
5. MS initiated "jump start" program in FY96-seed funds that should lead to outside funding.
6. UT-Houston Research Strategic Plan developed in 1997 and in process of being updated now.
7. UT-Houston Legislative Request for 99-00 included major request for moneys for research infrastructure.
8. Upcoming Capital Campaign will include plans for major supplements to research infrastructure.

Summary: Faculty members are unsatisfied with the recognition of and reward for clinical practice. The DB, MS, and SPH faculty was dissatisfied with the support for community service.

Recommendations 2000:

1. Assess how clinical practice is evaluated, recognized, and rewarded.
2. Assess how community service is evaluated, recognized, and rewarded.

1. Consider complete restructuring.
2. Improve collection rates.
3. Reengineer billing, follow-through, and capture process.

MSRDP and CBO.

Accomplishments

Since 1996 MSRDP/UCP has undergone many major changes that are too numerous to mention. These changes will continue indefinitely as the Medical School adapts to the new health care environment.

Summary: Overall, faculty was satisfied with technical resources and dissatisfied with the support services. Faculty at the MS and DB identified technical support as unsatisfactory.

Recommendations 2000:

1. The following support areas should evaluate their services: BPPs, clerical/secretarial personnel, PeopleWorks, parking, physical plant, University Travel.
2. Technical support in the areas of hardware, internet, and software should be evaluated in the MS and DB to enhance faculty productivity.

1. Re-evaluate need for UT Travel and exclusions contract.
2. Devise cost saving incentives for travelers (e.g., shopping for cheaper fares, car rentals).
3. Facilitate process for timely reimbursement of faculty for travel and professional expenses.
4. Consider a uniform policy on allowable professional travel consistent with professional growth and development.

1. DB particularly in need of facelift, improvement in air and water quality, and lab safety.
2. Improve housekeeping.
3. Let faculty decide on return of paper towels to respective buildings.

Overhaul UT travel

Accomplishments:

1. Travel information available via WWW.
2. UT Travel agency sends and receives email via CWIS.
3. Financial Services instituted totally revamped travel process in 1997 where faculty can receive one-on-one processing of travel vouches and receive a reimbursement check on the same visit.
4. UT-Houston resisting efforts by General Purchasing Commission to have only one travel agency for all state agencies.

Accomplishments:

1. Dental Branch renovations/remodeling in 1996 and 1997 have made dramatic differences in Dental Branch environment.
2. Every UT-Houston lab physically inspected by environmental safety (ES) annually; ES makes recommendations to plan for improvements where needed.
3. Safety training is offered to all lab staff.
4. University allocated total PUF allocations for past six years to indoor-air quality and cladding problems at MSB. As of FY96, 10% of total annual indirect cost recoveries were allocated to capital renewal, deferred maintenance, and security. General use fee also adds resources.
5. Building support staff discuss issues with faculty advisory groups in MSB, RAS, and DBB, and explore alternatives to various issues in each building together. Paper towels have been placed in all UT-Houston buildings where faculty advisory groups requested such.

The major areas of satisfaction included 1) benefits, 2) research support, recognition, and reward, 3) opportunity for collaboration, 4) technical services such as email, computer hardware and software, network capability and services, 5) support services such as TMC/HAM library, interoffice mail. Major areas of dissatisfaction included 1) salaries, 2) teaching support, recognition, and reward, 3) MS billing and collections, 4) support services such as BPPS, PeopleWorks, and physical plant. Salaries and teaching remain the two areas of highest dissatisfaction since the 1995 Faculty Satisfaction Survey.

Salaries

There has been no analysis of salaries to confirm or refute the faculty perception that salaries are not comparable to national levels. This is a continuing issue. Gathering this information should be useful to the faculty and the administration. If faculty salaries are found comparable to national academic salary levels and there have been adequate increases over time, that information is valuable for the HSC faculty and administration. If, however, faculty salaries are not comparable and adequate increases have not been made, the information will be useful in the next legislative session.

Teaching

The Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching, est. 1998, made recommendations based on extensive research together with discussions involving faculty and academic administrators. The work of this committee continues under the auspices of a new Task Force established to define teaching excellence and identify methods for evaluating excellence in teaching. The Task Force is led by Dr. O’Neill with support from the AVP for Academic Affairs.

Faculty reviews

Annual reviews have been in use for many years, however, the full potential of this powerful and important tool is under realized. More effective use of this tool can better facilitate faculty careers and HSC missions. Faculty and administration working together can best accomplish individual and collective goals. Faculty versus administration is a misplaced perception. While there may be a few rebel individuals, faculty want to do what is best for their careers, patients, and schools. From this perspective, academic administrators efforts to help faculty along the path to their career goals only serves to facilitate the university toward accomplishing its missions. This should be a university, school and departmental priority.

Mentoring

Progress in mentoring in the HSC has been made. This is another important and powerful tool, which when utilized with the annual review facilitates accomplishment of faculty, school, and university goals and missions. This should also be made a university, school and departmental priority. The task force on mentoring prepared a comprehensive report on mentoring that is available to all on the web. Academic administrators should take advantage of this document to improve their local mentoring programs.

Promotion and Tenure

The changing health care environment affects all aspects of the HSC, including the expectations of the academic faculty. To continue to use criteria for promotion and tenure that was designed when faculty and administrative priorities were different is inappropriate. As long as promotion and tenure continue to be a mechanism for recognition and reward, it should be used to recognize those individuals who contribute to the HSC in ways that are important to the health of the university. Teaching, clinical service, and research are the critical missions of the HSC. To reward one over the other is nonsensical when the best is needed in all three areas.

Clinical practice, and Community service

Faculty may want to examine the areas of clinical practice and community service in a way similar to that of the Ad Hoc Committee on Teaching.

Orientation

Orientation programs have been instituted since 1995. Because benefits and resources change over time, an initial orientation serves a limited purpose. A well-designed and well-connected web site would be an effective and cost-efficient way to keeping everyone up-to-date on changes and information.

Communication

A number of survey questions pointed to a need for more communication. Since internet use has become fairly universal, it is ideal for this purpose. The HSC web site, with some design modifications could significantly improve communication.

IFC PRIORITIES

The IFC has identified salaries, teaching and faculty reviews as the top priority concerns and would ask the Executive Council to work with faculty to address these areas. The IFC believes that focus on the areas of teaching and faculty reviews are vital to achieving the UT-HHSC goal of becoming the model health science center of the 21^st century.