| THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES December 2, 1999 Elected Members Present: Elected Members Absent: Ex-Officio Members Present: Among the Guests Present: Actions and Announcements Council passes Curriculum Committee proposals. Call to Order President Verbie Prevost called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m. Approval of the Minutes of November 18, 1999 The minutes were approved as distributed. [However, it was later pointed out to the secretary that Professor Ed Rozema’s name was misspelled near the bottom of page 2.] Report from the Curriculum Committee Chair John Trimpey offered a packet of proposals from Occupational Therapy (OT), noting they received the unanimous approval of the Curriculum Committee following an editorial change in the title of one proposal. Referring to the course entitled Scientific Inquiry 380, Professor Rozema asked what was meant by course credit specified as "two interdisciplinary hours and one occupational therapy specific hour." He also asked if it was a three-hour course. Professor Vicki Smith explained that the OT accrediting body required more quantitative research than was originally included in this interdisciplinary course (with Physical Therapy), adding that the one-hour of specific OT credit was added to satisfy the accrediting body. She said the course was a three-hour course. Professor Mike Russell said some of the proposals seemed vague to him, mentioning specifically Professional Issues 480 which he said didn’t indicate clearly what the readings might be. Professor Smith said the course examined current topics in OT and that the topics varied, adding that the journal readings would be the most recent on the topic being studied. She said in the past the course had dealt with topics such as health care reform and interdisciplinary training. Saying his comment might reflect his discipline, Professor Mike Russell said the OT proposals didn’t seem to include any substantial writing and noted that history courses at the 300 level require some writing while 400 level courses require substantial writing. Professor Smith said the OT courses require a lot of clinical practice in which the student goes into lab facilities throughout the city. She said the student applies the skills learned in the classroom in a community setting with a community supervisor who assesses the student’s clinical performance. Professor Russell asked who assessed the performance of students in settings other than the classroom. Professor Smith said a departmental fieldwork manual provided several different tools of assessment for community supervisors and that these assessments were integrated into the course for grading purposes. Professor Russell said the proposal for Professional Issues 480 didn’t specify any of that. Professor Smith said she had answered with regard to all 400 level courses but could not answer specifically for this course. Professor Teresa Norris said students in the 400 level courses are required to research OT issues and present their findings in group presentations. The group presentations are assessed in part on the use of logical and critical thinking skills. The proposals were approved 27-0-1. Report from the Graduate Council Chair Tonia Heffner said the proposals from Graduate Council pertained to adding a course and modifying a course in the graduate program in Music. Saying he had more problems with these proposals than with the ones in OT, Professor Russell said he had opposed the History and Philosophy of Music Education course in Graduate Council because it seemed not to require any writing beyond mini-proposals and book reviews. He said he didn’t understand why a graduate course would not require some substantial writing. Professor William Lee said the course did require substantial writing and bibliographic work, explaining that the information had accidentally been omitted from the proposal. Professor Russell said he wished that information had been included in the proposal. He asked if both proposals required substantial writing. Professor Lee said the history course required substantial writing of papers and that the testing and measurements course required substantial writing. Professor Rozema asked what the numbers of these courses would be. Professor Heffner said the History and Philosophy of Music Education would be Music 535 and that Testing, Measurement, and Evaluation of Musical Experiences would be Music 538. The proposals were approved 23-2-3. Administrative Reports Chancellor Chancellor Bill Stacy said the upcoming equity adjustments reflected the University’s commitment to recruit, retain, and celebrate the diversity and quality of faculty, staff, and students. He said the adjustments were an outgrowth of Budget Committee recommendations that he outlined in a July 1 memo to the campus. He emphasized that the Tennessee legislature had not provided any funds for general raises and that the equity adjustments targeted campus personnel who were deemed by several measures to be the most disadvantaged. He said the monies came mostly from growth and from the university improving its formula potential in desegregation efforts. Chancellor Stacy said the Budget Committee recommended the funding of summer school and some modest increases in part-time salaries. After those were funded, the Budget Committee recommended continuing last year’s efforts to modestly address faculty and staff equity concerns. In determining who would receive adjustments in this round, it was recognized that everyone was below the 50th percentile of the various measures, so equity adjustments targeted faculty and staff farthest from the center. Merit was not a consideration in this round. He said $50,000 had been set aside for adjunct/part-time faculty and $50,000 to reward faculty successfully completing the cumulative review process. He said $116,000 had been allocated to address salary inequities among non-exempt staff such as custodians, police officers, secretaries, plumbers, and so forth. About 176 of 357 people on the non-exempt line would receive adjustments. About $46,000 would provide adjustments for about 38 of 150 exempt employees with certain categories excluded: chancellors, vice chancellors, deans, associate vice chancellors, associate deans, directors, and coaches. He said 71 of about 340 faculty would receive adjustments this year. He said the good news was that the institution was trying to fund what it has said is a strategic imperative. He said the hard part was explaining the adjustments to people who didn’t get one. He said the good news for them was that there was somebody down the hall who was worse off than they were. Professor Hiestand asked the Chancellor to comment on the university’s financial obligation to the stadium. Chancellor Stacy acknowledged the recent newspaper publicity and praised the city for its generosity in building "a great $28 million facility." He said the university’s obligation toward the capital cost was $1.6 million to be paid at $160,000 a year for 10 years and added that the university’s obligation toward the operating costs was zero. If the stadium loses money, UTC has no obligation to share in that loss, he said. If Carter Street discovers the stadium cannot be operated at a profit, he expects to be asked what people do with stadiums. Using Neyland Stadium as an example, he said the answer would have to be that they are used for five or six footballs games per year. "That’s what people do with stadiums." Professor Russell said a number of faculty thought the stadium was a bad idea from the beginning and that many of them still felt that way. He said he thought the interest on the bond was $180,000 a year. The Chancellor said it cost $1500 each time the university used the field and speculated that cost might account for the extra dollars. Professor Russell expressed concern that shortfalls might impact travel monies. The Chancellor reiterated that the university was only liable for the capital obligation and added that the field was not scheduled to be used in the spring. Professor Campa said he and others thought it was fine to have a stadium but that it was a terrible idea to use tax money to build it. An even worse idea, he said, was for UTC to be involved in the project. Noting the stadium’s financial problems, he asked "What are the chances that we might inherit Buckingham Palace without the services?" The Chancellor said that he thought there were a few people who would like for UTC to take their inheritance. He said he thought it might be an issue at some point and that UTC would have to participate in the solution. He added that it was his obligation as Chancellor not to take on any additional operational or capital debt. "We’re grateful for this wonderful facility, but we can’t afford it." Provost Provost Berry pointed out that the equity monies were achieved in part by deans and department heads cutting administrative costs and that they deserved credit for their contributions to the adjustments. Professor Fritz Efaw asked if the lengthy SACS survey would be available to the campus in summary form. The Chancellor and the Provost said the data was public information. Provost Berry added that the question was not whether but when and how the information would be made available. Several people suggested that SACS Committee Chairs David Brodsky and Gene Ezell might have a better idea when the information would be available. Professor Efaw expressed concern that some faculty were being prevented from going through the cumulative review process this year. He said deans were making rules and setting quotas and that departments had been limited to one or two people each. Where did the limits come from? President Prevost suggested the numbers were derived from the six-year cycle set up in the implementation plan. Others suggested the six-year cycle implied that one-sixth of the faculty would be reviewed each year. Professor Efaw asked where the deans were getting the numbers and why they were imposing limits. Are these rules written down? Professor Rozema said that, at two per year in Math, it would take 12 years to review everybody. Several Council members pointed out that the numbers of faculty who qualified for review would vary somewhat each year. In response to a suggestion that it was a mathematical exercise to determine the number of people to be reviewed each year, Professor Efaw responded that the numerators would not often be exactly divisible by six. Who makes a decision in those cases? Where do the rules come from? He suggested again that people were being unnecessarily prevented from applying. Dean Herb Burhenn said he could explain how it was being done in Arts and Sciences but added that Professor Efaw was not likely to find the explanation very satisfying. Dean Burhenn said that Arts and Sciences needed to review 18 people overall, so it was decided that one person from each department and two from each of the two largest departments would be reviewed this year. He said he expected the numbers would have to be recalculated several times over the six-year period to ensure that everyone was reviewed. He said it was entirely possible there would be years when several people from one department were reviewed. Professor Efaw asked if that meant the deans would decide from year to year how many people could go through the process, adding that the rules should be written down. He said the process was arbitrary and capricious, "but that’s the regime we’re living under." The Chancellor said if the reference to "the regime" was directed at him that he would be happy to respond. He said the cumulative review was a new process that would have to evolve some over time. He said he thought it was appropriate to monitor and gauge that process in the first year to see whether any person or group might be disadvantaged by the process and then work to build on those experiences so as not to disadvantage anyone in the second year. He said it would take some experience with the process to smooth the rough edges but that it was not intended to be arbitrary or capricious. Professor Efaw said the university had jumped into the process without any clearly defined rules. He said he felt people were being prevented from applying by deans who made arbitrary decisions about the numbers of faculty who could apply. Further, he expressed concern about the availability of financial rewards in future years. The Chancellor suggested Professor Efaw attend the budget discussions in the spring and suggest that more money was needed to reward people for going through the process. The Chancellor said he felt there was plenty of time to question the process and modify the implementation. "We have to start somewhere but we’re not doing it with the intent of disadvantaging people." Provost Berry noted that a sixth of the eligible faculty would undergo the process each year but that the specific numbers might change depending on the rhythms of the campus and the demographic profile. He said there would be some ups and downs in terms of the numbers of people going through the process at any one time. He noted that one of the drafts of the implementation plan called for a five year cycle which would have meant more people undergoing the process each year. He had been concerned that Knoxville would reject a six-year cycle, but in the end they accepted it. Adjournment With holiday wishes to all, President Prevost adjourned the meeting at 3:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
Kathy Breeden Secretary |
