The Interim Faculty Advisory Committee, a group formed to perform the functions of the now defunct Academic Senate while UTD drafted new policies, was dissolved Jan. 23, 2026. In its 114 days of operation, it did not meet once.
Documents obtained by The Retrograde reveal a chaotic transition: an interim committee was created and then hastily dissolved, leaving a policy and administrative vacuum that raises questions about transparency and faculty input.
On Oct. 1, 2025, Provost Inga Musselman, on behalf of President Prabhas Moghе, appointed 24 faculty members to an Interim Faculty Advisory Committee, of which 12 were senators in the final Academic Senate. The appointment letter stated that IFAC’s purpose was to perform “functions necessary for the operation of the university,” including reviewing educational policies, certifying graduates and advising the president.
However, according to interviews with former IFAC members, the committee was never allowed to meet. Scheduled meetings were repeatedly canceled by the administration. Its necessary functions were never performed.
“For months I received no communication until I suddenly received the communication saying IFAC is dissolved without ever having met,” Ravi Prakash, a former Academic Senate Speaker and former IFAC member, said.
Musselman’s Jan. 23 memo dissolved the committee just as quickly as her Oct. 1 letter created it. The reason cited was “revisions to Regents’ Rules approved at the November 2025 meeting.”
The memo states UTD will now “constitute a new faculty advisory body in accordance with revised Regents’ Rule 40101.”
This bureaucratic shuffle stems from a major policy change by the UT System Board of Regents. The old Regents’ Rule 40101, last amended in 2023, titled “Faculty Role in Educational Policy Formulation,” granted faculty a “major role in the governance” of their institutions in core areas like curriculum and student life.
The new Regents’ Rule 40101, adopted Nov. 20, 2025, renamed to “Faculty Advisory Bodies,” eliminates “governance” entirely. It gives the university president sole discretion to establish, appoint members to, direct and dissolve such bodies. Their function is strictly “advisory” with “no final decision-making authority.”
“It’s a completely different thing,” Michael Kesden, former IFAC member and final speaker of the Academic Senate, said. “They just overwrote the old one. It basically created a vacuum.”
The dissolution of the IFAC and the vagueness of the new rule have created significant uncertainty. For decades, the UTD Academic Senate served as a monthly public forum for dialogue between faculty and the president. Its elimination, without a clear replacement, severs a key communication channel.
“Communication is critical, Kesden said. “There’s nothing that prohibits communication, with the obvious exception of FERPA, but most information is not privileged. I hope we can keep the communications going. Currently, we have an annual State of the University address, but a meeting once a year with emails is nowhere near enough. For communications to be effective, there has to be two-way communications. It can’t just be the president sending out mass emails and that is the end of discussion.”
Kesden said that while the university had encouraged faculty, staff and students to email feedback and recommendations to upper administration, the lack of open information and two-way communication was a major hurdle for any attempts at informed advice. Some voices on campus have already been left out of the process. Student Government President Giana Abraham said they had not received any communications about IFAC, its end, nor what comes next.
“In order to advise you need to be informed,” Kesden said. “I mean, if you don’t know what’s going on, how can you advise on things you don’t know about?”
Over 40 university-wide committees, with focuses like educational policy, research safety, ethical review boards and faculty affairs, are now in limbo. Their members were traditionally recommended by the “Committee on Committees” and approved by the Academic Senate. Dozens of UTD policies governing these committees all make reference to this now non-existent system as of publication. The terms for faculty appointees all expire this upcoming September.
“I have no idea what will happen to the committee structure,” Prakash said. “The future of those committees is completely uncertain to me.”
The Retrograde reached out to UTD for comment on who will be involved in creating the new faculty body, how committees will be handled in the interim, what functions the new body will adopt and the general timeline for its creation. A spokesperson for UTD provided this statement: “The new structure will comply with state law and Regents’ Rules. Additional details will be announced to the campus community at the appropriate time.”
Faculty governance directly impacts the student experience. The committees now in question shape curriculum, degree requirements and academic standards. The shift from a representative senate to closed, appointed advisory bodies centralizes influence with the administration and away from the educators in the classroom.
“I am concerned that the silencing of faculty voices will result in the loss of perspectives that are essential to this institution,” Abraham said. “When faculty voices are silenced in this state, we risk them leaving to other campuses.”