shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)

THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

December 1, 1988

Signal Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: C. Anderson, Bibler, Breeden, Churnet, Cochran, Darken, M. Edwards, Hiestand, Honerkamp, Ingle, Kleiman, Kuhn, LeWinter, Marlowe, McDonald, Noe, Pringle, Printz, N. Riley, Schonblom, K. Smith, R. Smith, Sturzer, Taylor, J. Thompson, M. Trimpey, B. Walton

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Ahmadi, Ozbek, Sanders, Venters, Wiley

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernst, Jackson, Packard

AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Avery, Burhenn, Chitty, Cunningham, Gaston, Gray, Hannah, Kerr, Kingdon, Lindsey, McMahon, Morin, Perfetti, Pinder, I. Reid, Stinnett, Tanner, Townsend, White, Zivney

Call to Order

Faculty Council President, Peter Pringle, convened the meeting at 3:16 p.m. With much sadness he reported to Council the death of our colleague, Dr. Han Chang, Associate Professor of Engineering and CECA staff member. Dr. Chang died unexpectedly at his home in Chicago. President Pringle asked Council to join him in a moment of quiet remembrance.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the called meeting on November 10, 1988 were approved as distributed.

The minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting on November 17, 1988 were approved as distributed.

Curriculum Committee

Curriculum Committee Chair Doug Kingdon presented the Curriculum Committee report. He announced an extension of the catalog deadline to include proposals approved by Council prior to February 3, 1989. The Curriculum Committee met twice since the last Council meeting. The Council agreed to act on the two reports separately. Professor Kingdon then presented the Committee's actions from their November 16, 1988 meeting (See Appendix A). It was moved by Professor Jan Printz to approve this report. Professor Larry Ingle asked about dropping Nursing 204. Professor Kay Chitty replied that the course will remain as an elective. The practice of nursing has changed and moved more to the area of critical care. Professor Nick Honerkamp asked about the discussion concerning the elimination of the foreign language requirement from the B.F.A. program. Professor Alan White stated that the overall intent was to look at the B.F.A. as a professional program. They looked nationally at other B.F.A. programs and found few required foreign languages. They looked at THEC's list of peer institutions and discovered that only one of them had a foreign language requirement. To meet accreditation standards they had to get more hours in Art and they did not wish to exceed the 128 required for graduation. Professor Felicia Sturzer voiced concerns which she said she first mentioned at the Curriculum Committee. She believes the elimination of both years of the foreign language--going from two years to none--is a rather drastic change. She believes the B.F.A. is closer to the B.A. than the B.S. degree and should have a foreign language component. "In Art a knowledge of certain foreign languages is useful, if not extremely important, if for no other reason than to pronounce major terms that one could encounter." Professor White said the Art Department concurred with Professor Sturzer's feelings and they eliminated foreign language with regret. He reminded Council that the B.A. in Art still exists and that it has a foreign language requirement. Professor Ingle asked if Council moved to retain the foreign language requirement what this would do to the Art proposal. Professor Anne Lindsey replied that fourteen hours would have to be found and removed from electives. Professor Eric Schonblom asked if going beyond the 128 hours had been considered. Professor White said that it had and that the Art Department felt such a move would cost them students.

The motion to approve the curriculum report passed by voice vote.

Professor Kingdon then presented the actions of the Curriculum Committee from their November 23, 1988 meeting. Professor Jim Hiestand moved approval. Professor Betsy Darken asked what changes had been made in Art 265 that caused them to be accepted this time without dissent. Professor Kingdon said that the Computer Science Department assured the Committee that there was no overlap between Art 265 and their course offerings.

The motion to approve this curriculum report passed by voice vote without dissent. Professor Jan Printz thanked Chairman Kingdon for doing such a good job of organizing his report.

Departmental Honors Committee

The report from the Departmental Honors Committee was presented by its Chair, Professor Herb Burhenn (See Appendix C). He reported five completed projects and four new ones. These were approved by voice vote. Professor Schonblom asked if everyone doing an honors project achieves highest honors if they have a sufficiently high GPA. Professor Burhenn assured him this was not the case. Professor Burhenn then presented a recommended change to the Bulletin (See Appendix D). He said that rechecking GPA immediately prior to graduation is a procedural problem. A student could be denied departmental honors after having done an acceptable project by a very fine (GPA) margin. He believes this is counter to the spirit of the program. Professor Printz asked how this change would have affected the list we just voted on. Professor Burhenn said it would have had no effect because people could still be admitted conditionally. Professor Ingle asked if it was conceivable that a student could graduate with honors, but not have the 3.2 or 3.5 GPA at the time of graduation. Professor Burhenn said it was. Professor Printz asked if there would be a minimal number of hours in the major required. Professor Burhenn said this was not built in and could be a problem. It is difficult to come up with a number that will be good for all majors. Professor Betsy Darken asked when conditional admissions had their GPA checked. Professor Burhenn said at the end of the first semester of their two-semester program. Professor Schonblom pointed out that the recommendation said nothing about conditional admission. Professor Burhenn agreed to add a statement about conditional admission for the first semester. Professor Printz asked if completion of one third of the major could be required. Professor Burhenn said the problem is primarily in the School of Business which has asked that only courses in their specific concentration be counted as the major. Professor Jack Thompson pointed out that all of the proposals were reviewed by the Department Head. Professor Printz pointed out that the Department Head might not know if the student changed his/her major. Professor Darken asked if the problem was that someone could be admitted to Honors with very few hours in the major. Professor Burhenn said it was, but added they had to prepare a coherent proposal which is a substantial safeguard. Professor Honerkamp noted that John Stern has no declared major. Professor Burhenn said the honors project will be, and must be, in the major. Professor Darken asked if there would be an objection to requiring some kind of a minimal GPA at graduation. Professor Burhenn did think it would be helpful.

The Departmental Honors Committee recommendation passed by voice vote.

Performance Funding Report (FY 1987-88)

The report on Performance Funding was presented by Associate Provost Dick Gray (See Appendix E). He walked Council through the summary. With regard to Standard I, he noted that the M.B.A. and the B.S. in Human Ecology had been accredited since this report was made. Next year we will have nineteen of twenty programs accredited. The remaining program is the B.F.A..

Standard II has to do with the senior test, the major field assessment. In licensure and certification, nursing was tested last year and passed successfully. This year engineering and teacher education will be tested. In the special programs category, mathematics and Spanish will be tested each year. We have to test until we have at least ten graduates cumulative in each area. The other programs category is tested at least once in a five-year cycle. Last year criminal justice and chemistry were tested. This year biology and psychology will be tested. Professor Habte Churnet asked where we lost. Dr. Gray said we lost in criminal justice partially due to the use of a cooperative test which is now being re-evaluated. The external review of masters programs have both objective and qualitative standards. Ten objective standards are set up by the Tennessee Council of Graduate Schools. We met all ten and got the full seven points possible. We received two of the three possible qualitative points. Professor Ingle asked how the team that did the judging was selected. Associate Provost Marvin Ernst said two consultants were selected by the University from a choice of four proposed by the Department. Professor Ingle asked if this wasn't incestuous. Dr. Ernst said the Tennessee Council of Graduate Schools had established criteria for consultants and believes the Department is in the best position to make recommendations. Professor Ingle asked if Dr. Ernst would care to make an assessment of the objectivity of this process. Dr. Ernst said he thought it worked well. Professor Ingle asked from what perspective. Provost Sandra Packard said that previous performance funding didn't include this process. She believes the Departments pick consultants who are really good and who will point out deficiencies and help the Department garner additional resources. Associate Provost Ernst reviews the vitae of the four recommended and, if need be, he could reject all four. The Department is not funded directly on the basis of the number of performance-funding points it has earned. Professor Ingle said he did not mean that there is any hanky-panky going on, but rather that the possibility exists that it could. He is concerned. Professor Marcia Noe commented that the English Department was externally reviewed last year by consultants from Clemson and UNC and everyone in the Department got a copy of their report. They were very candid and very thorough.

Standard III has to do with the testing for general education, the ACT COMP's. The mean value-added component compares the mean score of our students to the mean score of 111 similar institutions. The second component does the same for raw scores. On the value-added, we had 7.6 which gave us only three of the ten points. The entering ACT score was twenty-one. We would have had to have had a mean value-added score of thirteen to get all ten points. As the ACT goes up, the mean value-added score needed for full credit goes down. The mean score of our students was 185.9 out of a possible 240 which is about the fiftieth percentile. Professor Honerkamp asked if the comparison score will be continued. He believes it encourages universities to "capture dumb students." Dr. Gray said the instrument is being fine-tuned, but it is quite unlikely to be dropped. They are looking at other instruments besides the ACT. Professor Bob Marlowe asked if the value-added score meant that our entering students scored very high. Dr. Gray said if an entering freshman took the ACT and were given the ACT as a graduating senior his/her score would have improved by 7.6 points. Professor Printz said we lost the poor students and only graduated the better ones. Professor Sturzer said this is self-defeating. Professor Printz said it cost us a lot of operating budget. Professor Margaret Trimpey asked if the higher the ACT meant the less gain you had to make to get full funding. Dr. Gray said that was true. Professor Maurice Edwards asked how we did compared to other institutions. We lost twelve of our twenty-one points on Standard III.

Standard IV has to do with surveying alumni. (A copy of the survey may be found in Appendix F and the survey results are in Appendix G). We do the survey every other year on those graduates two years prior. We got ten of fifteen points which is about a 60% satisfaction level. We need an 80% satisfaction level for the full fifteen points. This was the first year for this instrument. It was developed within the state and will probably receive some fine tuning.

Standard V, corrective measures, is designed to reward institutions for three levels of programmatic improvements. This is the place for Dr. Gray's creative writing. Its a nebulous area. We achieved all the possible points this last year.

Standard VI is the bonus standard giving us the ability of ten extra points for the entire five-year cycle. We got seven this last year which means that there are only three possible in the next four years. We are piloting an instrument which may replace the ACT. It is called the Collegiate Assessment of Academic Proficiencies (CAAP) as part of this standard.

As to how we compared to other institutions, looking at the nine state institutions, the highest score was eighty-nine, the lowest thirty-two. We scored seventy-nine which ranked us sixth from the top said Dr. Gray. Professor Printz pointed out that this was third from the bottom. The spread in scores with this instrument was much less than it had been before. Professor Margaret Trimpey asked if all schools use the same testing mechanisms. Do they all choose the same groups of students? Dr. Gray said not necessarily. In Standard II each department had the opportunity to determine what type of testing they wished to do. These wishes were fed back to THEC and the majority vote won. In the ACT Comp area you can elect to test freshman and seniors with the same instrument. We did not elect to do that. All four-year institutions do abide by the same criteria. Provost Packard noted that this was the first year in which we were compared to national ACT data as opposed to peer group data as had been the case previously. Professor Darken asked where we rated low on Standard IV. This information is found in Appendices F and G. Items rated low are checked. Provost Packard mentioned that Professor Tim Summerlin, the current ACT fellow on campus, is heading a committee to look at the alumni survey results. Others on the committee are Professors Mike Biderman, Bernie Benson, Frank Whittacre, Ric Schonblom, Ed Foster, Kay Chitty, Ralph Anderson and Ray Hall. Ideas and suggestions on how the university can improve in this area should be communicated to these people.

Academic Calendar

Professor Steve Kuhn stated he was concerned about where the semester went. He looked at the calendar for this year and discovered we do not have a regular fifteen-week semester. There has been a lot of variation in the lengths of semesters. The number of meetings for evening classes varies with the night that they are scheduled from thirteen to fifteen. We need a balanced calendar that is longer. He has checked both the CSTCC and UTK calendars and they both have regular fifteen-week semesters. Obviously, it can be done. Summer is a problem. There seems to be three driving forces that affect the calendar: winter commencement, the summer schedule and the five-day lag between the last exams and commencement. He believes all of these need to be examined. Knoxville finishes their exams one day and has commencement the next. Provost Packard said the difference was that we hand students their actual diploma as they walk across the stage. Knoxville doesn't. A student may go through the ceremony and not actually have qualified for graduation. Professor Darken said she was particularly aware of the shorter spring semester because of the changes it necessitated in her program. She does favor a more consistent calendar and would be willing to not give students their actual diploma if that would help.

Dean Ray Fox said he thought the biggest problem was summer school. We did try to drop a five-week term and we lost revenue. We have an extensive summer schedule. Professor Kuhn said the inconsistent schedule caused real problems in math. If you speed up to cover all the usual topics, you cheat the slower students who may get lost. If you omit topics you cheat the able students who could have handled them. Professor Marcia Noe reminded the Council that snow is a wild card likely to upset the most carefully planned schedule. Professor Darken agreed you can't schedule snow, but urged that we not "start out behind" with an inconsistent calendar. Provost Packard said this had been discussed elsewhere. She is sure the Records Office would not mind not handing out actual diplomas at commencement. This has been the tradition on the UTC campus. Will the faculty be upset at days added to their work schedule? How will faculty feel about the fact that students might go through the ceremony and not be eligible for graduation? We might want a committee to look at this.

Professor Kuhn moved to direct the administration to establish two fifteen-week semesters. Anything else that has to go has to go. The classes are to be fifteen weeks long and the fall semester is to end before Christmas. Professor Printz seconded. Provost Packard pointed out we cannot remove legal holidays. She believes we must run the summer terms as is in order to not run at a deficit. Professor Jack Thompson said he believed there were options for summer. When we dropped the one summer term we still ran a fifteen-week summer and just had no first five-week term. Professor Ric Schonblom pointed out that UTK and CSTCC were just starting on semesters and their calendars had not had time to be affected by all the glitches. He said he was not prepared to say he wanted fifteen-week semesters no matter what the cost. Professor Printz commented that now that Boling was gone we could get rid of the Good Friday holiday. Professor Darken spoke in favor of flexibility; that one day might have to be waived. Provost Packard pointed out that there were many variables and that the faculty need to be aware of all the trade-offs. Professor Larry Ingle mentioned that Council used to approve the calendar and we need to still be doing that. Professor Printz complained that professors were still giving exams early contrary to the regulations adopted by Council. This rule needs to be monitored and enforced.

The motion passed by a vote of 14:7:5.

Professor Kuhn pointed out that exams need to be scheduled as closely as possible to the time of the class. This would be a real boon to working students.

Chairs of Excellence

Professor Larry Ingle read a prepared statement concerning the appointment of Chairs of Excellence (See Appendix H) and at its conclusion he moved that the Committee on Committees nominate a committee to examine the relevant documents and procedures for financing the Chairs of Excellence, appointment of occupants, lengths of appointments, tenure and relation to the rest of the faculty. This was seconded by Professor Felicia Sturzer. Professor Habte Churnet asked if, at the time of employment, a faculty member's records were open for public scrutiny and if the Chairs would be different. Professor Ingle said all personnel records are public property.

Provost Packard said: "Every appointment that carries faculty rank follows the same procedure at this University regardless of the source of the funding or the salary of the appointee. The faculty of the unit undertake the normal search procedures.... The faculty of the unit go through whatever procedures they normally do and then make a recommendation through the Department Head with the Department Head to the Dean who then recommends it to my office. For each position there is a position description which is advertised and which tells the candidates what the conditions are. There is no variation on that...."*

Professor Printz said hiring practices have varied in the past. She cited the case of an economist hired before the Provost's time on this campus. His tenure was also peculiar. He turned down tenure but was still called professor. She supported Professor Ingle's motion. Professor Sturzer believes there is an underlying conflict in the Chairs of Excellence. If you have a non-academic advisory committee, the interests of that committee tend to differ from that of the particular academic department in hiring faculty. The people from the community are much less concerned with academic credentials and more concerned with how good a PR person this candidate may be and is he going to be a spokesman for a particular viewpoint in the community.

Do we want someone who is going to be a good TV or radio announcer or do we want someone who is going to be a good faculty member?

Provost Packard said: "There are no external advisory committees recommending candidates. In every single search conducted, the recommendation proceeds from the faculty to the Department Head to the Dean. Now, Departments may place upon the committee, external consultants or external individuals and that has been true in all of the Chair searches. There has been one individual on the committee who does the search process. It then goes to the faculty for the recommendation of the academic department and the academic members of the University. It cannot come from an external group....A good example is the Probasco Chair. The Probasco Chair had to be reviewed and recommended, in addition to the fact that the departments had representation on the committee in terms of faculty, department head and dean, the traditional strategy of having the departmental faculty that normally undertook a search process review the credentials and make a recommendation for hiring so that no one would be selected for the faculty that doesn't go through the normal process; however, departments are free to seek advice from anyone they want and on all the Chair searches they've had one representative from the donor who helped identify the individuals. They do not have complete say on who is hired, nor do they determine salary or rank or anything like that. It is strictly a University prerogative to employ individuals."

Professor Printz pointed out that she had to request that a faculty member be added to the Probasco search committee. Provost Packard said that there had already been two faculty on that search committee, but they also had administrative roles and Professor Printz wanted non-administrators added. The Provost asserted we have a very clean process.

Professor Betsy Darken asked if the faculty of every department that has a Chair has basically had veto power over the hiring of a Chairholder? Provost Packard said that whatever process the Department uses in hiring regular faculty was used in filling the Chairs. Professor Darken then asked specifically about the Probasco Chair. The Provost said the Probasco Chairholder holds two positions in the University. So the Committee considered both functions, that of Center director as well as faculty member. "The previous Chair never had a faculty appointment. The previous Chairholder had a courtesy appointment, but did not hold a regular faculty appointment. The current Chair has both a regular faculty appointment and is Center Director." Dean Irv Reid noted that it was possible to have had a Probasco Chairholder and Center Director who had no faculty rank.

Professor Schonblom spoke in favor of the motion because he believes it will clarify the tenure and promotion functions of the departments as specified in the Handbook.

Professor Ingle said his concern was not with the Probasco Chair, but with the West Chairholder who only has a B.A. degree. He believes this lends no prestige to the University.

Provost Packard mentioned that we hire other faculty who don't have terminal degrees. She mentioned the School of Engineering and practitioner criteria. We use the Handbook criteria of terminal degree or equivalent experience. Such individuals often enrich students with their real world knowledge and experience. Professor Ingle said he would not object to hiring such people, but did question their occupying Chairs of Excellence. Professor Darken favored the motion because of her concern for the possible involvement of a political element.

The motion passed on voice vote with only one voice in opposition.

Report from Executive Committee

President Pringle asked Council to grant the Executive Committee the right to express Council's condolences to Professor Chang's survivors. Council assented. The "In Memoriam" for Professor Joel Davis is found in Appendix I.

President Pringle urged Council to nominate candidates for President and to send nominations to the Secretary prior to the December 15th deadline.

Facilities Concerns

None were expressed.

Member Concerns/Announcements

1. Professor Honerkamp urged faculty not to keep students after the bell rings. This makes them late for their next class and is neither professional nor collegial.

2. Professor Sturzer asked about the list of concerns that were sent to Council earlier. President Pringle said they had been turned over to the appropriate individuals in the administration for action.

3. Dr. Richard Hannah, Personnel Director, announced that the flexible benefits program could only be begun in January. There will be all-day sessions (in two-hour increments) held to explain this program--one on December 15, 1988 and one on January 9, 1989.

The IRS representative will also be here as stated in the memo to faculty.

The alternative medical plan will be distributed to all state employees. It will have high premiums.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:03 p.m.

Faculty Council Nugget

Nuggets from this meeting have been mined in subsequent editions of the Chattanooga Times and the Chattanooga News Free Press.

Tom Bibler
Secretary

*The Secretary has made every attempt to report the Provost's words verbatim as was requested by several Council members.

top.gif (189 bytes)