shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)

THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

April 16, 1992
Signal Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Dave Anderson, Stephanie Bellar, Tom Bibler, Martha Butterfield, Pedro Campa, Terry Carney, David Carrithers, Joe DePari, Robert Duffy, Arlie Herron, Debbie Ingram, Doug Kingdon, Ed McMahon, Gail Meyer, Fred Nixon, Betty Pickett, Peter Pringle, Marea Rankin, Edgar Shawen, David Shepherd, James Stroud, John Trimpey, Margaret Trimpey, Jeannette Vallier, Robert Wilson

 

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Stan Byrd, Don Cassell, George Helton, Irene Loomis, Tapan Sen, Gavin Townsend, Ken Venters, Donald Weisbaker, Terry Zivney

 

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Harbaugh, Sandra Packard, Charles Renneisen

 

AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Eugene Bartoo, Ron Cox, Betsy Darken, Ray Fox, Bill Gurley, Pam Holder, Nick Honerkamp, Jim Macomber, Patsy Reynolds, Leland Robinson, Greg Sedrick, Roy Stinnett, Bob Swansbrough, Mary Tanner, Caryl Taylor

Summary of Actions

Council corrected and approved completed departmental honors projects for May graduation and new proposals; approved a quorum of five for the Departmental Honors Committee this summer; and granted permission for the committee to approve projects for August graduation without a further request to the Council.

Council approved graduate curriculum proposals from the Department of Accounting and Finance, School of Engineering, and Department of Curriculum and Instruction.

Council received the report of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Admissions, but delayed further action until a study is completed and its results are available.

Council approved undergraduate curriculum proposals from the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, the School of Nursing, and the Department of Economics.

Council received the reports of nine committees.

Council adopted a resolution on minimum faculty member salary increases.

Council approved the establishment of a Faculty Rating of Administration Committee

Council tabled a motion to accept the final report of the EDO Task Force.

Council defeated a proposal to place the draft of the Faculty Handbook on the agenda for the faculty meeting on April 23.

Call to Order

President Butterfield called the meeting to order at 3:22 p.m.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the meeting of April 2, 1992, were approved.

Committee Reports

Departmental Honors Committee

Professor Caryl Taylor (chair) presented the committee's report (Attachment A). She announced two corrections: the elimination of Laura A. Milner (Completed projects for May graduation) and the replacement of Herb Burhenn with Don Weisbaker (New Proposals - Randy Cagle).

Motion 1: To approve completed projects for graduation on May 4; to approve new projects; to grant permission to conduct committee business during the coming summer with a quorum of five; and to grant to the committee permission for the approval of projects for August graduation without submitting a further request to the Council. Moved by Professor Bibler, seconded by Professor McMahon.

Motion 1 was approved by voice vote, with 1 abstention.

Professor Taylor reported that the committee had completed a handbook for departmental honors and that a copy had been sent to all department heads. Project directors and students working on projects would receive a copy. She requested reactions.

Graduate Council

Professor Jim Macomber (chair) presented a proposal on core courses in the MBA program (Attachment B).

Motion 2: To allow students to take BACC 531 or BACC 530 as a core course in the MBA program. Moved by Professor Carney, seconded by Professor Bibler.

Motion 2 was approved by voice vote.

He introduced a proposal for revision of the master of science degree in engineering (Attachment C). Professor Carney distributed additional information.

Motion 3: To approve the revision in the electrical engineering concentration of the master of science degree in engineering. Moved by Professor Kingdon, seconded by Professor Bibler.

Motion 3 was approved by voice vote.

Finally, Professor Macomber presented a proposal for the elimination of business education from secondary education (Attachment D).

Motion 4: To delete the business education concentration in the M.Ed. secondary education program. Moved by Professor Bibler, seconded by Professor Ingram.

Motion 4 was approved by voice vote.

Ad-hoc Committee on Admissions

Professor Meyer, chair, reviewed the committee's report and the addendum (Attachment E). She noted that the report contained details of Fall 1991 admissions, organized by category: regular, conditional, and exceptions, or those who did not meet either regular or conditional requirements.

She observed that the addendum underscored the difficulty the committee faced in trying to determine the freshman admission requirements approved by the UT Board of Trustees. The addendum and what followed it drew attention to apparent conflicts in admission policies.

Associate Provost Harbaugh detailed the background to the decision of the Board of Trustees. She was followed by Provost Packard, who presented additional information and said that policy number 2 (addendum, page 5) had worked well and would not require trustees' approval.

Motion 5: To receive the report and addendum of the Admissions Committee and to adopt proposal number 1 (addendum, page 5). Moved by Professor Carney, seconded by Professor Herron.

Professor Carney said that the intent of the proposal was to provide the committee with enough information to make even-handed decisions.

Professor Betsy Darken had several observations: (1) the admission policies were confused; (2) the policies had to take into account the ramifications of the desegregation order; (3) it was time-consuming to review transcripts; (4) decisions often depended on which committee members were present at a particular meeting; (5) the original admission requirements had been based on a statistical study of student performance. What was required was a follow-up study to determine the effectiveness of the policy implemented in 1989.

Amendment 1: To amend Motion 5 by substituting proposal number 2 (addendum, page 5) for proposal number 1. Moved by Professor Anderson, seconded by Professor Duffy.

Professor Shawen concluded: "That would be like the camel poking its nose into the tent."

Provost Packard advised that Chancellor Obear supported proposal number 2, but not number 1.

Professor Carney said that he agreed with Professor Shawen, but he avoided reference to any animal. He wanted to protect the faculty's role in admission policies. What was needed was a message to high schools that UTC admission standards were real. Establishment of an "exceptions" category reflected a change in the standards.

Amendment 1 failed by voice vote.

Professor Margaret Trimpey liked the idea of a follow-up study, as suggested by Professor Darken.

Professor McMahon was concerned that proposal number 1 did not address the validity of test scores and the obligation to consider minority enrollment.

Motion 6: To substitute for Motion 5 the following motion: "To receive the report and addendum of the Admissions Committee and to delay action until such time as the report of a study is available." Moved by Professor Margaret Trimpey, seconded by Professor Wilson.

Motion 6 passed by voice vote.

Curriculum Committee

Professor Kingdon (chair) reviewed proposals from the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, the School of Nursing, and the Department of Economics (Attachment F).

Professor Eugene Bartoo asked if there was an error in the vote on the package from Curriculum and Instruction. Should it not read "10-0-1" and not "10-1-0"? Professor Kingdon checked his notes and agreed that an error had been made.

Motion 7: To approve the proposals. Moved by Professor Margaret Trimpey, seconded by Professor Bibler.

Motion 7 passed, with 23 votes in favor, 0 opposed, and 0 abstentions.

Professor Campa inquired if all departments had met TERPI requirements. Professor Kingdon replied that courses were still being developed and that they would be coming forward for consideration.

Other Committee Reports

President Butterfield requested that the Council receive committee reports distributed with the minutes of the April 2 meeting (Academic Standards, Bookstore, Continuing Education, Faculty-Administrative Relations, Honor Court, Library, and Petitions) and reports of two committees distributed in the packed for the April 16 meeting, Ad Hoc Committee to Evaluate Public Service Mission of U.T.C. (Attachment G) and Publications Board (Attachment H).

Motion 8: To receive the committee reports. Moved by Professor DePari, seconded by Professor Stroud.

Motion 8 passed by voice vote.

Executive Committee

President Butterfield expressed her thanks to all who have served on Faculty Council this year and, especially, to those who are retiring from the Council.

She reported that many Fall 1992 classes have already been closed and reminded members that many part-time faculty are receiving "abysmal pay." "I don't want to hear that the administration didn't know that this (closed classes) was happening," she added. To underscore her point, she announced that "we have students going to Chattanooga State."

Finally, she introduced a resolution submitted by a member of the Council (Attachment I).

Motion 9: To adopt the resolution. Moved by Professor Bibler, seconded by Professor DePari.

Motion 9 passed by voice vote.

Old Business

Department Head Evaluation

Motion 10: To remove from the table Motion 4 of the meeting of February 6, 1992. Moved by Professor DePari, seconded by Professor Carney.

Motion 10 was approved by voice vote.

Motion 11: To substitute for Motion 4 of the meeting of February 6, 1992, the following motion: "A. The administration of UTC shall be rated by the faculty for the purpose of improving administration. The faculty shall cooperate with other campus groups so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, but shall not be deterred from achieving its purpose. To implement this policy, Faculty Council establishes the following committee. B. Faculty Rating of Administration Committee. Purpose. The committee is responsible for recommending policies, procedures, and instrumentation to the Faculty Council for the rating of administration by faculty and for utilizing rating results to improve administration. Membership. No fewer than eight (8) faculty members; two (2) students; ex officio: Director of the Office of Institutional Research." Moved by Professor Anderson, seconded by Professor Wilson.

Professor Anderson said that the motion, if approved, would put administrators in the same category as faculty members. The wording of part B of the motion was identical to that for the purpose and membership of the Student Rating of Faculty Committee.

Professor Pringle asked for clarification. Was it the intent of the motion that faculty rate all administrators, starting with department heads and working up through all higher levels of administration? Professor Anderson replied that that was the intent. He added that the first step was to set up a committee.

Professor Mary Tanner, chair of the Academic Department Heads' Council, inquired if the motion was broader than the recommendation for the review of heads of academic departments. President Butterfield responded that it was, since it included other administrators.

Motion 11 passed by voice vote.

EDO Task Force

Motion 12: To accept the final report of the EDO Task Force (Attachment J). Moved by Professor Herron, seconded by Professor Bibler.

Professor Honerkamp, chair of the task force, observed that EDO was exceedingly complex. The task force had accepted its premise and had sought to adjust it, not replace it. The report contained a recommendation to expand the number of EDO categories to provide consistency in the "merit" rating. Further, deans should not have to work under a rigid cap on "exceptional merit" rating recommendations. The restrictions had had a "terrible" effect, said Professor Honerkamp. He said that recommendation number 5 was his favorite. He would like the expectations for "service" to be stated more explicitly. In sum, he concluded that the recommendations would provide a better instrument for determining meritorious achievement.

Professor Shawen said that the practical result of the expansion in EDO categories would likely be the placing of most faculty in the third of four categories rather than, as presently, in the second of three categories.

Professor Carney opined that the training of department heads in salary administration was the only way in which heads would use the categories in reasonable ways. "That training has not happened," he said.

Professor Anderson preferred three EDO categories. He supported all the recommendations except the first.

Professor Swansbrough liked the idea of more categories. Department heads would be able to differentiate among different levels of achievement.

Professor Margaret Trimpey said she did not see anything changing as a result of the recommendation.

Motion 13: To table Motion 12. Moved by Professor Carrithers, seconded by Professor DePari.

Motion 13 passed, with 11 votes in favor, 7 opposed, and 0 abstentions.

Handbook

Professor Carney, chair of the Handbook Committee, reminded members that nobody had seen the draft of Chapter 1 of the Faculty Handbook covering UT System and campus descriptions. It could be available for the general faculty meeting on April 23.

He reported two significant changes since Faculty Council reviewed drafts of other chapters: (1) the establishment of a Readmissions Committee to relieve the load of the Admissions and Petitions committees; (2) inclusion of a statement on the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Professor Carney proposed that the draft of the entire handbook be presented to the faculty on April 23 so that it could proceed for consideration by the UT Board of Trustees.

Motion 14: To place the draft of the Faculty Handbook on the agenda for the April 23 meeting of the faculty. Moved by Professor Kingdon, seconded by Professor Herron.

Professor Bibler opposed the motion. The handbook's contents were too important to be handled in this way.

Motion 14 failed by voice vote.

Adjournment

Council adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Peter K. Pringle

Secretary

top.gif (189 bytes)