shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Faculty Council Minutes

April 2, 1992

Signal Mountain Room
University Center

Elected Members Present:
Dave Anderson, Stephanie Bellar, Tom Bibler, Martha Butterfield, Stan Byrd, Pedro Campa, Terry Carney, David Carrithers, Joe DePari, Robert Duffy, George Helton, Arlie Herron, Debbie Ingram, Irene Loomis, Ed McMahon, Gail Meyer, Fred Nixon, Betty Pickett, Peter Pringle, Marea Rankin, Edgar Shawen, David Shepherd, James Stroud, John Trimpey, Margaret Trimpey, Jeannette Vallier, Ken Venters, Donald Weisbaker, Robert Wilson, Terry Zivney

Elected Members Absent:
Don Cassell, Doug Kingdon, Tapan Sen, Gavin Townsend

Ex-Officio Members Present:
Marvin Ernst, Jane Harbaugh, Joe Jackson, Charles Renneisen

Among the Guests Present:
Ray Fox, Nick Honerkamp, Patsy Reynolds, Roy Stinnett, Bob Swansbrough, David Wiley

Summary of Actions

*Council approved a proposal from the Budget and Economic Status Committee to request the Vice Chancellor of Finance to provide about four presentations to Faculty Council each year.

*Council rejected a proposal from the Budget and Economic Status Committee for an annual faculty contribution to retain an independent financial advisor.

*Council approved a recommendation that any increase in the percentage of formula funding next year be used to address faculty salaries.

*Council accepted the report of the Grade Appeals Committee.

*Council remanded the report of the Evaluation of Faculty Instruction Committee for consideration of the instrument and the use of the information it generates.

Call to Order

President Butterfield called the meeting to order at 3:23 p.m.

Approval of Minutes

Professor Anderson asked that the minutes of the meeting of March 26, 1992, reflect the fact that student evaluation of faculty was a faculty-approved UTC requirement and that faculty could remove the requirement (page 2, paragraph 1). With that addition, the minutes were approved.

Special Report

President Butterfield introduced Ms. Linda Hendy, assistant vice chancellor, auxiliary operations.

Ms. Hendy announced that, effective March 21, food services began the transition from an in-house to a Marriott Corporation operation. The faculty and staff charge system would be eliminated by the end of the semester so that Marriott may make any arrangements it deems appropriate. Terms of the contract were still being negotiated, but facilities changes would occur this summer. Among the changes would be the establishment of a "scramble" area in the cafeteria. It would include Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Dunkin Donuts, and a hamburger stand. The ice cream parlor would be renovated. An "all you can eat," one-price buffet line would be introduced. Some cosmetic changes would be made to the Chickamauga Room. Marriott would bring in two managers. All regular employees would stay on the payroll of the University, which would be reimbursed by Marriott. New and term personnel would be employed by Marriott.

Ms. Hendy introduced Mike Scheffres, Marriott food services director. He noted that he was monitoring patronage of the Chickamauga Room and invited faculty to make recommendations on its use. Currently, only about 20 people ate there daily.

Committee Reports

Budget and Economic Status Committee

Professor Tom Gavin (chair) introduced the committee's report (Attachment A) and distributed the results of a committee vote on two proposals and a rationale (Attachment B).

Addressing Proposal No. 1, Professor Weisbaker inquired if the Vice Chancellor of Finance was willing to comply. Professor Gavin replied that he could not imigine why he would be unwilling to meet with Faculty Council. The Council should be involved in decisions on the allocation of next year's extra dollars.

Turning to Proposal No. 2, Professor Herron wanted to know how the $100 would be collected. What did "contribution" mean? Professor Gavin said the assumption was that the money would be placed in a faculty-administered fund. Professor Herron could not understand why faculty would be asked to pay for information. Professor Gavin replied that payment would cover the analysis of the information. Professor Herron woundered if anyone on staff could do the analysis. Professor Gavin said that the information reflected complex activities on which comparative data were not readily available.

Motion 1: To accept Proposal No. 1 in the report of the Busget and Economic Status Committee. Moved by Professor Anderson, seconded by Professor Zivney.

Professor Carney cautioned that the proposal may pose problems for Faculty Council. The University's accounting system was not simple. Could the budget information be presented in a more penetrable form?

Professor Butterfield agreed. What was needed was someone to cut through the language used by accountants.

Motion 1 was approved by a voice vote with one abstention.

Professor John Garrett, a member of the Budget and Economic Status Committee, compared the amount of money allocated for each UTC faculty member by the Tennessee Higher Education Commission with what it should be if it were based on the percentage of professors at each rank. He estimated that next year's budget would increase from 82 percent to 88 percent of full formula funding. The result would be an excellent opportunity to attack several pressing financial problems. He pointed to salary compression as an example.

Professor Anderson encouraged the committee to continue to ask questions and gather information on the matters under discussion.

Motion 2: To accept Proposal No. 2 in the report of the Budget and Economic Status Committee. Moved by Professor Zivney, seconded by Professor Anderson.

Professor John Trimpey wondered why it was thought that an outsider could obtain the required budget information.

Professor Anderson did not understand why faculty should have to reach into their pockets to establish a fund.

Professor Zivney asked if there were alternative funding sources. Professor Stroud suggested the UC Foundation.

Professor Carney preferred to try Faculty Council inteaction for a year or two and to delay any independent advice.

Motion 2 failed by a voice vote with one abstention.

Motion 3: Faculty Council strongly recommends that any increase in the percentage of formula funding be used to address faculty salaries. Moved by Professor Anderson, seconded by Professor Weisbaker.

Amendment 1: To amend Motion 3 by inserting "consideration" after "recommends." Moved by Professor Carney, seconded by Professor Duffy.

Motion 4: To table Motion 3 until completion of consideration of the EDO Task Force Report. Moved by Professor Zivney.

Motion 4 failed, with 12 votes in favor, 13 opposed, and 1 abstention.

Returning to Amendment 1, Professor Anderson opposed any weakening of the wording in Motion 3.

Amendment 1 failed by voice vote.

Motion 3 passed by voice vote.

Executive Committee

Professor Butterfield announced that she had received reports from several committee and that they would be included with the minutes (Attachments C-I).

She invited Professor Nick Honerkamp (chair) to present the report of the Grade Appeals Committee (Attachment J). He summarized the report.

Motion 5: To accept the report of the Grade Appeals Committee. Moved by Professor DePari, seconded by Professor Zivney.

Motion 5 was approved by a voice vote.

President Butterfield reminded members that the faculty retirement dinner would take place on April 7.

She asked those responsible to proceed with plans for division elections to Faculty Council.

Old Business

Evaluation of Faculty Instruction

Motion 6: To remand the report of the Evaluation of Faculty Instruction Committee for consideration of the evaluation instrument and the use of the information it generates. Moved by Professor DePari, seconded by Professor Venters.

Motion 6 was approved by voice vote.

Adjournment

Council adjourned at 5:12 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Peter K. Pringle

Secretary

top.gif (189 bytes)