2007-2008
The following averages were calculated using a 5 point scale.
The faculty were asked to answer each question using the following :
| Excellent = 5 pts. |
| Good = 4 pts. |
| Satisfactory = 3 pts. |
| Unsatisfactory = 2 pts. |
| Failing = 1 point |
Total number of faculty responses = 124
Total number of eligible respondents = 793
| % left blank | Avg | |
| 1. In my communication with the Office of General Counsel (UNT Attorney’s Office) concerning the review of grants, contracts, or other legal documents, the timeliness of their response was | 2.62 | |
| 2. In my communication with the attorneys from the Office of General Counsel, I found the assistance of the attorneys to be | 2.84 | |
| 3. In my communications with the attorneys from the Office of General Counsel, I found the level of courtesy and professionalism to be | 3.09 |
| Circle one: | % of responses | |
|---|---|---|
| 4. I am a: | Full-time faculty member | 9.86 |
| Full-time administrator | 74.65 | |
|
Faculty member with administrative duties |
7.04 |
|
| left blank | 9.86 | |
5. Have you had a significant interaction with an attorney from the Office of General Counsel.
% of responses |
|
Yes |
38.73 |
No |
55.63 |
Two instances. One concerning a software licence. The second concerning a contract required between UNT and an external attorney.
representing UNT in legal matters (externally)
Renewal of contracts purchase of equipment
6. Briefly describe the nature of the interaction.
Tenure issues contract review As faculty advocate on promotion/tenure appeal; as member of University Review Committee; As a public
critic of former Provost Johnson Personnel issue of colleague As chair of the Univ. Tenure Committee, it was difficult obtaining documents. I was working with the legal office on a personnel matter and found them to be obstructionist. I believe that the
office believes that the faculty members are the enemy and as a result unworthy of their assistance. Contacted re clarification of procedure Public Information Act requests Various Sought clarification re: details of tenure appeal process and routed contracts as directed by admin re: grant
proposals and service contracts Faculty-related issues and contracts. I have several grants I did not interact personally, I interacted through my department Chair
NDA and contract review email and phone Request for presentations. Expediting contracts. approving contracts with vendors meeting and phone calls copyright problem Email and phone most communication has been electronic Consultation on possible legal issues Lawsuits
Not possible to discuss this without revealing my identity grants Orientation: the message was if something goes wrong it must be my fault because UNT is so excellent there
is no other recourse from problems.
Request with assistance enforcing a clear legal precedent. Ms. Flowers was evasive, dishonest, and unhelpful. Perhaps she will fare poorly under a new administration; certainly she was a lackey to the previous one. legal issues approving legal documents consultation Information documents (FOIA), request for contract review
refusal to review or execute valid contract, conflict of interest in execution of PIO duties, failure to observe UNT policy, unprofessional behavior
student problem too slow personnel problems, contracts personnel problem & contract review Sexual harassment, embezzling, misconduct, student misconduct, and all upon arrival; it would be nice to
arrive to a trusting environment contract review Student problem contract review
personnel problems procedural issues Policy changes theft of intellectual property personnel problem Contract review. contract review contract review
Contract reviews take way too long. Often times I have lost months of time on the grant before the contracts
are finished.
Personnel problem;
personnel issue and contract issue
information requests
Personnel problems; contract reviews
contract review
Tenure issue
Tenure hearing.
personnel contract
Personnel problem; revision of URC charter; exercise of academic freedom
Proposal review
I was trying obtain documents under the open information ACT.
contract review
interpreting a contact for a faculty member
personnel problem
contract review - tardy - tardy Software acquisition Personnel problem
visa issues
several months
15 years
AY 2005-06
2004-06
months
IT took place in several emails.
June 2007 to present
Over a period of almost one year 2004-2007 Fall 2006
2 years couple of emails and a brief meeting Varied continuing for many years More than a month in each of the three instances Several months Last year you could call it indefinite or you could call it non-existent, basically we were ignored a month year round Two days two days 5 hours spread over three months still going on off and on over several years one year 19,931,997 2-3 weeks too long (hours!) Spring 2008 18 months 4 years first instance 6 months. second instance 4 months one visit, several emails