Posted: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:48 PM - 6,840 Readers

By: Lena Price

Powers says faculty plans better for the long-term interests of the University

photo by Karina Jacques


A member of a faculty committee charged with drawing up recommendations for the redevelopment of the Brackenridge Tract said Monday that their suggestions have been ignored by design firm Cooper, Robertson & Partners, LLP.

UT integrative biology professor David Hillis led the five-person committee, which presented its recommendations at a Faculty Council meeting Monday. Their plan would expand classroom space on the tract and build a public science outreach center. The faculty’s plan emphasized the development of the Brackenridge Field Lab to free up general classroom space on the main campus.

The tract, which sits on Lady Bird Lake off MoPac Boulevard, contains graduate student apartments, the Lions Municipal golf course and UT’s biological field lab. Col. George Brackenridge donated the 345-acre tract to UT in 1910 to be used for “educational purposes.”

One of two Cooper, Robertson proposals would move the field lab to an alternative location and the other would leave the lab at its current location but reduce its size. Both would eliminate the golf course and significantly expand commercial housing, while moving graduate student apartments off the tract. Cooper, Robertson was hired by the UT System Board of Regents to assess development possibilities on the tract.

UT President William Powers Jr. said the proposals from the New York consulting firm Cooper, Robertson were not in the long-term interest of the University. Powers said the faculty committee plan would give the University more flexibility because it would allow UT to develop the land in stages and put it to multiple uses. The Cooper, Robertson plan would decide the fate of the land in one plan driven primarily by housing and retail.

“Our committee was quite disappointed with [the Cooper, Robertson] proposals,” Hillis said. “We felt like none of the information brought forward by the faculty and the administration from UT were represented. Those proposals didn’t really meet the academic needs of UT.”

The faculty committee had monthly meetings with Cooper, Robertson over the summer to make sure the University’s academic interests were represented in the plan, but Hillis said the faculty’s wishes were not reflected in the final product.

If it is further developed under the Faculty Council’s plan, the field lab could attract approximately $20 million in grants as well as graduate students, he said.

A committee of UT System regents including Printice Gary, Gene Powell and Janiece Longoria is currently reviewing the two Cooper, Robertson proposals. The faculty committee will present their recommendations to the regents’ sub-committee at a specially-called meeting later this fall, which has not yet been scheduled. The regents hired Cooper, Robertson in March 2008 to create two redevelopment plans for the tract after they determined that the University was not making the best financial use of the land.

“The Cooper, Robertson proposal would essentially develop this area into a high-density residential area,” Hillis said. “I think that [the faculty’s] plan is much more respectful of the donor’s wishes, which explicitly state that it is for the purpose of advancing University education.”

Powers appeared at the meeting to also informally field faculty questions related to the University’s budget and this year’s change to the faculty merit pay policy. Instead of eliminating all funding for merit pay increases, Powers recommends that the chairs of every department select approximately 25 to 35 percent of faculty members to receive raises. Previously, department chairs could award as many merit pay raises as they thought were appropriate.

“Investment money is down, and will continue to be down for years to come,” Powers said. “It will be flat not just this year, but for some years to come.”

Although UT is in a better financial situation than other universities across the country, there is less money available this year for faculty to receive pay increases based on merit, he said.

English department Chairwoman Elizabeth Cullingford said that in larger departments, handing out merit increases to such a small percentage of faculty could cause morale issues.

“Giving large raises to 16 people in a department with 62 could create new inequalities,” Cullingford said.

Different departments should be able to handle the money in different ways, as long as they do not hand out small merit increases across the board, Powers said. “But one size definitely does not fit all,” he said.

*  Story Contributed by: Lena Price