shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)

THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

April 25, 1995
Raccoon Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS 94-95 PRESENT: Valarie Adams, Jim Avery, Tom Bibler, Mary Brabston, Martha Butterfield, Ken Carson, Betsy Cook, Neal Coulter, Robert Duffy, Ahmed Eltom, John Garrett, Nick Honerkamp, Doug Kingdon, Renée Lorraine, John Lynch, Jim Macomber, Jim McDonell, Anna Panorska, Loretta Prater, Katherine Rehyansky, Mike Russell, Greg Sedrick, Maria Smith, Jim Stroud, John Tinkler, Jeannette Vallier, Ling-Jun Wang, David Wiley, Sally Young

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Prem Chopra, Lloyd Davis, Aniekan Ebiefung, Howard Finch, Larry Ingle, David Levine, Tom Payne, Margaret Trimpey

ELECTED MEMBERS 95-96 PRESENT: Tom Bibler, Mary Brabston, Martha Butterfield, Ken Carson, Betsy Cook, Neal Coulter, Robert Duffy, Ahmed Eltom, Shawn Evans, W. Leroy Fanning, Nick Honerkamp, Bruce Hutchinson, Phil Kazemersky, Doug Kingdon, Tomasz Kozubowski, Renée Lorraine, John Lynch, Jim Macomber, Robert Marlowe, Jim McDonell, Gail Meyer, Anna Panorska, John Phillips, Verbie Prevost, Bill Prince, Katherine Rehyansky, Mike Russell, Joyce Smith, Maria Smith, Kristin Switala, Sally Young

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Harbaugh, Fred Obear, Charles Renneisen, Grayson Walker

AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Deborah Arfken, Tim Summerlin, Roger Thompson, Bill Butterfield

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order by President Tom Bibler in the Raccoon Mountain Room at 3:20 p.m.

Approval of Minutes

Because the last meeting was April 20, the minutes were not yet ready and will be approved with the minutes of this meeting at the first Faculty Council meeting in the fall.

Introduction of New Members

Each member, former and new, introduced himself or herself to other members of the Council.

Report from Graduate Council

Chair Greg Sedrick presented the Proposal for Conditional Admission in the Graduate Division and explained its rationale.

The phrase "of initial enrollment" should be added in the fourth sentence of the Proposal section. The sentence should read, "Within two semesters of initial enrollment, the applicant must earn a grade of B or better in each graduate course and a cumulative 3.0 grade point average on all undergraduate and graduate courses taken during this time, or the applicant will be dismissed."

Discussion ensued about the taking of graduate and undergraduate courses at the same time. Professor Deborah Arfken, Director of Graduate Studies, explained that this changes how students "prove" themselves if they are not eligible for admission on the basis of their undergraduate work. Now they will try their hand at 500-level courses instead of 300- and 400-level courses. If they get a 3.0 or better on both the graduate courses and the undergraduate classes they take at that time, then they will be reviewed for regular admission.

Professor Mike Russell said that he has a student who is taking History 498 for graduate credit. Is that all right? Professor Arfken said that if she is not conditional it is fine; students may take nine hours of upper level undergraduate courses for graduate credit and apply them toward a degree.

Professor Ken Carson asked about non-degree seeking candidates (line three of the proposal section). Professor Arfken explained that some students indicate that they are not seeking a degree when they fill out the application.

Professor Doug Kingdon said that under Rationale, the word "be" should be inserted so that the sentence will read, "Conditional admission will not be extended to international students because…"

Professor Greg Sedrick moved to accept the Proposal, and Professor Doug Kingdon seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

Report of the Faculty/Administrative Relations Committee

At the previous Council meeting, we deferred action on recommendations 1, 2, and 4 until now. Professor Greg Sedrick moved and Professor Martha Butterfield seconded the motion to accept the recommendations.

Professor Bill Butterfield explained the rationale for the recommendations.

Because of the complexity of the issues, Professor Renée Lorraine moved and Professor Nick Honerkamp seconded the motion to have Professors Tom Bibler and Bill Butterfield appoint an Ad Hoc Committee to study the issues. They offered this as a substitute motion. Professor Honerkamp pointed out that as has been noted before, the recommendations do not have subjects; they are up in the air, and he would prefer an Ad Hoc Committee. Professor David Wiley asked for clarification. Would the committee study just one or all the recommendations? Professor Lorraine said the committee would look at 1, 2, and 4. The motion passed by voice vote.

Professor Wiley pointed out that the Faculty/Administrative Relations Committee is charged to do the mediation suggested in point #1. How a new system would work is cloudy. Any changes could also require revision of the Faculty Handbook, which has implications of a contractual nature.

Professor Bill Butterfield explained that the mediators would not be a substitute for the Faculty/Administrative Relations Committee; he thought faculty might use the mediators first to avoid having to take issues to the Committee.

Professor Lorraine said she would like to see the committee members receive mediation training.

Professor Martha Butterfield explained that these issues came to the forefront because the committee had heard seventeen complaints this year from one unit. That is a real time cruncher for faculty elected to this committee. These recommendations may signal a cry for help. Is this a misinterpretation?

Professor Bill Butterfield replied, "No, that’s fine."

Professor Wiley said he was glad we had voted for this. The Administration needs more time to think about this too. The Administration may not want to enter a mediation situation, because that changes its relationship with the faculty. Professor Ling Jun-Wang explained that mediation should deal only with serious problems. If the problem affects a whole department, it is important for the Dean and Provost to get feedback from faculty and communicate directly with them.

Bookstore Committee

Professor Greg Sedrick urged adopting the recommendations on the second page of the bookstore report.

President Bibler said that the first page of the report said that there were no recommendations. Professor Sedrick explained that the second page contains recommendations from a previous committee which were apparently never presented to Faculty Council. Associate Provost Jane Harbaugh said after examining her files at length, she believes that the 1977 committee did not report to Council.

Professor Sedrick said he would just give the report. Professor David Wiley thinks the vote on this should go to the next Council. The 1977 report was made when the University ran the bookstore; that is no longer the case. Publishing patterns have also changed, with editions changing rapidly. Furthermore, knowledge is changing quickly. Professor Wiley moved and Professor Honerkamp seconded the motion that we accept this report and ask next year’s bookstore committee to look at the recommendations.

The motion passed by voice vote.

Report of the Classroom Technology Committee

Professor Greg Sedrick presented the report which includes several recommendations. He explained the rationale for these recommendations. Professor Doug Kingdon moved and Professor Nick Honerkamp seconded the motion to accept the report.

Professor David Wiley is concerned about "carts." That seems to be an ancient technology. Now that we are being wired, can’t we bring technology to the classroom in that way? Professor Sedrick explained that the intent was not to have carts as such, but to have areas where items could be secured or a method of securing equipment in a particular classroom.

Professor Wiley said that encouraging production of classroom materials might lead to faculty members devising materials which could be used both here and elsewhere. Such materials should be considered an analogue for publication and encouraged by CECA.

Professor Honerkamp noted that recommendations 1, 2, and 5 actually depend on recommendation 3. Are we putting our "carts" before our horses? Did the Committee see number 3 as driving the others? Professor Sedrick said he sees Professor Honerkamp’s point, but that the Committee did not weigh them. He hopes all will be accepted.

Professor Carson said that he was putting himself at risk of seeming prehistoric, but were he given a choice between having a person to oversee implementation of these recommendations and getting good overheads, screens, and outlets in each room, he would vote for the latter in a minute. He is afraid we are moving down the technology road before we have the needed standards in place. Professor Sedrick agreed with Professor Carson, but reminded him that the recommendations are not prioritized. He will recommend that the Committee, if allowed to continue, set priorities. Professor Kingdon observed that there are levels of technology; for example, overheads are available in Hunter Hall but more sophisticated equipment is not.

Professor John Lynch said that we need some kind of consensus about how we are to reach the technological level of expertise that seems to be needed. We have not had departmental budgets with enough money to be able to achieve what we might like. Does the technology recommended here go to departments or to some central facility? How would the technology be delivered? Professor Sedrick said that the Committee had not reached consensus about that. The Committee was concerned that they did not have much input into this problem. Professor Mary Brabston noted that one reason to centralize it is that we frequently teach outside of our own building. Professor Loretta Prater observed that we might not even need a new person if we could make better use of those we have.

The motion passed by voice vote.

Professor Greg Sedrick moved to make the Classroom Technology Committee a full standing Faculty Council Committee. Professor Renée Lorraine seconded the motion.

Professor David Wiley spoke in favor of the motion, because we need to have a Committee to explore ways in which faculty may use computers as research tools. He wonders why we do not have access to the World Wide Web by dial in.

The motion passed by voice vote.

Report of the Academic Standards Committee

Professor Roger Thompson, Chair, reminded faculty that last year’s Council passed a resolution that courses taught by Distance Learning must be recertified by the Curriculum Committee. He wanted the Council to reissue the standard so that people would be aware of it. This year’s committee wants to put departments and committees on notice that there is a different review procedure; the intent is to satisfy the committee that the course is suitable for the distance learning environment.

Professor David Wiley observed that he did not know why he was talking so much; it must be because Professor Larry Ingle was out of town. He wondered who is putting programs on the air. Professor Stroud believed it was Continuing Education. Discussion continued on the quality of the picture and amount of interference on Channel 3.

Provost Grayson Walker said that all distance learning courses come out of departments. For example, Criminal Justice has a masters degree in Knoxville taught through distance learning. Continuing Education supplies technical assistance for the complicated "smart" classrooms. It takes charge of scheduling rooms in Chattanooga and Knoxville and can arrange transportation for teachers to go to Knoxville. The academic programming comes from departments.

Professor Wiley asked if there was course load relief. Provost Walker said that matter was handled in different ways. Generally it was considered part of your regular course load in business. Professor Wiley observed that it takes more time and energy to prepare this type of course than it does a regular course. Professor Doug Kingdon said that this matter had been discussed and was turned over to another committee to look at a reward system. What is the load when a course is given at four sites?

Professor Thompson said recertification would be required for courses taught in the Fall semester 1995. Professor Gail Meyer noted that the concern of the Committee was that students get the same course at both sites. The consensus of the committee was that to be certified as a course suitable for distance learning, the department would have to demonstrate that the teacher could do the same things that you could do in the regular classroom. The structure and requirements would be the same as if it were taught on campus. Provost Walker said that the Southern Association also had to be convinced that the courses are similar. Further, the American Assemblies of Colleges and Schools of Business (AACSB) was examining what we were doing in Knoxville and Tullahoma.

Professor Martha Butterfield asked what people were supposed to submit for approval. Do they need a cover sheet? What pieces of information about distance learning do we need?

Professor Mike Russell asked if there were any courses being piped in here. Provost Walker said yes. Professor Russell asked if they were being brought before the Curriculum Committee. Provost Walker explained that we do not have to; UTK is doing a Masters in Communication, but the courses are theirs and they give credit for them at UTK.

President Bibler asked how many undergraduate courses we were presently doing. Provost Walker said none. In fact, we have not thought about doing it very much. We have been approached by several community colleges about teaching upper level undergraduate courses there. We have time to set up the needed standards, because no undergraduate courses are to be taught through distance learning in the fall.

Professor Martha Butterfield said we should probably develop standards that apply to both.

Old Business

Professor Martha Butterfield said that the General Education Committee and the Teaching Evaluation Committee had received partial funding from the UC Foundation for a Teaching Resource Center.

Elections

The nominating committee made the following recommendations:

First Vice President (Committee on Committees) - Ken Carson

Second Vice President (Handbook) - Nick Honerkamp

Secretary - Sally Young

President Bibler asked for nominations from the floor. There were none. Professor Robert Duffy moved and Professor Renée Lorraine seconded the motion to accept the slate by acclamation.

Election of five members to the Committee on Committees, two from Arts and Sciences and one each from three other divisions:

Nominated were Gail Meyer (Arts and Sciences), Phil Kazemersky (Engineering), John Phillips (Arts and Sciences), Jim Macomber (Business), and Maria Smith (Nursing). The nominees were elected by acclamation.

Election of five members of the Handbook Committee, two from Arts and Sciences, and one each from three other divisions:

Nominated were Tom Payne (Business), Renée Lorraine (Arts and Sciences), Doug Kingdon (CEAPS), John Lynch (Arts and Sciences), and Ahmed Eltom (Engineering).

Election of a chair, three faculty members, and three alternates for the Honor Court:

Professor Nick Honerkamp asked if members could be from biology. He received an affirmative answer.

Those nominated were Eugene Van Horn (Biology), Marea Rankin (Library), Kristin Switala (Philosophy), and Lenny Krzycki (Criminal Justice). Nominated for alternates were Nick Honerkamp (Anthropology), Virginia Keatley (Nursing), and Jim Hiestand (Engineering). Council voted to ask Gene Van Horn to be chair; if he was unwilling, the next person on the list would be asked, and so on. If none of the first four nominated was willing to be chair, the Faculty Council would nominate another member at the first fall meeting.

Election of the five members of the Grade Appeals Committee, three faculty and two alternates who do not have to be Faculty Council members: The Chair of each Grade Appeal is the dean of the area in which the appeal is made.

Those nominated were Gregory O’Dea (English), Terry Carney (Engineering), and Sheila Van Ness (Criminal Justice). Those nominated for alternate were Loretta Prater (Human Ecology) and Bill Prince (Library).

Professor Honerkamp noted that one of the members needs to be named official recorder and make the committee report at the end of the year. Council decided that we would begin with the first name on the list and go down the list if the first person refused.

The committee was approved unanimously.

The next order of business was to appoint a parliamentarian. President Bibler decided to hold that matter in abeyance until Fall semester.

New Business

Professor Greg Sedrick said that the new Committee lists were available on the back table.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Young

Secretary

top.gif (189 bytes)