shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)

THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES

April 6, 1995

Signal Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Valarie Adams, Jim Avery, Tom Bibler, Mary Brabston, Martha Butterfield, Ken Carson, Betsy Cook, Lloyd Davis, Ahmed Eltom, Howard Finch, John Garrett, Nick Honerkamp, Larry Ingle, Doug Kingdon, Renée Lorraine, David Levine, John Lynch, Jim Macomber, Anna Panorska, Tom Payne, Loretta Prater, Katherine Rehyansky, Mike Russell, Greg Sedrick, Jim Stroud, Margaret Trimpey, Jeannette Vallier, Ling-Jun Wang, David Wiley, Sally Young

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Prem Chopra, Neal Coulter, Robert Duffy, Aniekan Ebiefung, Jim McDonell, Maria Smith, John Tinkler

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Harbaugh, Ralph Moser, Fred Obear, Grayson Walker

AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Deborah Arfken, Eugene Bartoo, Linda Ladmer, Mary Tanner, Gene Van Horn

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 3:18 by President Tom Bibler.

Approval of Minutes

Valarie Adams should be listed as present, not absent. President Bibler thanked Katherine Rehyansky for her wonderful job on the minutes of the last meeting. The minutes were approved as amended.

Graduate Council

Professor Greg Sedrick brought two proposals for Faculty Council’s consideration, a new course in Marriage and Family Counseling (EPSY 553), which passed unanimously at its single reading, and The Proposal for the Revision of the Degree Masters of Education in Special Education, which passed 12-0-0 on its first reading and 9-0-0 on its second reading. He moved approval of these items. Professor Nick Honerkamp seconded the motion.

Professor David Wiley said that he did not understand the grading scale on EPSY 553. Why is an F 50-59 and a D 60-69? His own grading scale, the same as Hixson High School’s, puts F at 67 or below. Is there a reason for this spread?

Professor Sedrick noted that neither Professor Vance nor Professor Miller had arrived. He wondered if it would be all right to defer that question. Were there other questions? Professor Larry Ingle said that he had a number of questions about both and suggested that we postpone consideration until next time. President Bibler said that with Council’s permission, we would put this item later in the agenda. If none of the people arrived, we would postpone consideration until next time.

General Education

Professor Martha Butterfield said that she would like to postpone her report until the next meeting because materials were not included in this week’s packet as she had expected them to be.

Faculty Concern

Professor Gene Van Horn said that he was concerned about the punishment given to three students who broke into a laboratory last semester. Security was given a tip that a laboratory was to be broken into. They were waiting when the three students came in with flashlights at 3:42 a.m. The Honor Court gave them the same punishment as a student who had a cheat sheet during an exam. Police would call this a burglary. He wonders if the Honor Court can handle serious problems such as this one. Students on the court seem to be concerned with the long-term consequences for the perpetrators, such as their being able to get into medical school. Professor Van Horn thinks such an offense deserves more serious consequences than the Honor Court seems willing to give students. For that reason, he thinks that such offenses should go straight to the Provost and Chancellor.

Professor Katherine Rehyansky asked why no criminal offense was charged. Professor Van Horn believed that the faculty member involved thought it was the University’s responsibility, and the University chose to let the Honor Court handle it. He went on to say that he was not throwing rocks at the people in this case; he just wants to prevent future incidents like this one.

Professor James Stroud said that the University shouldn’t handle felonies; they should be handled outside.

Professor Honerkamp asked if the University was the plaintiff in such cases and was told that it was.

Professor Lorraine asked how the students were punished. Professor Van Horn said that he is not allowed to say, but that students essentially got the same punishment as a student with a cheat sheet. When asked what happened to these students, Professor Van Horn said that one was allowed to graduate, one was already post baccalaureate, and one is still here.

Professor Mike Russell commended Professor Van Horn for coming to Council with this matter because he had heard a lot of rumors about the situation. He agrees that students will generally not agree to give much punishment. The usual punishment seems to be an F in the course and a probationary period. He agrees that the Honor Court is not the proper forum for this kind of offense and wondered if Professor Van Horn had a recommendation. Professor Van Horn said that he did not feel adequate to suggest legal remedy. He does know that it is easy to break into a teacher’s office in Holt Hall.

Professor Russell believed that if you witness a crime, you can sign a complaint. Professor Wiley asked why the officers did not sign a complaint.

Professor Van Horn thought that because the burglars were students, the Campus Police probably thought that the University would handle it. Professor James Macomber wondered why the police did not arrest them. Since they are sworn officers, why didn’t they uphold the law?

Professor Trimpey asked if there was a policy about who handles crimes on campus. Chancellor Obear answered yes, but we need the right people here to answer questions about that policy. Would Council like to have people from Security, Student Affairs, and Legal Affairs come to Faculty Council meeting?

Professor Wiley moved that we invite the people the Chancellor suggested to meet with a Faculty Council committee. Professor James Macomber seconded the motion. Professor Ingle asked if it would be possible to include in the motion a time table for the report. Otherwise we might forget. The mover and seconded considered this a friendly amendment.

Professor Ling Jun-Wang asked if the committee would represent UTC as a plaintiff. President Bibler answered no; this committee would just establish a procedure. Professor Ingle asked if it was to be explored in the context of this particular case although nothing more will likely be done. Professor Stroud wondered why the case could not be reopened. President Bibler suggested that the committee explore whether or not the case can be reopened.

Professor Kingdon commented that he had been chair of the Honor Court for about ten years, but it seemed like a lifetime. Three cases involved attorneys. In these cases, one student was deported, one cannot come back to campus again, and so forth. There is a precedent for attorneys to appear. One case was a breaking and entering.

The motion passed unanimously.

President Bibler asked those who would like to serve on the Committee to let him know. You do not have to be a member of Faculty Council to serve. He will appoint a committee soon.

Graduate Council (continued)

Because those who could answer questions had arrived, we returned to the matter of Graduate Council proposals.

Professor Gene Bartoo said that there is no university grading policy, so the grading scale for EPSY 553 is an instructor judgment call based on previous experience. Professor David Wiley asked if people in a graduate class would be likely to get a D or an F. Professor Bartoo said yes, some students do. Professor Jeannette Vallier noted that in Special Education courses 70 and below was an F. Professor Bartoo remarked that was a different program.

Professor Vallier further pointed out that EPSY needs editing. On the basis of her and several other members’ suggestions, several changes were made with Professor Bartoo’s approval.

Professor Ingle questioned grading. What is a post graduate student doing in graduate school? Professor Bartoo explained that the program has both post baccalaureate students who have not been admitted to the graduate program and post masters students who are coming back to be licensed.

Professor Ingle then questioned an item on p. 45 on the Special Education revision. Professor Linda Ladmer agreed that rewording the phrase and taking "Rationale to" out would make it more clear.

Professor Ingle asked if you can teach "ability" to function as a leader. Professor Ladmer says she hopes they can, because it is wording providing by the Tennessee State Department of Education. Professor Ingle said that he might sign up for the course if it can teach that. Professor Ingle is fascinated by the term "inclusion" on page 55; is that a new trend? What is the difference between "inclusion" and "tracking"? Professor Bartoo said they are almost opposites. Inclusion refers to classrooms in which the special education teacher and the regular classroom teacher collaborate within the regular classroom. Professor Ladmer added that it is a broad philosophical term which means that special education students participate as much as possible in all school activities. Professor Ingle asked if there were racial implications to this. Professor Ladmer knew of none. Professor Bartoo added that those characterized as special ed may not be in proportion to the demographic population of the individual school. But inclusion deals with those who have already been identified through a formal, legal process which involves testing and other means.

Professor Ingle asked if the questions of tracking and inclusion have implications for reading, math and the like. Professor Bartoo said yes.

Professor Ingle asked what "life-span issues" referred to on page 60 are. What is "timely research"? Professor Ladmer said that "timely research" means "current research." Professor Bartoo said they would substitute "current" for "timely" in the description. Professor Margaret Trimpey noted that "life span" means "from birth to death" and is a term regularly used in social science, education, and nursing.

Professor Ingle wondered where the catalogue description on page 75 was. Is this a new course? Professor Bartoo believed the course is renumbered; therefore, there is an existing course description.

Professor Trimpey wondered if the books listed in the bibliography are currently available in the library. Professor Ladmer said that either she or the library has the ones for her course; she cannot speak for the others.

Professor Ken Carson asked about the entrance requirements on page fifteen. What are the acceptable GRE and NTE scores? Professor Bartoo said that the NTE score varies as to the specialty, but they use the one which is required for that area to be licensed. The GRE is more of a guess. Professor Carson asked if Professor Bartoo could give him an idea. Professor Bartoo explained that there were quantitative, verbal, and analytical portions to the test; a total score would probably be about 1000 or 1100. Special education considers the NTE score more useful, and most of their applicants would have the NTE. Professor Russell noted that his wife had taken the NTE and believed that scores in Tennessee were lower than those in Georgia. Although Professor Carson believes the GRE scores mentioned by Professor Bartoo are low compared to capabilities you would want to see in graduate students, he accepts it as a disciplinary judgment.

Professor Carson asked if the number of courses was also being increased. Professor Bartoo said yes. Professor Carson asked if they already had enough faculty members to cover the increased number of courses. Professor Bartoo explained that they are keeping some courses on their books which will not be offered frequently. They are also concerned about staffing, but this is a revision of an existing program, not a new program. For some students, it is a decrease in the number of total hours.

Professor Vallier suggested revising the description of the marriage course. The word "examine" sounds as if they will do case studies. Professor Bartoo suggested substituting adding "as they have been applied in family interventions" because the course includes videos and role playing. Professor Vallier approved the change.

Professor Ingle noted that no signature from psychology appeared on the cover sheet. Professor Bartoo explained that psychology knows about the course; they have a representative on Graduate Council. However, he sees no direct impact on psychology. Professor Carson agreed; their current graduate program does not overlap with this program at all.

Professor John Garrett noted that there was no economic impact statement. Is there enough demand to support his program? He has no idea about staffing and student credit hours.

Professor Sedrick was sympathetic with his concerns. Usually a graduate program which is already in existence is not required to submit an economic impact statement; the Council looks at the value of the curriculum. Professor Bartoo agrees. This is an existing program. In fact, it is one of their larger programs. Teachers in this program also teach in the undergraduate program. Currently it pays its bills.

Professor Garrett said that full time percentages deal only with their participation in graduate courses. He still thinks information about numbers is important. Professor Deborah Arfken noted that seventy-one graduate students were enrolled in the program this semester. Professor Bartoo said that he hoped the program would not be held hostage because the figures are not there. They were not asked to produce these figures for an existing program. Professor Ingle agreed with Professor Garrett’s concerns. He is happy that he insisted that a librarian be required to sign off on new courses, but he sees that it has made no difference in the funding of the library.

The motion to approve the course and program passed 26-0-1.

Committee Reports

We had planned on reports, but Admissions and Academic Standards had late-breaking news concerning "back door" admissions so they asked to defer their reports until next time.

Provost Walker on R.O.T.C.

Provost Grayson Walker noted that many of us had read that our R.O.T.C. program was on the Army’s hit list. We have worked out an arrangement with UTK and the Army to keep our program. It will remain a four-year program with scholarships from which students may still receive a commission as a Second Lieutenant. UTC staff will be reduced to two Army personnel; the remaining courses will be taught through UTK.

Professor Carson asked what would happen to Holt Hall space. Provost Walker said that most would still be available to departments currently residing in Holt Hall.

Professor Stroud asked if anything new had been learned about Metropolitan Hospital. Professor Obear said that they are doing an environmental study and that we have declared ourselves an interested party. We do want to effect a purchase or rental and have people in by the start of Fall Semester if possible.

Professor Stroud said he is very interested in acquiring that property because it is an orderly boundary. Chancellor Obear agreed that the acquisition was very important to us; he would even consider asking the state about its right of eminent domain!

Old Business

There was no old business.

New Business

Chancellor Obear said that a recent news release from Governor Sundquist’s office reported that the freeze on capital issues has been lifted. March revenues were good.

Professor Stroud asked if that meant we would get salary adjustments.

Professor Obear said that there was nothing in the news release about that.

Announcements

Professor Sedrick said that 75% of committee request blue sheets have been returned. Those who did not get one can call Professor Sedrick or Barbara Verhine to get one.

Professor David Wiley announced a forum on religious freedom tonight at 7:30 in the Raccoon Mountain Room.

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 4:22 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Young

Secretary

top.gif (189 bytes)