THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES
November 3, 1988
Raccoon Mountain Room
ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Bibler, Breeden, Churnet, Cochran, Darken, M. Edwards, Hiestand, Honerkamp, Ingle, Kleiman, Kuhn, LeWinter, Marlowe, Noe, Pringle, Printz, N. Riley, Sanders, Schonblom, R. Smith, Sturzer, Thompson, M. Trimpey, Venters, B. Walton, Wiley
ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Ahmadi, C. Anderson, McDonald, Ozbek, K. Smith, Taylor, J. Vallier
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernst, Jackson, Packard, Renneisen, Rudley
AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Bergenback, Brodsky, Fulmer, Hannah, Kingdon, Mattawa, Moser, Poppolee, Robinson, Rybolt, Stinnett, Walker
Call to Order
Faculty Council President Peter Pringle convened the meeting at 3:15 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of October 20, 1988 were corrected as follows:
Page One - Committee on Committees. Professor Jocelyn Sanders said she had not promised a new committee list for the November 11th meeting. She merely hoped to have one. (Her hopes went unfulfilled).
Page Two - first sentence of last paragraph should read, "Professor Butterfield reported a conversation that she had had with Paul Starnes on the alternative medical plan."
The corrected minutes were approved without dissent.
Professor Doug Kingdon presented the Curriculum Committee report which included a new course in chemistry and two information items, one in sociology and one in business management. There was also a clarification of Curriculum Committee procedures (See Appendix A). Professor Kingdon announced that the Curriculum Committee will be meeting on November 16 and 23. These are the last two dates for course changes to be made so that they can be printed in next year's catalog. He urged the faculty not to wait until the 23rd as there might be more business on that date than the Committee could handle. Professor Felicia Sturzer asked if new courses could be taught even if they weren't in the catalog. She was assured that they could be. Professor Larry Ingle asked about the full names of authors of the texts in CHEM 311. Professor Tom Rybolt replied that O'Neil's was Gerard K. O'Neil and that he would be happy to look up the first name of Lappe. Professor Eric Schonblom asked if general education certification would be sought in the future for Chem 311. Professor Rybolt said that Category G certification would be sought at some future time.
The motion to approve the Curriculum Committee's report passed without dissent.
Dr. Richard Hannah, Director of Personnel, presented answers to the questions asked of him at the last Council meeting. (See Appendix B). There will be a four-page letter coming from the System that explains the PPO and other benefits.
Dr. William Dotterweich, the higher education representative to the State Insurance Committee, will be here to answer questions on November 16th from 10:00 - 12:00 in the Raccoon Mountain Room. Faculty Council members are urged to attend. It was pointed out to Dr. Hannah that most faculty have classes during this time. Dr. Hannah said he had limited times to choose from, but would keep that in mind for future scheduling. Professor Schonblom pointed out that Dotterweich is the first system representative on that committee and that he has done a good job. Faculty can be critical of the insurance plan or the committee, but they should not be critical of Dotterweich.
Flexible benefits additions--dependent care account and a reimbursable medical benefits account--will be explained in meetings to be held early in December.
Sick leave bank for twelve month employees was mentioned (See Appendix C). This is a legislative benefit that goes into effect January 1, 1989. It is complex and will be an administrative burden.
Dr. Hannah also mentioned that faculty who go on leave for whatever reason need to contact Personnel so that their benefits coverage can be secured. This will prevent any lapse in coverage.
Dean Renneisen asked if there was any movement afoot within the System or anywhere to modify the TIAA-CREF to allow roll-overs into other funds. Dr. Hannah said there was none of which he was aware. He thinks this is due to their paternalism. There may also be some tax reasons. Dean Renneisen pointed out that Stanford and Johns Hopkins allow their faculties to have other options. Professor Printz said it was the State that would have to make such a roll-out possible.
Professor Printz commented that the faculty can make a difference. The addition of Children's, the Eye Clinic, etc. was due to faculty response. ETSU had no joint faculty action and there have been no additions in their area. Politicking and letter writing made the difference.
Budget and Economic Status Committee
Professor Martha Butterfield, Chair of the Budget and Economic Status Committee, walked the Council through the rather lengthy handout. She thanked Dr. Hannah for answering the posed questions. She added that Debby Sims of the State Insurance Office has assured her the alternative medical plan will go out for bids. Turning to the handout (See Appendix D), Professor Butterfield noted that the first four pages contain information on the Committee's focus. The next two pages concern salaries and market-driven factors. The next section deals with salaries. Professor Butterfield thanked Provost Packard and Vice Chancellor Rudley for their assistance. She also thanked Professor Stan Fjeld for compiling the data. The first four pages of the salary section show high and low salaries by rank. The next section is on floors and what it would take to adjust them. The last part of the handout is appendix material: a 1986 memo listing current floors. She mentioned that a key piece of information is missing--a document created by Professor Neil Riley from a handout at the Administrative Retreat which explains how the tables are keyed. The tables provide information useful in understanding the budget. She distributed a few THEC budget booklets and said she would arrange to get more. The Committee plans to look at departmental operating budgets next. The missing "Neil Riley" piece will be sent to Council members later.
Professor Riley said he believed it will be easier for faculty to have input into the budget if the recommendations are from a macro point of view. The tables show growth rates of various revenue lines and percentages of different expenditure items; this will give a very good idea of the budget focus. Professor Butterfield expressed the hope that by the end of next term we would have the information so that we will have input into the budget process rather than being simply reactive.
The next materials compare UTC and SREB institutional salaries. It is possible THEC has UTC in a wrong category and if so, we are being underfunded. We graduate more than one hundred graduate students per year and hence, should be in a different category. The Committee has just begun to look at this. The last document was provided by Bill Fisher, outgoing President of the Tennessee Higher Education Faculty Assembly. It compares numbers of administrators and faculty at various institutions.
Professor Butterfield then returned to Page One. She thanked Provost Packard for her public support for increased faculty salaries. UTC salaries are below the national average and below some of our sister institutions. This makes it hard to attract faculty at UTC. We have positions that cannot be filled due to unacceptable (non-competitive) salary levels. Provost Packard added that in the current budget process the raising of open salary lines of currently funded positions filled on a temporary basis will have priority over requests for new positions. Professor Butterfield then moved to Page Two--the EDO and salary. In some colleges everyone who achieves exceptional merit gets the same dollar reward; in others, the dollar amount varies. Regardless of how it is handled the exceptional merit creams off funds from the pool of money available for faculty raises. Therefore, no one gets the average raise the legislature says it is giving. In some departments, the exceptional merit is awarded on a rotating basis.
Professor Larry Ingle moved approval of the recommendations on page two. Professor David Wiley seconded. Professor Nick Honerkamp asked if we were talking about a percentage or a dollar amount. Provost Packard reviewed the historical EDO/MBO procedure. We used to have five rating categories. In reviewing them only three categories were actually being used. The new document reduced the number of categories to three, and currently, only two of them are really being used. The new document states that only 20% of the faculty will be identified in the highest rating. Exceptional merit is a recognition of exceptional performance that year. Those in this category get a higher percentage of the merit raise than those in the merit category. There were only two or three people in the entire University who got below the merit category. It is, therefore, obviously impossible for everyone who got merit to get the legislative average. How much exceptional merit is worth is decided each year by the Dean of each unit. Each Dean handles it differently. Some did a dollar amount and some did percentages. If we are to have a separate pool for exceptional merit, it will have to be subtracted from the general salary pool. This is required by the nature of the budget process. President Pringle said that what the Committee wants is for the University to identify a source of money other than that appropriated by the legislature for the exceptional merit raise pool--for example, tuition fee receipts. Professor Wiley said the plan's fate lies in making the legislature understand the merit system. They never have. The legislature will have to see a genuine separation of the regular and merit pools. Vice Chancellor Rudley said this would be feasible only if we have money over and above what the budget is based on. If we had an enrollment increase over that projected for the budget, then it could occur. President Pringle asked if the increase in enrollment this fall had created enough dollars for this to happen. Vice Chancellor Rudley said no, because many exercised the option to defer payment, so we didn't actually realize the money as yet. Dean Roy Stinnett commented that you would also have to match any local monies raised in order to cover fringe benefits. Vice Chancellor Rudley said if you spend more for fringe benefits, the formula generates more as well.
Professor Felicia Sturzer asked why three or four members of the same department were getting exceptional merit if there is a 20% limit. Provost Packard answered the 20% was for the whole University. The department makes recommendations to Deans who recommend to Provost. If need be, the Provost narrows the selection to keep roughly within the 20%. So far this has not been necessary. The department could recommend everyone, but this seems unlikely.
Professor Jan Printz said the whole issue seems to hinge on what the University decides to put into salaries. We were the lowest in the state this last year. So the decision was made not to put extra money into salaries. Vice Chancellor Rudley said we were one of the few institutions with an enrollment drop. Professor Printz said we know UTK put extra money into salaries because they said they did. Assistant Vice Chancellor Ralph Moser said we really had no option due to the drop in FTE. The FTE cut cost us a lot of funds. The only way not to have done this would have been to eliminate faculty positions. This was not really a viable choice.
President Pringle asked what the Committee really intended. Professor Butterfield said the Committee wanted a totally separate pool of money and it didn't care where it came from. Professor Schonblom asked if the Committee intended a fixed increase for all in exceptional merit groups or a percentage increase. Professor Butterfield answered they wanted a fixed dollar amount. Professor Wiley asked if the exceptional merit pool was to be across the University and not by unit. Professor Butterfield said that was the intent. Professor Leland Robinson pointed out that the merit salary would vary but that the exceptional merit amount would be the same for all.
Professor Schonblom moved to separate the proposal into three parts:
1) that a separate pool of money is to be used for exceptional merit EDO ratings.
2) that the extra dollar amount awarded for an exceptional merit rating be the same for all individuals receiving this rating.
3) that department heads clearly explain to faculty at the time of the initial EDO conference for each school year the salary implications of their EDO objectives.
The motion to separate passed without dissent.
The discussion then focused on the first part. Professor Steve Kuhn asked if that was not what was being done now. He was assured that it was not handled this way currently. Professor Butterfield reiterated that the desire of the motion is to prevent the pool of money for raises for meritorious faculty being skimmed to provide for exceptional merit raises. President Pringle said the exceptional merit pool must come from non-salary dollars. Professor Schonblom asked what would happen if Vice Chancellor Rudley could not find the extra funding. Was it the intent of the Budget Committee that no exceptional merit be given? Professor Butterfield said the Committee desired Rudley to find the extra money. She believes that given time the Administration can do this. They may not be able to do it for this coming year. This is a plan for the future. Professor Jack Thompson said this is a beneficial resolution only if at some time the Administration gets extra money for the exceptional merit pool. Professor Butterfield said the Committee wants both--extra money for merit raises and extra money for exceptional merit raises. Provost Packard said that the motion really needed to be rephrased. The legislature votes money for salary increases. The University cannot simply create another salary pool. A separate pot for exceptional merit is not a real concept. President Pringle asked how much was currently spent on exceptional merit. Provost Packard said she didn't know off-hand but could get the figures. Professor David Wiley said all the talk of separate pots and pools was an administrative or management problem. The Council recommends; we don't have to manage. That is the Administration's problem. Professor Riley said the Committee's intent was not to wipe out exceptional merit money, but at the same time they didn't want everybody's raise pool diluted by the removal of exceptional monies.
The motion (Part One) passed with no dissent and one abstention.
The discussion moved to Part Two. Professor Jan Printz asked if it was dollars and not a percentage that was meant. She was told it was dollars. She said she would have to argue against it because it would cause the rich folks in business and engineering to quit working because a $500 raise for them would be nothing. Professor Riley said his idea was that two people in the same department making the same salary and receiving exceptional merit should receive the same amount of money. President Pringle said differences among units in the University were already recognized in the legislated salary raises which are percentages. Professor Riley said a dollar amount would not encourage high-paid faculty to be exceptionally meritorious. Professor Richard Bergenback said that to keep percentages simply increases the disparity among faculty salaries. Professor Jocelyn Sanders said that to give percentage exceptional merit raises would severely limit the number of raises that could be given. Professor Schonblom said as an "at-large" member he will vote for this motion, but that as an engineer he would oppose it. Provost Packard said that in the past all raises have been determined on merit and we have not been permitted to give raises across the board. This would be an across-the-board raise at the exceptional merit level. This would not have been possible under President Boling, whether it will be now she couldn't say. Professor Wiley said EDO is designed to improve the productivity of the institution. We (Council) don't manage it. We should recommend what a professor should get of the small amount of funds available. Professor Nick Honerkamp said EDO is divisive and often a detriment to morale, and he believes exceptional merit raises that are the same across the board will also be demoralizing. Professor Maurice Edwards argued for the motion by pointing out we have professorships with constant amounts--the Guerry's.
This motion (Part Two) passed by a vote of 19:4:1.
The discussion then moved to Part Three. Professor Printz said she didn't believe it was possible for department heads to do this. President Pringle asked for clarification from the Committee. Professor Butterfield said faculty was frequently not aware of how work on department goals fits into the merit picture. The faculty cannot be told the percentage, but they could be told that working toward specific departmental goals was worth more than mere excellence in teaching. Professor Printz said this is an EDO issue, not a salary issue. Professor Butterfield said it is also a salary issue. Professor Wiley said this motion would force department heads to make the salary implications of the departmental objectives clear. Provost Packard said this motion was driven by the problem of a couple of exceptional cases. There is a salary appeal process in place now. There is a range in merit raises and we must weigh quality as well as quantity. Many variables must be considered. Professor Habte Churnet asked when we passed Part One are we recommending that if a faculty member gets merit he/she will get the "legislated average" raise? President Pringle said that that was not the way it works--for reasons already mentioned. Professor Jack Thompson asked where the department head would go to find out what the salary implications of the EDO objectives would be. Professor Larry Kleiman interpreted this as requiring the department head to explain to the faculty member the decision-making process for raises, i.e., explain just how the raises work. Professor Butterfield agreed that this was the intent.
This motion (Part Three) passed by a vote of 19:4:2.
The discussion then turned to the reinstitution of budget hearings. Professor Jan Printz moved this and Professor David Wiley seconded. Professor Wiley pointed out that budget hearings need to be open rather than structured and close-ended. Provost Packard pointed out that it is department heads and deans who will have to do the work for such hearings and that they need to be willing to do so. Professor Wiley said the Council was merely recommending. He wishes that these other Councils did not exist. He believes they really don't exist and that Council should not recognize them.
The motion passed without dissent and with one abstention.
Professor Felicia Sturzer moved that faculty be provided with free reserved parking. Professor Marcia Noe seconded. Professor Larry Ingle asked that "general" be removed from the first sentence under Parking. This was done by general agreement. Professor Ingle pointed out he would not benefit from this because he rides the bus. Professor Noe asked whether or not free parking to all faculty had been guaranteed by the UC City College-UT merger agreement. She related the story of President Boling saying to Pedro Campa, "How can you hold us to a fifteen-year old document?" To which Pedro responded, "Well, Mrs. Boling holds you to a thirty-year old document." Professor Schonblom said the merger agreement says that faculty members would not be penalized in their compensation by the merger. Somebody would probably argue that pay raises over the years allowed for the parking charges. Dean Renneisen pointed out that parking under the UT System is self-supporting. Therefore, free parking for faculty and staff will increase the cost of student parking. Professor Maurice Edwards retorted that this was an administrative problem. Professor Wiley said we need not worry about it. Professor Ingle suggested we ought to restore free admission to athletic events as well. Dean Renneisen commented that the Board of Regents System does not require that parking be self-supporting. There, parking is subsidized by money from their general fund. There is no free lunch. Professor Kleiman thought that free parking would increase the scramble for the inadequate available spots.
This motion passed by voice vote.
Because of the lateness of the hour it was decided to postpone further consideration of this report until November 17, 1988 and to move to the mission statement.
The Mission Statement
Acting on a suggestion from Professor Eric Schonblom the discussion of the mission statement moved directly to comments from the floor. Provost Packard explained that the mission statement (See Appendix E) is a copy of the last draft which was submitted to the Chancellor, a list of those involved in its development and the nine questions THEC asked be addressed in the draft.
Professor Ken Venters asked if it was true we have no classes taught by graduate students. Provost Packard said it was true because we have no graduate students under contract to teach classes. Professor Ingle asked about Council's relationship to the mission statement document. Should Council approve or endorse it? President Pringle said Council could do with it as it wishes. Council is acting in an advisory capacity to the Chancellor.
Professor Schonblom moved adoption of the statement. Professor Honerkamp seconded and then went on to deplore the omission of research from the "bullet" on page two. Professor Schonblom said the next to the last "bullet" is expected to arise from research. Provost Packard said the last two "bullets" address the products of research.
Professor Wiley objected to the use of "buzz" words. Specifically, he does not like the use of the word, "prestigious," in connection with faculty. We have a fine faculty, a quality faculty, an excellent faculty, a talented faculty; but it is not a prestigious faculty. We have no Nobel laureates and are neither Vanderbilt nor Harvard. The use of such words leads the reader to set the document aside as not important.
Professor Ingle moved to amend the original motion to delete the third "bullet" from the bottom. Professor Edwards seconded. Professor Ingle said he had spoken to this point at the hearing. He believes that doctoral programs require resources. He quoted Provost Packard as saying that this would not occur in the next five years. She mentioned that a doctorate in computer science might be available in the next ten years. That department will have to be built up in the next five years to gear up for this. The budget is a unit. Money for this must come from somewhere else in the budget. It will delete funds from existing programs. Professor Felicia Sturzer responded that doctoral-granting institutions receive additional funding. To cut us off from such a possibility on the frontend is self-defeating and contrary to progress. Professor Wiley also spoke against the amendment. He said the merger agreement spoke to doctoral programs for UTC. We need to go for it. Professor Printz reminded Council that last year we were not funding our master's program at anything close to the rate of other Tennessee institutions. Provost Packard said she had said it would take at least five years to implement a doctoral program. We need to begin the planning now. She mentioned computer applications as the possible first area. This is much broader than computer science. This area would require little additional funding due to the existence of CECA. It is more a question of changing focus. Doctoral programs have a wonderful potential for resources--from various external sources. Professor Jack Thompson said the available resource pool is not fixed and finite if we do new and different programs. We need to study the resource pool. Professor Ingle, speaking as a Tennessee citizen, said we should not try to compete with UTK. We are a quality undergraduate institution. He does not feel we can mount a quality doctoral program.
The amendment failed by voice vote.
Returning to the main motion, Professor Wiley said he was bemused by the first sentence of the mission statement. Its meaning is unclear. The sentence needs to be recast.
Professor Ingle asked about the term "selected." Does it mean "few?" Associate Provost Marvin Ernst said it means if we find enthusiastic faculty and some needs in the area, programs will be selected to meet them. "Selected" means we will not be a comprehensive doctoral institution, but we will, by a process, have chosen those areas we want to pursue. Dean Charles Renneisen said the Committee preferred "selected" to "few." Professor David Brodsky said "selected" meant "carefully chosen." Professor Ingle was worried about how many were to be selected.
Professor Printz expressed concern over whether extensive night courses would be scheduled. Do we really have the resources for small classes, personalized advising, etc.? Service is not mentioned. What does improved student academic performance mean? Provost Packard said we will measure whether students do better - we will look at grades as well as testing in each area.
Professor Ingle asked if the "bullets" were priorities. Provost Packard said they were recommended as such.
Professor Maurice Edwards asked where the stadium fits in. The Provost said the stadium is not a major issue compared with the things listed.
Professor Tom Bibler called for a quorum. A quorum was not present.
The time for the next meeting was set for 3:15 p.m. on Thursday, November 10, 1988 in the Signal Mountain Room of the University Center.
The meeting adjourned for lack of a quorum at 5:25 p.m.
Faculty Council Nugget
President Peter Pringle stated that a fixed dollar amount for exceptional merit raises
would allow a faculty member thus rewarded to take a student to lunch in the Chickamauga
Room. It was not clear whether this was to be a reward for the student.