THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES
April 21, 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, Jack Freeman, Nick Honerkamp, Larry Ingle, Doug Kingdon, David Levine, Loretta Prater, Richard Rice, Ossama Saleh, Greg Sedrick, Edgar Shawen, Clint Smullen, Larry Tillman, John Tinkler, Joe Trahan, Jeannette Vallier, Terry Walters, Carolyn Wiley, David Wiley, Sally Young
ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Monte Coulter, Susan Davidson, Fritz Efaw, Howard Finch, John Garrett, Clifford Parten, Jim Stroud, Ling-Jun Wang
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Harbaugh, Charles Renneisen
AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Walker Breland, Tyler Deierhoi, Tom Gavin, Renée Lorraine, Marea Rankin, Mary Tinkler
Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 3:20 p.m. by President Tom Bibler.
Approval of Minutes
Under Report from the Committee on Budget and Economic Status, regarding salary adjustments, Professor Will Bertin said that the question should read, "While the adjustments were significant, were the performances substantially different?"
Under Old Business, when change in health care was discussed as a reduction in benefits, Nick Honerkamp said his comment should read that the change could be viewed in the same light as if the State had reduced our retirement benefits unilaterally.
The minutes were approved as amended.
Speakers and Special Events Committee
Professor Bill Butterfield, chair, noted that he had turned in his report at the last meeting he attended. He is now reporting on the possible convocation he mentioned last time. He would like to have a committee appointed to study the possibilities. Students would meet their classes and go as a group to convocation.
Professor Loretta Prater moved and Professor Martha Butterfield seconded the motion to appoint a committee to study the issue.
Professor Edgar Shawen said that the wording of the document suggested that the event had already been approved.
Professor Bill Butterfield said he agreed with Professor Shawens remark, but the Committee which is appointed to study the issue does not have to decide to hold such an event. Their responsibility will be to find out what type of an event, if any, is wanted.
Professor Richard Rice asked if the Committee would report back to Faculty Council.
Professor Bill Butterfield said yes.
The motion passed with a voice vote.
Professor Walker Breland, chair, said that his committee had followed the "charge" to the committee guidelines in the Faculty Handbook. He then read the report which is attached to these minutes.
President Bibler asked that the 1994-1995 athletic calendar be distributed with the minutes.
Professor Steve White, chair, said that his committee had begun by reviewing the way Cum Laude, Magna Cum Laude, and Summa Cum Laude were determined. After review, the committee saw no reason to change.
They then turned their attention to distance learning matters. The committee asked for Faculty Council action on several items, labeled 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E in its report. Professor Doug Kingdon moved and Professor Greg Sedrick seconded the motion to approve distance learning recommendations 2A through 2E. (A copy of these items is attached to these minutes.)
Professor Larry Ingle asked if Faculty Council had ever approved the principle of Distance Learning.
President Bibler said no.
Professor Ingle asked for background. Is there a hidden agenda?
Professor White said that Distance Learning is in effect; its being done. He believes it will continue to be done and will be expanded. His committee did not consider whether it should be done. It is done, and he wanted to make sure that Distance Learning has appropriate standards.
Criminal Justice is currently doing it. Their courses have been approved by the Curriculum Committee. Academic Standards wants further approval by the Curriculum Committee and Faculty Council to make courses eligible for Distance Learning.
Professor David Wiley said that he was startled by multiple locations. Will we be like Antioch was years ago? Under whose aegis are these courses being arranged? How do we arrange distance sites?
Professor Ingle said that faculty has control of curriculum. These courses seem to have popped up without our knowledge.
Professor White said his report was concerned only with UTC credit hours. We are not concerned if someone beams courses in here for credit granted elsewhere.
Professor James Avery asked if the courses we beam out have the same standards as the ones we have in our regular classrooms.
President Bibler said that Criminal Justice had already been taking courses to Knoxville; Distance Learning makes it easier for them to do it.
Professor Martha Butterfield asked if there was concern that the courses are changing because they are going out over Distance Learning. If courses have already been approved, why should they get further approval?
Professor White responded that the committees debate concerned typical courses: teachers lecture, students take notes, and students take exams. The committee believed this type of course could be handled well. Courses such as chemistry with a lab experience would not be suitable. Professor White teaches courses which have a lot of group activity; he could not do that with Distance Learning.
Professor Martha Butterfield suggested that individual departments should decided this.
Professor White responded that the Committee wanted the Curriculum Committee and Faculty Council to certify courses after reading arguments from the department.
Professor Nick Honerkamp spoke in favor of the motion. The question has not come up before because we have not had the technology.
Professor Richard Rice sees tremendous implications ten years down the road. We are in the service industry. We could have one master teacher to reach 40 or 50 classes around the state. It might affect the quality of education in general. On the other hand, courses with small enrollment could profit from this, as his Japanese class did several years ago. He is not sure the Standards Committee should be concerned with broader implications of Distance Learning, but he believes that Faculty Council should.
President Bibler noted that Provost Grayson Walker plans to address this issue at a later date.
Professor Larry Ingle had a question about the technology. How is Distance Learning accomplished?
Professor White said that currently, closed-circuit television is used to insure the quality of the picture.
Professor Ingle asked if that will change.
Professor White did not know.
Professor Ingle believed it could change later and such change might mean that anyone could get hold of it.
Professor White noted that more classrooms for Distance Learning are planned in the future.
Professor Kingdon called for the question.
The motion passed unanimously.
Professor Sally Young asked if Distance Learning courses would be so identified in the STARS.
Professor White said that he did not know.
Professor Kingdon thought it would seem logical to do so.
Professor Tyler Deierhoi, chair, reported that the Bookstore Committee had met three times: To examine the Barnes and Noble contract and its support of student scholarships; to review the existing textbook adoption policy, which has not been reviewed since 1980; and to discuss textbook adoption guidelines, which are attached to their report (and to these minutes).
These guidelines will be submitted to Faculty Council for approval by next years committee.
Professor Don Cassell, chair, sent his committees report because he has a permanent Thursday commitment and can never meet with Council.
Continuing Education did not send a report to this years committee. In fact, the Continuing Education Committee did no work this year; it was totally non-functioning. He suggests referring this matter to the Handbook Committee to let them determine if the committee is a viable concern.
Professor Larry Ingle suggested that Council could move to abolish it.
President Bibler said that we could do anything we want.
Professor Ingle moved and Professor Greg Sedrick seconded the motion to abolish the Continuing Education Committee. Professor Sedrick said he too had served on the Committee and they almost abolished it then.
Professor David Wiley asked if we had the original charge to the Committee.
President Tom Bibler read the charge from the Faculty Handbook.
Professor Sedrick noted that they had tried to do what they were charged with, but received no cooperation from Continuing Education.
Professor David Wiley said that there is a problem. We should be careful that courses offered by Continuing Education do not intrude upon our courses. He urges academic oversight.
President Bibler asked if we should invite Dean Marilyn Willis to talk with Council about this matter.
Professor Avery asked if the Continuing Education Advisory Council was still meeting.
Professor Sedrick said that the Advisory Council was separate from the committee. You are supposed to have courses referred to departments, and that is being done.
Professor Will Bertin asked if there was no report from the Continuing Education people.
Professor Sedrick said they received a catalogue and a note saying that courses had been approved by departments.
Professor Honerkamp remarked that if the committee has nothing to report, why have the committee?
Professor Terry Walters suggested that the job of reporting could be given to another committee.
Professor Martha Butterfield said it had been an on-going problem, but that we should not overlook the possibility of a future problem.
Professor James Avery said that faculty is supposed to oversee curriculum. Are we possibly getting rid of an avenue we should be concerned with?
Professor Walters asked if the Curriculum Committee or Standards Committee could oversee this matter.
Professor Jack Freeman asked if there was a difference between Continuing Education credit and regular academic credit.
Professor Butterfield said yes.
President Bibler noted that some courses can receive both, for example, Scuba Diving.
Professor Avery asked if the responsibility for reporting could be switched to the Curriculum Committee. Would it require a Handbook change?
Professor Honerkamp noted that abolishing the committee would require a Handbook change. So would the addition of duties to another committee.
Professor David Wiley called for the question.
The motion passed 16-11-2.
Professor Butterfield asked what course of action we should take to oversee courses in Continuing Education that receive academic credit.
Professor David Wiley moved and Professor Nick Honerkamp seconded the motion to revise the Handbook to show oversight of Continuing Education courses that receive academic credit as a responsibility of the Curriculum Committee.
The motion passed unanimously.
Departmental Honors Committee
Professor John Phillips, chair, distributed his committees report.
Professor David Wiley moved and Professor John Tinkler seconded approval of the projects.
Professor James Avery asked if the untitled projects will eventually be titled.
Professor Phillips said not to his knowledge.
Professor Larry Ingle noted that Aaron Fortners project was titled, but he cannot remember what it is; Professor Ingle would not have passed him without a title.
The motion passed unanimously.
Professor Phillips reported on the problems of the North Callahan award. Applications for the award are submitted in the same time frame as new honors project proposals and review of those which have been recommended for highest honors. The committee had requested two awards, one for science and one for humanities, but North Callahan did not want to change.
Professor Phillips said that it was difficult to determine the GPA of Humanities majors because of the variety of courses which could be counted; he must wait until the last minute.
Faculty Administrative Relations Committee
Professor Jim Hiestand, chair, made one recommendation; another case is pending. Professor Hiestand thanks all people for their cooperation with him over the last two-and-a-half years.
He has been distressed to discover factions within campus departments.
He personally recommends committees within each school or college to review cases before they get to the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee. It would be good to get things resolved before positions become solidified.
Professor Wiley asked if the factions were within the area of professional interests.
Professor Hiestand said the factions tended to be personal, not professional.
Professor Ingle asked if establishing such a committee would help to improve cordiality and unselfish pursuit of professional goals.
Professor Hiestand believed it would be a step in the right direction.
Faculty Research Committee
Professor Tom Gavin, chair, said his committee had funded eight summer fellowships ($27,000), twenty faculty research grants ($49,000), and twenty-two provost-student awards ($20,000) for a total of $96,000.
Professor Aniekan Ebiefung asked if Professor Gavin had information about what level of faculty applied and what level were funded.
Professor Gavin said he did not have exact percentages. The committee followed this procedure: They would look at the merits of the proposals rather than at the characteristics of individuals.
Professor Ebiefung asked if it would be better to have blind proposals.
Professor Gavin said that the committee had considered it. They had thought that in a large environment, it would be worth pursuing. Last year, however, they decided not to go in that direction because sometimes members of the committee already know who is doing that type of research.
Professor Ebiefung said that blind proposals protect those who are not known. The National Science Foundation, for example, uses blind review.
Professor Nick Honerkamp said that he can see both sides. The committee does not look at rank. He does not know how blind reviewing protects those who are not known.
Professor Lloyd Davis noted that if you know the name of someone, you may be able to discuss the proposal. You could talk to a person on that committee.
Professor Ebiefung asked what a submitter could do if he or she did not have a person on the committee.
Professor Gavin said that the composition of the committee has been such that there has been broad representation. Unfortunately, there are those on the committee who do not come and participate, albeit a small percentage.
Proposals are ranked or rated individually. Forms are returned to Professor Gavin. After recording scores in the computer, he assigns them a number. Only the score at the top assigned to a person is shown. He computes averages, and committee members agree on a way to rank proposals. Professor Gavin then follows the groups desires. Sometimes they adopt the top scores; other times they go through proposals one by one and discuss the strengths and weaknesses. The proposals are examined thoroughly. Sometimes there is no one on the committee to speak to the proposal because the proposal was inherently weak.
On April 14, the Committee suggested that a fuller, richer explanation of what they would like to see in the proposal be devised. There were wide discrepancies in the manner in which explanations were presented in proposals submitted this year. Sometimes the shortest proposals do not give enough information for the committee to evaluate.
Professor Marea Rankin asked how many applications had been received for Faculty Research.
Professor Gavin thought about 35.
Professor Will Bertin asked how funding compared with last year.
Professor Gavin said that the committee had used a few carryover funds. They have left a few such funds for next years committee, too.
Professor Nick Honerkamp, chair, said that the Handbook has been approved. He asked that we recycle the Faculty Information Manual. The Committee will make a recommendation for next year concerning Honorary Faculty which would not require a Handbook change.
Because there had been much concern about the criteria for tenure, he urges next years committee to work on wording of the sections on promotion and tenure.
The committee also recommends that the Faculty Council President be changed to a single two-year term.
The new requirement for tenure requires teaching. Someone questioned whether that was a problem for new administrators. Professor Honerkamp thought that it might be because administrators are tenured as faculty members, so they must follow the guidelines. They may decline tenure if they wish.
Someone questioned the presence of administrators at tenure meetings. It is covered in section 3.4.1. of the current Handbook and is clearly prohibited.
Professor Larry Tillman asked if we should make a formal request to administrators that they have enough time to teach before they go up for tenure.
Professor Honerkamp replied that if they want tenure within two years, they should teach within two years.
Professor Tillman asked whether the Provost negotiated the number of years of teaching an administrator could count.
Dr. Jane Harbaugh said yes. In the past seven years, it has changed. Previously, administrators could not be tenured. Dr. Harbaugh was not sure whether it was a System or local policy. In any event, it has been changed.
Professor Tillman said he knows of people who had to submit documents for tenure before they had had a chance to teach a course.
Professor Honerkamp said that this should put them on notice.
Professor Tillman said he thinks more needs to be considered.
Professor Wiley suggested that we need to specify a time in the day for them to teach and decide if they will be compensated for it.
Professor Marea Rankin, chair, said that the Honor Court had been consulted about plagiarism; one case went to trial and an appeal has been made. Another case is pending.
She suggests that faculty make it clear to students what the teacher considers plagiarism and proctor exams carefully.
Professor Jeannette Vallier, chair, said they had not met but had attended luncheons, compliments of Dr. Harbaugh. She said their committee really came into being only with the adoption of the new Handbook.
Professor Gary McDonald reported that the committee held ten meetings; they meet throughout the summer. Of the 1,032 petitions received, the Committee handled 260 and departments handled 772. They considered 34 substitutions and waivers. The Committee has a heavy load.
Professor Richard Rice commented that he thinks the Committee is even more burdened than it was when he was on it. He wondered if there had been discussion of separating the types of petitions to spread out the work load.
Professor McDonald said that General Education petitions are now handled by the General Education Committee. His Committee has not discussed dividing. He wondered if we truly want another committee!
Professor Martha Butterfield said that discussions had been held last year to decrease the number of petitions by encouraging departments to handle their own course substitutions.
Professor McDonald said that Engineering has a committee to screen petitions to see if they make sense before they are sent to the committee. He noted that if petitions were written more clearly, the process would move along more rapidly.
Professor David Wiley said he objected to hearing a report from the Publications Board because he did not believe it was a Faculty Council Committee; its a committee of the administration. People other than faculty are on the Publications Board.
Dean Renneisen agreed that it is an administrative committee.
Dr. Harbaugh said yes, theres a Publications Board which is a standing committee.
Professor Wiley said that they elect their own chair.
Professor Joe Trahan said that they did not.
President Bibler said it was a moot point whether the report should be heard.
Professor Ingle asked the chair to rule.
Dean Renneisen noted that the Trustees had mandated a Student Publication Board in 1970.
Professor Honerkamp remarked that Faculty Council had heard their report before.
President Bibler saw no advantage in losing our control and approved the report being given.
Dean Renneisen reported that this committee hears reports from the editor of two publications and recommends editors of publications; the Chancellor approves them and announces them on Honors Day.
This year Betsy Cook is faculty advisor to student publications. They are also moving to try to get pass/fail credit for participation in publications.
Because of the lateness of the hour, President Bibler suggested hearing the remainder of the agenda at the organizational meeting on Reading Day in Grote 129 at 1:00.
Professor Ingle said that he thought Old Business should be covered before adjourning. He was particularly interested in developments concerning the lawsuit over loss in health care benefits.
President Bibler said he had contacted the lawyers on our faculty and four others. All were cordial but not helpful. One law firm has investigated the possibility of suing Blue Cross for antitrust; their recommendation to other clients was that it would be very expensive and probably to no avail.
The consensus of attorneys is that we dont have much of a case; we dont have a clear-cut handle on benefits. They personally agree that they have been diminished, but it is not clear how benefits are awarded. We can complain to our employer, which we have done.
Professor Ingle said that perhaps we should consider union cards.
Professor Edgar Shawen remarked, "Thats not funny."
Professor Ingle said he was not being funny.
Professor Wiley suggested that we could adjourn now for the next academic year; we do not have to meet.
Professor Wiley moved adjournment.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:16 p.m.