THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES
February 3, 1994
Signal Mountain Room
ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Valarie Adams, Jim Avery, Will Bertin, Tom Bibler, Martha Butterfield, Ken Carson, Neal Coulter, Lloyd Davis, Robert Duffy, Aniekan Ebiefung, Fritz Efaw, Howard Finch, Jack Freeman, Nick Honerkamp, Larry Ingle, Doug Kingdon, Richard Rice, Greg Sedrick, Edgar Shawen, Jim Stroud, Larry Tillman, John Tinkler, Joe Trahan, Jeannette Vallier, Ling-Jun Wang, Carolyn Wiley, David Wiley, Sally Young
ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Monte Coulter, Susan Davidson, John Garrett, David Levine, Clifford Parten, Loretta Prater, Ossama Saleh, Clint Smullen, Terry Walters
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Harbaugh, Fred Obear, Charles Renneisen, John Rudley, Grayson Walker
AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Reginald Avery, Michael Bell, Robert Fulton, William Hall, Jim Lewis, Ralph Moser, Roy Stinnett, Gavin Townsend, Ken Venters
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:15 pm in the Signal Mountain Room of the University Center by President Tom Bibler.
Approval of Minutes
On page three, Professor Jack Freeman's question about the real problem, "doctors, Blue Cross, or Medicare" should read "doctors, Blue Cross, or Medicaid." The minutes were approved as corrected.
Healthcare Insurance Discussion
Although several people had been asked to come, no one did. Professor Bibler then read a letter from J. Robert McGuff, Chief Executive Officer of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee, as a response to the Resolution passed by Faculty Council at its last meeting. In his letter Mr. McGuff explained the reason for TennCare, why it saves money for the State, and that the "take back" clause had been rescinded. He expects many doctors who dropped out to return to the Tennessee Preferred Network. He also volunteered to have someone from his staff come to speak to us.
Although President Bibler remarked that no one from Blue Cross had been willing to come to speak to us up to this point, Chancellor Fred Obear suggested that we try again now that we have this letter. Professor Lloyd Davis suggested that we ask some doctors to come, too. President Bibler noted that he had tried that too.
Professor Doug Kingdon asked what the "take back" provision was. President Bibler explained that it was the policy that the State could ask physicians to pay back some of the money TennCare had already paid them if it ran short on money.
Curriculum Committee Report
Professor Ken Venters, head of the Curriculum Committee, introduced several business items to the Council.
Professor Doug Kingdon asked about the renumbering of the UHON courses. He thought that changing course level required more documentation than Council was presented.
Professor Townsend explained that the course content was more on a 300 level.
Professor Kingdon asked if the course descriptions changed.
Professor Townsend said no.
Professor Kingdon said that he did not doubt that the content was at the 300 level, but he is concerned that any department could renumber courses without having to support the change.
Professor Townsend reiterated that although the courses have always been at the 100 level, they are taken by juniors and are taught at a junior level.
Professor Robert Fulton, Director of the Honors Program, said that at first, the Honors Program curriculum dictated that students take all their UHON courses as freshmen and sophomores. Soon they realized that these courses should have been labeled higher than the 100-level. Students put off the courses until their sophomore and junior years. The change just reflects the reality that was already there.
Professor Kingdon also questioned THSP 100. It is a new course, but there is no syllabus attached. Although it had formerly been taught as 199, that does not mean it is ready for approval.
Professor Jim Lewis, Head of the Department of Theatre and Speech, said the department was trying to set the course up so that students who were not theatre majors could take it. It is a laboratory course in which they teach lighting, props, sound, etc. The content varies with whatever production is being done. Those who take 100 level are not usually theatre majors, yet they probably put in 40 to 50 hours per semester in that one hour lab.
Before discussion continued further, President Bibler asked that there be a motion.
Professor Doug Kingdon moved, and Professor Martha Butterfield seconded the motion to approve the Curriculum Committee's proposals.
Professor Larry Ingle proposed this amendment: Separate the Legal Assistant Studies Program from the rest of the proposals and postpone action on it until we see a cover sheet, a needs assessment, and a statement of impact on staffing.
Professor Robert Duffy seconded the motion.
President Bibler noted that the Faculty Council usually does not get a cover sheet for such proposals. Professor Bill Hall said that he and others were here to address questions members of the Council might have.
Professor Ingle said that he wants to see the documents themselves.
Professor Jim Avery questioned if staffing was in place for this program. Professor Ingle wanted to know if banks and law firms were interested in the program.
Professor Avery also questioned the statement that people with emotional problems would be dismissed. Would that not be a violation of the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act? Professor Martha Butterfield said that in certain professions, there was an obligation to remove those with emotional problems. They are allowed to return to the program when fit.
Professor Hall said that they were in the process of doing a needs analysis. They had polled the Chattanooga Bar Association and Chattanooga Trial Lawyers previously, and at that time they saw a need.
Currently Professor Hall has letters coming in from many people concerning their interest, but the needs analysis for this area has not yet been completed. He noted that there are two-year programs ready to feed into this four-year program.
Professor Jack Freeman asked if the program would have to face accreditation, because that process becomes expensive. Professor Hall remarked that the American Bar Association has someone do on-site visits and that the program can apply for accreditation after three years. Right now, the lacking library materials would cost about $1,500. The large expense would be computers; approximately $26,000 is needed for them.
Professor Freeman asked about faculty lines. Professor Hall said that they could ask for one faculty line or hire some adjunct faculty. He noted that many of the courses are interdisciplinary.
Professor Reginald Avery said that they would need to use one staff member as a coordinator but could use adjunct faculty for a while.
Professor Ingle reiterated that he wants to see the materials named in his motion before he can vote.
Provost Grayson Walker suggested to Professors Reginald Avery and Hall that the Council postpone the vote until after they have made documents available to the group. Professors Avery and Hall agreed.
Professor Butterfield asked if the needs assessment was required to be forwarded to Faculty Council. She questioned the expense.
Professor David Wiley remarked that this situation was different; this is an entirely new program.
Professor Jane Harbaugh said that if the Council needs more information, she thinks members should get it. Sometimes we have needs assessments, sometimes not; we are not consistent.
Professor Bibler observed that in his view, the Faculty Council had not worried much about consistency over the years.
Professor Jim Stroud inquired about the whereabouts of the cover sheets for the program. Professor Bibler said that usually only the chair gets it. He has it in his possession; it is not required that it be circulated.
Professor David Wiley remarked that the syllabi have a "boiler plate" appearance. Some of the suggestions about library use are not congruent with our library's policies. They also refer to a university attendance policy, but we do not have one.
The motion to postpone passed by voice vote.
The motion to approve the remainder of the Curriculum Committee's proposals passed unanimously, 27-0-0.
Report and Questions from Athletic Director Ed Farrell
Mr. Farrell said that he would explain what the athletic program actually is and then ask for questions. He also offered to answer questions about Blue Cross and Blue Shield since no one else would.
He explained that UTC has been in the Division I Intercollegiate Athletic Program for about ten years. The terminology is confusing because we have IAA football, but all other sports are in Division I. You must have a certain number of games at the Division I level (which requires some travel). You must also award a certain number of athletic grants in all except men's and women's basketball and football (because people will award those anyway). There is both a maximum and a minimum number of scholarships.
There are restrictions on practice dates, recruiting, and so forth. We are in the Southern Conference, an outstanding conference at the level we participate at. We pay $1,000 annually to belong, for which we get exposure, championships, and revenue in exchange. Lately revenue sharing has been lower because they have had championships in the lesser sports as well as in football and basketball.
They also hired a marketing firm to do a study of all universities in the conference. Thus cost-sharing was less. Other conferences do not have cost-sharing; they charge more and give nothing back.
The Southern Conference is older than both the SEC and ACC. It offers good competition for many sports, not just men's basketball as some others do.
Professor Richard Rice remarked that the Chronicle had reported that the University of Texas was putting more money into women's sports. Will the fact that 60% of students are women mean more money for them?
Mr. Farrell said that Title IX is on campus now to develop an action plan related to this area. They will be doing more, if possible. If not, we will not be in business.
Professor Ingle asked him to elaborate.
Mr. Farrell said that the Office of Civil Rights is here not as a goodwill gesture, but as a result of a specific anonymous complaint that we were not giving equal opportunity to our women athletes. Their action plan will specify things the UTC Athletic Department must do within a framework.
Chancellor Obear remarked that this group has also been to Furman and Western Carolina recently so we know what they will likely recommend.
Mr. Farrell said that by the "letter of the law" (Title IX) probably 98% of the schools are in violation. Nothing happens unless there is a complaint.
Professor Ingle then asked Mr. Farrell how he viewed himself with respect to the community, as a spokesman for the whole university, even academics, or just for the Athletic Department?
Mr. Farrell said both. He sees himself as "total family." He did not buy the Athletic Department; he just agreed to be its director.
Professor Edgar Shawen noted that we are the only school without baseball. Will that change?
Mr. Farrell said no.
Professor Shawen also asked if we were collecting the money from the West contract.
Mr. Farrell said that they haven't collected it yet.
Chancellor Obear said that we are in negotiation now and cannot reveal details, but he believes that we will recover most of the funds in the contract.
Professor Freeman asked if swimming programs were expensive.
Mr. Farrell said yes, unless you have a competitive pool. Our pool is not competitive. Further, many campuses have dropped swimming, so it is difficult to find competition in this region.
Chancellor Obear said that it is unlikely that we can add a sport for men in the next few years. Any additions will be to women's sports.
Mr. Farrell also noted that we can probably work out an arrangement for a faculty pass to get into various sports at lower cost.
Another problem is the deficit situation. The Athletics Department's deficit for the last two years is not over expenditure; they try to keep within their budget. However, 50% of the budget is generated through outside revenue. A bad football season means lower ticket sales and fewer gifts.
Much of their budget is tied up with financial aid and required games; there is not much that can be cut.
The Athletic Department pays the tuition of those on athletic grants-in-aid. Thus there is benefit to the University in tuition; athletic programs may also attract other students such as band members so that formula funding is positively affected.
Professor Avery asked how many of the 256 scholarship students graduate.
Mr. Farrell replied that the percentage was higher than the student body at large, but he cannot remember the exact figure and wishes it were higher.
One-third of the athletes had a 3.0 or better last semester.
Professor Freeman complimented the way the women's basketball program is run. He has been impressed. Many students are good.
Professor Butterfield thanked him for faculty appreciation night.
Report from Provost Grayson Walker
He began with answers to three general questions and then opened the floor for others.
He updated Council on the progress being made on the recommendations of the EDO task force. Work is continuing as the Deans' Council reviews the standards of performance submitted by each department. They have finished with those submitted by the College of Arts and Sciences. They hope to find common threads among the colleges and develop a university-wide list. They will review Health and Human Services next.
Another recommendation was that department heads be trained in implementing the EDO process. Such a training session will be put into place this spring.
Professor Ingle questioned why we even go through the EDO process since raises have been mandated by the state.
Provost Walker noted that tenure, reappointment, and promotion still go on. He hopes that the state will eventually tie salary to performance again.
Chancellor Obear noted that we got some extra money for merit raises last year.
Provost Walker explained that we adjusted 20% of the salaries on campus last year. Most were equity raises, but a few were merit.
Professor Butterfield wondered what had happened to the cap of 20% for Exceptional Merit.
Provost Walker said that the Deans' Council is widely divided on this issue. They hope to have a recommendation for the Chancellor.
Professor Rice noted that a recent article in The Economist said that merit pay does not really work. The Provost said he would look into that.
Professor Carolyn Wiley asked how the adjustments were decided upon.
Provost Walker said that 20% is about sixty people here. No guidelines were given; the Provost made recommendations to the Chancellor. The System suggested rewarding outstanding performers, but Walker did more. He looked at all the salaries, especially comparing the salaries of new people hired at higher salaries than those who had been here a long time. He tried to address equity issues. Of the sixty positions, about twenty were merit. He reviewed EDO's. Deans submitted recommendations for adjustment. Some of the merit adjustments were on the equity list too.
Professor Jim Stroud asked if there might be a chance to do that again.
Provost Walker replied that we do not yet know. Walker wants a salary increment that we can distribute like in the "good old days."
He also addressed the question of staffing within the University. We have an acting director of the arena, and Linda Hendy has resigned her post. He said we are in the budget process now, and all units should make their budget needs known. Units are asking for some positions to be reinstated. If justification does not exist, however, positions can be reallocated.
Chancellor Obear said that two key staff vacancies have already been authorized: Director of Human Resources and Director of Facilities Management Services. A position in concessions has been filled by transfer.
Professor Nick Honerkamp asked if privatization of the cafeteria and bookstores had led to suggestions for change.
Chancellor Obear replied that the University was handling Auxiliary Services in a different way now.
Professor Ingle asked about the status of the search for the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.
Professor Sally Young replied that the committee had received over 160 applications. Members were gradually narrowing down the field, but many applications were incomplete.
Professor Rice asked about enrollment cut offs. He is concerned about the availability of teaching space when Fletcher Hall is being renovated. Would we be allowed to offer classes with lower enrollment if we could hold them in late afternoon?
Provost Walker agreed that afternoon classroom use is low. He would like to break the tradition and will consider options suggested by faculty.
President Tom Bibler has had several telephone calls concerning the vote we took at the full faculty meeting concerning the continuation of the Freshman Seminar. His interpretation is that we voted to discontinue Freshman Seminar as it existed, meaning that it is no longer required. To him that did not mean that Freshman Seminar is no longer a course.
Professor Ingle said that he did not necessarily disagree with President Bibler's interpretation, but he thought the proposal four years ago was to start a pilot program. In his mind, we were discontinuing the pilot program.
Professor Butterfield said yes, Seminar was approved as a course. She thinks we need to go back and look at how the motion was presented. She thinks we voted to discontinue Seminar all together. Professor Stroud agreed.
Professor Bibler said we do not have the pilot program. He asked if Professor Butterfield thought we had voted down the whole course.
Professor Carolyn Wiley thought we had discontinued the program, but noted that Engineering still has their own. We did not vote on that.
President Bibler noted that UHON has one too.
Professor David Wiley said that normally courses have homes. We took away the Seminar's home, so is the course an orphan?
Professor Stroud said that the alternative courses mentioned were in lieu of Freshman Seminar, so they would not be affected by the vote.
Professor Harbaugh thinks they are part of Freshman Seminar; they were part of the Freshman Seminar proposal that went to the Curriculum Committee.
Professor Rice noted that UHON incorporates goals of the Seminar in UHON 101 and UHON 102 as well as in their early summer experience. With or without the vote, Professor Fulton can continue to do that.
Professor Kingdon believes that courses which have gone through the process and have been approved are OK. We took away the mandated part, but the course already exists.
Professor Harbaugh said that Freshman Seminar is not the only university-wide course; there are a number of USTU courses. It is not exactly an orphan.
Professor Shawen said he hoped individual programs will not require Freshman Seminar.
Professor Ingle wants to know if the question President Bibler is bringing before the Council is a way to resurrect the Freshman Seminar. He thought it seemed that the faculty did not want the seminar based on its vote.
President Bibler tried to clarify meaning again. Did we vote that it is not required now, but does it still exist as a course?
Professor Ingle asked if it would be all right for the History Department to make up their own seminar.
Professor Stroud reiterated that the faculty vote to him meant that Freshman Seminar would be removed from the catalogue. If that is not what it means, what does it mean?
Professor Kingdon said he sees no reason why the Seminar cannot be continued. If it is offered and is not taken, then it would be removed.
Professor Avery asked if each department will have to take it out of the catalogue and add a three-hour elective.
Dean Roy Stinnett said that faculty could leave it in if they wanted to, he thinks. He would like to have the prerogative to leave it in his program if he wants to.
Professor Wiley said he thought that the vote meant it would no longer be required.
Professor Ingle asked if we wanted to make some motion.
President Bibler said that he would like to leave this as an information item. He thought that we voted the program down, but that the course is still in existence. A program that wants to require it can do so by going through the proper channels. But it can stay as a UTSU course until it is no longer offered.
Professor Ingle said that we should let the minutes reflect what President Bibler said. If anyone wants to appeal it, he or she could at the next meeting.
President Bibler agreed.
Professor Butterfield wants to examine minutes from the Faculty Meeting, too.
As other Old Business, Professor Ingle wanted to know who has faculty status. How can we find out who has faculty status? No list seems to be in existence.
Chancellor Obear thought the catalogue would be a good indicator.
Professor Ingle had not consulted that yet, but will.
Professor Harbaugh has a list which includes full-time and the English Department's half-time faculty as well as administrators who have rank and tenure in academic departments. Her office will prepare a list for others.
Professor Butterfield inquired as to who awards faculty rank.
There was no new business.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.