THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES
November 21, 1991
Signal Mountain Room
ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Dave Anderson, Martha Butterfield, Stan Byrd, Pedro Campa, Terry Carney, David Carrithers, Joe DePari, Robert Duffy, George Helton, Arlie Herron, Anne Hunt, Debbie Ingram, Irene Loomis, Ed McMahon, Fred Nixon, Peter Pringle, Edgar Shawen, James Stroud, John Trimpey, Margaret Trimpey, Jeannette Vallier, Ken Venters, Donald Weisbaker, Robert Wilson, Terry Zivney
ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Stephanie Bellar, Tom Bibler, Don Cassell, Gail Meyer, Betty Pickett, Marea Rankin, Tapan Sen, David Shepherd, Gavin Townsend
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Harbaugh, Joe Jackson, Sandra Packard, Charles Renneisen
AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: James Avery, Paul Gaston, Richard Hannah, Kim Hixson, Doug Kingdon, Kittrell Rushing, David Sachsman, Roy Stinnett, Mary Tanner, Joseph Trahan
Summary of Actions
Council approved curriculum proposals from the Chemistry Department and the
Council tabled until the next meeting documents from the General Education
Committee on the Committee's role and function and the evaluation of General
Education transfer credits.
Council elected Professor Dave Anderson to the Graduate Council.
Call to Order
President Butterfield called the meeting to order at 3:22 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the meeting of October 31, 1991, were approved as circulated.
The minutes of the meeting of November 7, 1991, were corrected, as follows: Approval of Minutes (page 1): replace "No minutes were maintained for the discussion meeting on Halloween" with "Minutes of the October 31 meeting would be distributed with those of November 7." Executive Committee (page 2): in line 4, insert after "... of budget cuts" the following sentence: "The legislators also indicated that letters to the editor and columns in the newspaper by faculty opposing funding for education have not helped the cause."
The November 7 minutes, as revised, were approved, with one negative vote abstention.
Professor Doug Kingdon (chair) presented proposals from the Chemistry Department and the Communication Department (Attachment A).
Motion 1: To approve the proposals. Moved by Professor Weisbaker, seconded by Professor Venters.
Professor Zivney inquired about the concerns of the three committee members who had voted against the Communication Department's proposal. Professor Kingdon replied that one of the concerns revolved around the change of Math 210 from a required to a recommended course. There had also been discussion about the absence of requirements in political science and economics.
Professor Wilson observed that money could have been saved if the proposal from the Communication Department had been copied on both sides and smaller type had been used.
Professor Byrd wanted to know if there was another General Education Category F course that would be more beneficial than Math 210. Professor Kittrell Rushing, head of the Communication Department, responded that the goal was to give majors maximum flexibility in line with their career choice. Math 210 would be recommended during the department's advising process. Professor Byrd asked what advice would be given in the Advisement Office. Professor Rushing said that Ms. Brenda Davis, Advisement Director, had proposed that Math 210 be identified in the advisement booklet as the recommended course.
Professor Nixon wondered if there were circumstances in which Math 210 would not be recommended. Professor Rushing asked Professor Pringle to state the observation he had made to the Curriculum Committee. Professor Pringle said that he had tried to emphasize to the committee that majors planning a career in creative areas in advertising, broadcasting and public relations, might find another Category F course desirable. To require all majors to complete a course deemed desirable for some smacked of the same kind of inflexibility for which the department had been criticized by external reviewers.
At 3:35 p.m., Professor Weisbaker called for the question. Some members seemed to believe that he was trying to cut off discussion. One questioned if he was suffering from an attention-span problem. No, Professor Weisbaker assured the body. He was merely indicating that he had heard enough and was ready to vote.
Motion 1 was approved, with four abstentions.
General Education Committee
Professor John Trimpey (chair) presented documents containing responses to charges from the Executive Committee on (1) the role of the General Education Committee and (2) the evaluation of General Education transfer credits (Attachment B).
With the exception of items 4 and 5, the response to the first charge basically was a re-wording of the committee's current activities. The committee felt that transfer credits should be evaluated according to the guidelines for each General Education category, and not by specific courses. That was the justification for item 5.
Moving to the second charge, Professor Trimpey said that the same rationale was behind item 7.
Professor Carney questioned whether item 6 was necessary, given the contents of item 7. Professor Zivney pointed out that there was a difference between the two items. One (item 7) was designed for students seeking a UTC degree. The other (item 6) was for those who merely wanted to take UTC courses. Associate Provost Harbaugh noted that item 6 was a reiteration of current practice.
Professor Ingram complained that transfer students enrolling in the Physical Therapy program encountered problems satisfying the Category G requirement before entering UTC. Once here, they had no room in their schedule for General Education courses. Professor Carney concluded that the committee's proposal to use category guidelines should permit such students to meet the requirement.
Professor Butterfield noted that many Nursing students register as post-baccalaureate, second-degree students. Wouldn't they fall under both items 6 and 7?
Amendment 1: to add "Non-degree seeking" at the start of item 6; to insert "post-baccalaureate" between "Second-degree seeking" and "students" in item 7; to change "coverage" to "guidelines" in item 7; and to add "guidelines" after "category" in item 8. Moved by Professor Margaret Trimpey, seconded by Professor Wilson.
Professor Avery, chair of the Petitions Committee, said that his committee was opposed to any change in its responsibility for reviewing transfer courses for equivalent UTC credit.
Dean Gaston wondered about the degree to which the requirement to file an appeal influenced new students. Professor Herron drew on his experience and replied that some leave in disgust before learning that they may appeal.
Amendment 1 passed, with one abstention.
Provost Packard had two questions about procedure. First, almost one-half of UTC students are transfers, resulting in a large amount of transcript evaluation. Because of staff shortages and turnover in the Admissions Office, she questioned whether the proposals would delay the notification of applicants. Perhaps the Graduate Office and the Admissions Office could advise Council of the impact. Second, she wondered if members of the General Education Committee realized that they would have to be available during summers and vacations if they assumed responsibility for appeals.
Professor Anderson asked if staff shortages could be alleviated by assessing a fee for transcript evaluation. Provost Packard responded that such a proposal would require approval by the UT Board of Trustees and the Tennessee Higher Education Commission (THEC).
Associate Provost Harbaugh said that it was obvious that the transcript evaluation process would have to be worked out. Perhaps the General Education Committee could get together with Ms. Brenda Davis and Ms. Marilyn Benson to iron out the details.
Professor Anderson wanted to know why the amended item 6 was necessary. A brief silence followed, and he proceeded to offer an amendment.
Amendment 2: To delete item 6, as amended. Moved by Professor Anderson, seconded by Professor Loomis.
Associate Provost Harbaugh argued against the amendment. If item 6 were removed, there would no longer be a clear distinction between non-degree seeking and degree seeking post-baccalaureate students.
Amendment 2 was withdrawn after some discussion on the possible interpretation of item 6 and an assurance that the item would be re-written.
Amendment 3: To re-word item 6, as follows: "Post-baccalaureate students with a degree from a regionally accredited college or university who are not seeking a degree do not need to meet UTC General Education requirements." Moved by Professor Stroud, seconded by Professor Anderson.
Professor Zivney inquired about the status of students from non-accredited institutions. Provost Packard replied that they are not admitted as post-baccalaureate students.
Amendment 3 passed unanimously.
Professor Carrithers wanted to "flesh out" the language of item 5 in the committee's proposed role. It was important, he cautioned, that students know what the process is.
Motion 2: To table the documents from the General Education Committee to the next Faculty Council meeting for clarification of the procedures envisaged under item 5 of "The Role and Function of the General Education Committee."
Motion 2 passed, with 10 in favor, 8 opposed and 0 abstentions.
Committee on Committees
Professor Zivney reported the committee's recommendation that Professor Anderson be elected to the Graduate Council.
Motion 3: To name Professor Anderson to the Graduate Council. Moved by Professor Zivney, seconded by Professor Wilson.
Motion 3 passed unanimously.
President Butterfield reported that she had received from Emerson Fly written responses to some of the questions posed by the committee to UT President Joe Johnson (Attachment C).
She reported, also, that the Deans' Council was preparing questions on University priorities for distribution to various UTC constituencies. They would be submitted to Chancellor Obear for his approval.
1. Provost Packard announced that a system-to-campus visit would take place on Monday, December 9, 1991.
2. President Butterfield announced that the evaluation of department heads would be one of the items included on the agenda for the December 5 meeting.
Council adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Peter K. Pringle