THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES
OCTOBER 4, 2001 Signal Mountain Room
Elected Members Present: Rob Bailey, Tom Bibler, Susan Davidson, Joe Dumas, Fritz Efaw, Marvin Ernst, Steve Eskildsen, Dawn Ford, Diane Halstead, Jim Hiestand, Michael Jones, Charles Knight, Vance Lesseig, Irene Loomis, Deborah McAllister, John Mies, Sarla Murgai, Marcia Noe, Teresa Norris, Joe Owino, Vickie Petzko, Oralia Preble-Niemi, Leland Robinson, Valerie Rutledge, Chris Stuart, Judith Wakim, Barbara Walton
Elected Members Absent: Roland Carter, Linda Cundiff, Zibin Guo, Karen Henderson, Claire McCullough, Verbie Prevost, Cheryl Robinson, Terry Walters
Ex-Officio Members Present: Sheila Delacroix, John Trimpey
Among the Guests Present: Debra Anderson, Cindy Ashley, Herb Burhenn, Karen Hayes, Bruce Hutchinson, Lanny Janeksela, Phil Kazemersky, Immaculate Kizza, Kit Rushing
Call to Order:
President Ernst called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
Dr. Ernst reminded members to identify themselves when speaking for accuracy in the minutes.
Dr. Ernst then distributed copies of the charge to the ad hoc committee on the EDO/EDE review process. This item will be discussed under old business.
Approval of the Minutes of September 20, 2001:
The minutes were approved as distributed after a "gentle warning" from the secretary to not make any additions, corrections, modifications or changes.
Report from the Office for Student with Disabilities/CAP:
The director, Debra Anderson, gave a report to inform and remind council members of the services available through this program. This program has basically 2 functions:
Debra Anderson reminded council members that students need a letter of written approval from her office before accommodations will be requested from faculty.
There are approximately 174 students at UTC with disabilities and 73% of those students have a non-visual disability. Our office has undergone 4 office of civil rights reviews based on complaints from some of our students and UTC has always been on the right side. Students at times try to take advantage of the disabilities act. It is important that those students that receive accommodations and graduate from UTC have earned that degree. Out office does not expect faculty to lower their standards to accommodate these students with disabilities. Our job is to guarantee these students equal access through the accommodations. Our office is located in Frist Hall and we welcome any questions you might have.
Dr. Murgai asked about these students needing special accommodations in the library. Would they bring a letter to the library?
Debra Anderson responded that only if they needed special accommodations.
Generally when students are in the library, this is considered independent time, outside the classroom and we do not interfere with those activities. We do not supply personal care. That would be up to the individual student. We are only required to offer assistance in the classroom. If they need some special assistance that you are unsure of, send them back to us and we will see what we can do for them.
Professor Preble-Niemi asked if the office were responsible for assisting these students with their homework.
Debra Anderson responded that no, this is considered their personal responsibility. All UTC has to guarantee is that we have provided equal access. They still have to earn the degree.
Dr. Ernst asked if he as a faculty member offered to provide extra help to a student that was handicapped, would that cause problems for the university? This help would also be equitable to other students in the class.
Debra Anderson responded that as long as equal access to other students was also available, no jeopardy would come to the university. If you single out the handicapped student and lower your standards to make it easier for them then yes, this would put the university in jeopardy.
We also assist with temporary disabilities such as broken arms or legs. Pregnancy is not included because it is not considered a disability. (laughter from the female council members)
Call us, we are here to help.
Report from the Curriculum Committee:
Dr. Bruce Hutchinson had two curriculum proposals and two items to report.
The first proposal was from the Communication Department and requested to add COMM 366, Creative Writing, to the undergraduate curriculum.
The second proposal was from the English Department and requested to add ENGL 316, African Literature, to the undergraduate curriculum.
The proposals were approved with a vote of 23 - 0 - 0.
Item 1 –The committee is suggesting that the date for curriculum proposals to be submitted to the Curriculum Committee be Reading Day of fall semester. This will allow time for the proposals to be reviewed by the committee and Faculty Council in time for the next year's catalog. This will assist the Committee in handling the enormous number of proposals that traditionally are handed in late in the semester.
Discussion –The previous date has been in January. This is too late for proposals to be submitted, faculty are tired, proposals are not scrutinized as well, etc.
Item 1 passed by voice vote.
Item 2 – The committee is suggesting modification of handling curriculum proposals. Once the proposals have received Faculty Council approval, it will be the responsibility of the curriculum chair to get a clean copy with all appropriate signatures to Elizabeth Bailey in the Provosts office and from there a copy to the library to be archived.
Dr. Bibler stated that this was a great idea because it would keep Dr. Hutchinson busy!
(Does Dr. Hutchinson want to remain curriculum chair in perpetuity?)
Dr. Ernst recommended that the procedure be followed as outlined by the Curriculum Committee.
Dr. Hutchinson stated that curriculum guidelines with a sample syllabus would be presented at the next Faculty Council meeting so that faculty will have updated information on how to submit curriculum proposals.
Provost Trimpey gave a progress statement on the budget committee meetings. The Chancellor is close to making a final announcement on raises. We are looking at a 5% across the board raise. One percent will be used to address compression issues for the ranks of associate and full professor. This will also deal with the Position Description Questionnaires (PDQ). This will address promotion issues.
Adjustments will be handled via a 3-year process. This will be based on national data, peer institutions, discipline, and rank to look at professors getting to 80,85,90% of average. Approximately 45 full professors will be brought up to 80% of the national average. This will take close to $200,000. Those professors will be adjusted first. We now have an opportunity to address this issue. This of course will be dependent on a number of things. We need to keep enrollment up.
Insurance rates are going up in January. A sum of $300 will be added to everyone’s base pay to offset the insurance increase.
Dr. Hutchinson asked why they didn’t directly pay the premium increase, which is not taxable to us instead of doing it this way?
Provost Trimpey did not have an answer for this question.
Dr. L. Robinson asked about the extra 2.5% increase in December. What base will it come from? The 2.5% increase? Or the salary prior to the first increase?
Provost Trimpey responded that it was not the 2.5% on the 2.5%. (?????)It will be in base for the next year.
Dr. Ernst asked about longevity pay being counted in our base pay. This really hurts us when determining national averages and how we compare.
Dr. Hutchinson commented that this is contrary to the states stated intention of longevity pay. "Why do we operate other than out of self interest for the senior bureaucracy, contrary to the intent of the state on these matters?"
(Silence as no one jumped to respond).
Dr. McCullough asked the Provost if this question will be answered.
Faculty Council requests a response as indicated by a voice response of "ayes".
Dr. Ernst asked Dr. Preble-Niemi to report on the presidential search advisory committee meeting that was held here on campus. The meeting held on this campus on September 26th was well attended. The purpose was to elicit information or suggestions from this constituency as to what characteristics the new president should have. The meeting was covered in a newspaper article the following day. Dr. Preble-Niemi encouraged faculty to log on to the interactive web page and give their input into the selection process as well as nominations.
Dr. Ernst reported on the Executive Committee breakfast meeting with the Chancellor and Provost. Numerous issues were discussed from lost Volkswagens at construction sites to the EDO/EDE process. He again encouraged council members to submit items for discussion to any of the Faculty Council Officers.
Dr. Hiestand again brought his proposal from the General Education Committee that was postponed from vote at last months meeting. It was clarified in the reading of the proposal that "graduation", not "graduate" requirements was the correct term.
Discussion followed that explained the purpose behind this proposal. The immediate cause for this was the new THEC 60-hour transfer rule, which does not mention these courses. For us to continue to require them as general education requirements make us appear again as the "bad guy". It appears that we have stricter requirements than other campuses. The second point is that these courses were basically instituted about 10 years ago as a result of the last SACS visit. In a sense we are really responding more to SACS than a general education revision. The third point is that making this change will also allow us to deal with these courses in a more flexible way. The committee envisions departments adopting these as requirements that are dealt with within their departments rather than as specific courses. The committee feels that this is an improvement motivated by an attempt to be more consistent with the formal general education requirements statewide.
Dr. Fran Bender made comments as chair of the Standards Committee. Dr. Bender questioned the part of the proposal that recommended that the Standards Committee monitor this process.
Dr. Hiestand responded that this was a recommendation from the committee, not a part of the motion. It will be up to Faculty Council how this process will be monitored.
Dr. Ernst clarified that the motion is to change these courses from general education requirements to graduation requirements.
Dr. Hiestand gave the example of EHLS courses as being graduation requirements, not general education requirements. The committee believes that some organization needs to monitor this requirement.
Motion carried by voice vote.
Dr. Ernst then raised the question as to who will monitor this?
Dr. Bender responded that the Standards Committee will discuss this on Monday. This should be a departmental responsibility not a Standards Committee responsibility. This is not part of our charge as a committee.
Dr. Hutchinson responded that historically we leave it up to the department head or faculty that the course abides by the course description. He recommended that this process continue rather than creating a bureaucratic paper shuffle. Two other points are that: (1) this information needs to be added to the catalog under graduation requirements;and (2) needs to be an approval process for courses to be approved in meeting the requirements for intensive writing, oral communication, computer skills, etc.
Dr. Bibler commented that the simplest thing to do is change the name of the general education Committee to the gen ed/graduation committee; not overworked since they have been approving these courses since the beginning.
Dr. Hiestand protested but admired the creativity of the suggestion.
Dr. Ernst suggested that discussion is needed among committee chairs to determine who needs to have oversight.
Dr. Hiestand commented that I think we need oversight; some departments will do it, some won’t; somebody needs to look at this.
Dr. Ernst suggested that it could be added to the 5-year program review. How did we support the student's quest for graduation? Discussion will be tabled at this time.
Dr. Ernst discussed the charge for the Ad Hoc Committee that was distributed at the beginning of the meeting. The committee will be appointed and announced at the next Faculty Council meeting.
Dr. Ernst announced that Tennessee State University called him to let him know that a meeting is being arranged with representation from all faculty senates and councils in the colleges and universities in the state of Tennessee. This meeting will be held in November in Nashville. The topic will center on, what can faculty do to participate effectively in the discussion of the budget issues of the state. We will have representation at this meeting.
Dr. Fritz Efaw asked when is the meeting?
Dr. Ernst responded that the meeting will take place on November 2.
The meeting adjourned at 3:48 p.m.
Most respectfully submitted,
Faculty Council Secretary