shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)


April 25, 1989

Signal Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Ahmadi, C. Anderson, Bibler, Breeden, Campa, Darken, M. Edwards, Hiestand, Ingle, Kuhn, Marlowe, Noe, Pringle, Printz, N. Riley, Sanders, Schonblom, R. Smith, Sturzer, J. Thompson, M. Trimpey, J. Vallier, Venters

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Churnet, Cochran, Honerkamp, Kleiman, LeWinter, McDonald, Ozbek, Taylor, B. Walton, Wiley


EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernst, Harbaugh, Obear, Packard

AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Fleming, Kingdon, C. Smullen, Warren-Leubecker

Call to Order

President Peter Pringle convened the regular Faculty Council meeting of April 25, 1989, at 2:37 p.m.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of April 6, 1989, were amended as follows: 1) Chancellor Obear was added to the Ex-Officio Members Present. 2) On p. 2 under Academic Standards Committee line 12 should begin Admissions Office instead of Admissions Committee. The amended minutes were then approved without dissent.

Committee on Committees

Professor Jocelyn Sanders moved the appointment of Professor Ed Cahill to the Ad Hoc Committee on the Chairs of Excellence as a replacement for Dean Irv Reid. This motion was unanimously approved by voice vote.

Professor Sanders made two corrections to the list of Faculty Council Committee assignments for 1989-90: under Health Sciences Career Advisory the Chair should be Barbara C. Anderson (Cherry); under Publications Board the nursing representative should be Barbara K. Andersen. She explained that membership had been expanded on General Education to eleven members so as to have adequate representation from more areas; on Speakers and Special Events to ten members at the request of the Chair so as to make it easier to obtain a quorum since that Committee has so many student members. These corrections and recommendations were unanimously accepted by voice vote.

Professor Sanders expressed gratitude to Barbara Verhine, Margaret Brown, and especially to Professor Stephanie Smullen for their work in getting the Committee list out.

Professor Jan Printz asked if the motion to change the quorum requirements for the summer for the Admissions and Petitions Committees had been passed at the general faculty meeting. President Pringle said it had not. Professor Betsy Darken moved that the summer quorum for Admissions be set at five members and for Petitions at four members. Professor Larry Ingle noted that since this was not on the agenda, Council would have to first vote to suspend the rules. The rules were suspended by unanimous vote. Professor Darken re-introduced her motion which also passed by unanimous vote.

Curriculum Committee

Professor Doug Kingdon, Curriculum Committee Chair, presented the report (Appendix B). He expressed concern about the use of 499r and 199r. A course using this number cannot be offered more than two times in any three-year period. This ruling was made by the Curriculum Committee and Faculty Council on September 20, 1979. He wished to remind Council of this regulation. Professor Felicia Sturzer moved approval of the Curriculum Committee report. Professor Larry Ingle asked how the regulation was enforced. Professor Kingdon expressed the belief that the regulation would be followed by those who knew of it, which was why he brought it to Council's attention. Associate Provost Jane Harbaugh said Natalie Schlack used to monitor this. Professor Ingle asked if "r" courses should be channeled through the Curriculum Committee. Professor Kingdon said we ought to be able to police it ourselves. He noted it would be in Council minutes. Professor Printz said she had mis-remembered the regulation. Associate Provost Harbaugh said she didn't believe there has been any real abuse and she would hate to see more bureaucracy established. She believes Brenda Davis can and should keep an eye out for this problem. On a different topic, Professor Ingle asked if part "b" of the Political Science proposal amounts to a reduction in what has been called "related courses." Professor Kingdon noted that there was no one present from the Political Science Department to speak to this. Professor Kingdon said it was reducing options rather than hours. The point was to offset the requirements for the minor. Professor Sturzer asked if foreign language remained part of the current proposal and was assured it did.

The Curriculum Committee report passed unanimously.

Graduate Council

The report of the Graduate Council was presented by its Chair, Professor Clint Smullen. It included: 1) Curriculum changes in the M.S. in Computer Science; 2) Changes in admission policy for the Department of Psychology's masters programs; 3) Reclassification of BMKT 508 to BACC508; and 4) Change in the catalog description for BUSA 512. There was a motion to accept the report. The discussion centered on the Psych admissions requirements. Professor Jan Printz asked if the criteria for admission could be changed for this year. Associate Provost Harbaugh said such a change must go to the Board of Trustees. Professor Betsy Darken moved to amend to make the effective date as soon as possible rather than for the "entering class of Fall 1989." Provost Sandra Packard said she agreed the proposal would need to go to the Board of Trustees, but it was not clear whether it would go as an action or information item. Professor Smullen reminded Council that the Graduate Catalog is printed every two years. Provost Packard said it was important that we not accept students in the same year under two different criteria. She favors "as soon as possible." Professor Ingle asked if the problem of the date had been discussed in Graduate Council. Professor Smullen said it had not. The amendment passed unanimously by voice vote. Returning to the main motion, Professor Ingle asked why the change was being sought. Professor Amye Warren-Leubecker said the Psych programs were large and that the change would provide a kind of quality control so that students need no longer be accepted on simply a first-come, first-serve basis. Professor Ingle asked why the other graduate programs don't have the same problem. Professor Smullen said the School of Business has a similar policy. Each department may establish additional higher level admission standards if they wish. The amended motion passed without dissent by voice vote.

Departmental Honors Committee

Professor Herb Burhenn, Chair of Departmental Honors Committee, presented the report from that group (See Appendix C). Professor Steve Kuhn moved approval. Professor Burhenn asked Council to note that they would be approving August grads at this time, too, as well as a summer quorum for the Committee. Professor Maurice Edwards asked if all the listed students had met the GPA requirements and was assured that they had. The motion passed without dissent.

Student Evaluations of Faculty Committee

The report from this Committee was presented by the Chair, Professor Amye Warren-Leubecker (See Appendix D). She noted that the two recommendations (p. 2 of the report) were also made last year and that they would continue to be made until some changes were made. Professor Cherry Anderson moved approval. Provost Packard said the Instructional Excellence Awards Program already in place could be re-focused to implement recommendation one, if the Committee so chooses. Professor Pedro Campa asked if the student comments are being kept. Professor Warren-Leubecker said they were kept by Institutional Research. Professor Campa said that originally those things were not to be kept. Provost Packard said they were no longer going to be kept. They will be forwarded to the department for the faculty. Previous comment sheets will also be returned. Professor Ingle asked what Professor Warren-Leubecker expected to be done with the recommendations this year. She said having a budget would really help. Professor Ingle asked if she could name the source of the feelings of misuse. She said they came from the survey. He asked if dealing with the misuse of feelings required money. She said she thought increasing the Committee size would help this by providing more input. Professor Felicia Sturzer asked how you determine "improvement in teaching." This entire issue requires another evaluation tool in addition to student evaluations. Professor Warren-Leubecker said the Committee has discussed a variety of tools. Professor Jan Printz amended the motion so that recommendation number one would be referred to the Handbook Committee which, in consultation with Professors Warren-Leubecker and new Chair, Dave Anderson, would restructure the Committee and then send it to the Committee on Committees for additional members. The amendment passed without dissent.

Returning to the main motion, Professor Ingle asked if the Administration/Department Heads had been surveyed as to their use of the student evaluations of faculty. Professor Warren-Leubecker said this had been done, but not yet reported. Professor Ingle said this seemed pertinent. Professor Warren-Leubecker said different departments use them in different ways. Professor Printz said each department comes up with its own performance standards. Professor Jim Hiestand asked if our situation was different from that of other schools the Committee had learned of. Professor Warren-Leubecker said it was because most other schools use other data in addition to student evaluations. Dissatisfaction with the evaluative process is quite general, however. Professor Maurice Edwards commented that a major objection to the use of student evaluations on this campus is that it is the students who evaluate the effectiveness or quality of the instructor and of the instruction. Most of the faculty would like some additional form of evaluation. Provost Packard reminded Council that it is the supervisor who determines the weight to be placed on student evaluations of faculty. We have a very narrow range between highest and lowest. She would be glad to fund a study comparing other kinds of evaluation to the student evaluation. Professor Edwards said the perception of the faculty is that the only evaluation of their instruction is done by students. Professor Printz noted that only 20% of the faculty responded to the survey and that only one-half of the respondents were unhappy. The student evaluations of faculty are the only things consistently attached to the EDO. Provost Packard said each department has its own performance standards and could have peer evaluations attached if it wants to do so. Individual faculty could seek out and have peer evaluations attached to EDO. The amended motion passed by voice vote with one abstention.

Provost Packard asked if it was the wish of the Student Evaluation of Faculty Committee to have the Instructional Excellence Committee under their aegis. Several Council members voiced disapproval and the Provost withdrew the suggestion for the present.

Professor Marcia Noe asked if the Committee could do research on the validity of student evaluations of sections of the same course offered at different times of day. Professor Warren-Leubecker said this had been done. Dr. Gruetzemacher said it wasn't being done currently, but other kinds of item analyses were being done.

Admissions Committee

Professor Betsy Darken, Chair of the Admissions Committee, began her report by apologizing for not getting the report (Appendix E) into Council members' hands earlier. Professor Larry Ingle asked to defer this report until Council had had adequate time to digest it. Professor Darken said it needed to go to the Board of Trustees. Chancellor Obear commented that we had some time since we were talking about 1991. Professor Ingle moved to defer the report to next fall's first meeting. This motion passed without dissent.

Handbook Committee

Professor Eric Schonblom, Handbook Committee Chair, was still in class. He had asked that Council simply receive the Handbook Committee's report (Appendix F). Professor Printz moved to receive this report and that it be referred back to the Handbook Committee and be brought to Council at one of the October meetings. This motion passed without dissent.

Academic Standards Committee

Eric Schonblom, Academic Standards Committee Chair, came in during the discussion of the actions of this Committee on a joint enrollment proposal with the Hamilton County Schools (See Appendix G). Council was reminded that at the last meeting Standards had reported its support of the proposal provided that instruction was by full-time UTC faculty. Professor Marcia Noe presented a summary of the Standards Committee's consideration of this item. Professor Betsy Darken said some of the deferred Admissions Committee report related to this proposal. Professor John Trimpey summarized the history of the proposal. The County Schools are attempting to develop a set of goals that will enable students to work at their level, including, in many instances, taking university courses. This will enrich the high school curriculum and challenge the brighter students without having to duplicate the expense of offering college level courses in high school. In order to be cleared for Carnegie unit credit, the student must have a B average overall or a 4.0 average in the specific area of study. Taking such a class does not determine their admission to the University. This is not an attempt to circumvent University admission policy. The guess is we are talking about 200-300 students. The proposal sought to establish sites for these classes at UTC, Red Bank High School and Central High School. These classes would be taught by full-time and part-time UTC faculty and/or high school teachers. Dr. Loftis will provide released time for those high school teachers teaching in this program.

Professor Betsy Darken said that a section of our catalog refers specifically to the requirements for high school students taking courses at UTC. Page Five of the Admissions Report, previously deferred, also deals with this subject via the College Opportunity Program. Chancellor Obear wondered if this specific program with Hamilton County would require a change in the College Opportunity Program. Professor Darken felt it would be best to simply have one set of requirements for high school students regardless of where they lived. Provost Packard said the College Opportunity Program is on the books; this program with the County is another thing. Students can come onto campus under the COP; this program went to Standards because of taking courses off-campus. The COP need not be changed at this time. Professor Darken said the only reason the Admissions Committee looked at COP was because of the Joint Enrollment Proposal. If you look at the Trimpey memo (Appendix G, p. 2), the admissions requirements are different from those in the UTC catalog, p. 12. The Admissions proposal (Appendix E, p. 3) attempted to reconcile this. It would include most of what Joint Enrollment sought, but not exactly: instead of COP, call it College Challenge Program; it would not be limited to students in the eleventh or twelfth grades; the Superintendent would be added to the list of people who could recommend students for this program; the Director of Admissions must approve each student; student must have a B average; and the Director of Admissions can make exceptions to these requirements. Chancellor Obear asked that if this was the minimum set of UTC's admission criteria, could the County go with a tighter set? Professor Trimpey said they could.

Professor Felicia Sturzer asked if this left the possibility of high school teachers teaching college courses. Professor Trimpey said yes. Such teachers would be approved by the department; there would be no new, special courses created. The students would get university credit. The County would award the Carnegie units. Provost Packard said this was exactly how COP works now.

Professor Jan Printz asked about one paragraph of the memo (Appendix G, p. 3), the paragraph above FINANCING. What does it mean and why is it needed? Professor Trimpey said this was put in because Southern, Tennessee Temple, etc. were not included. She then asked if we don't get funding for this why are we doing it. He replied that we get tuition. Would this student be counted as a freshman? Associate Provost Jane Harbaugh said they are not freshmen; they are high school students; they won't be counted as freshmen until such time as they are admitted. Professor Jack Thompson stated that last year his son took an English history course at McCallie School taught by a McCallie teacher for which he was granted UTC credit. Why do we need a new program for Hamilton County Schools since we are already doing it? Professor Trimpey said this was a History Department arrangement acting on a request from McCallie. The proposed program involves state dollars. It is needed to encourage students to move further faster. It will keep the County from losing able students to the G.E.D. Professor Steve Kuhn asked how remedial and developmental course work could fit into a "challenging" program. Professor Trimpey said bright students in one area may have difficulty in another. The developmental courses will not count for Carnegie units nor for college credit. They will get no credit for them anywhere. Professor Printz moved acceptance of the Loftis/Trimpey proposal with the addition of Point E, page 3 of the Admissions report. Provost Packard said that, should this pass, the pertinent parts of the memo for our program would be placed in the UTC catalog.

Professor Ric Schonblom offered an amendment to include only full-time faculty. Professor Schonblom quoted the Council Secretary as saying he did not see why a high school student would be motivated to come to UTC because he had received UTC credit for a course taught at a high school by a high school teacher. The Standards Committee was put under the gun and told to pass something right away or the County would go elsewhere. Professor Ken Venters pointed out that this proposal would eliminate some other faculty who are not high school teachers. Professor Schonblom said that was true. Dean Paul Gaston spoke against the amendment saying it could bar these students from as many as eight out of ten English sections. Professor Jim Hiestand asked if the amendment ruled out a sop to the high schools for draining off their best students and was told it did. Chancellor Obear spoke against the amendment, which he felt undermined the intent of the program. He said we have a process by which we consult with faculty on the hiring of adjunct faculty. They go through a rigorous review. Professor Ingle asked the Chancellor to speak to the case of the high school teacher teaching the college level course in the high school. The Chancellor said he hoped this would not be the case. It would be a rare situation and would have to be with departmental approval. Professor Trimpey said the County was as concerned with getting able teachers as we are. Provost Packard wondered why Council set up a Committee for Ad-hoc/Part-time faculty and now is worried about them teaching in a high school. She does not believe that either being full-time or part-time really speaks to quality control. The department will have control; it will be a departmental decision. Professor Ingle offered a substitute amendment: no part-time instructor will offer off-campus courses in this program. This amendment passed by a vote of 13:3:3. Professor Schonblom then withdrew his amendment. The original motion--the Loftis/Trimpey memo--with part E of the Admissions report passed by voice vote with one abstention.

Report from Executive Committee

1. A memo from Paul Watson responding to non-member concerns and dealing with expenditures of the Athletic Department is attached to the minutes (Appendix H).

2. Blue Cross/Blue Shield will be sending out surveys to all full-time faculty and staff about April 27th. They must be returned by May 8. You can come by the Personnel Office after April 27th to pick up a copy. Professor Printz fussed that we ought to be able to do better. Why not mail it to the house address?

Facilities Concerns

None were mentioned.

Member Concerns/Announcements

1. Professor Ingle expressed concern about what the Nashville Tennessean calls the "platinum handcuffs" to keep top administrators in the UT System. The interest from a $1.5 million fund is being used to matche salaries for top administrators in the UT System. The fund apparently did not come out of the legislature. He would like the issue clarified. The legislators are upset with the "imperial" attitude of the UT System. The System makes no effort to provide even "aluminum foil handcuffs" for faculty. This lowers faculty morale.

2. Professor Ken Venters is concerned about the lack of water for the new shrubbery around Fletcher.

3. Professor Printz is also upset with the matching funds provided Chancellors and other top administrators in the System--especially UTK coaches. The University seems to regard this as private funds. Professor Printz also said that after five years it would be nice to not be on Council in the Fall.

4. Professor Jim Hiestand presented President Pringle with a lovely replica of the mace made from a plumber's helper and thanked him for his leadership over the past two years.

5. Dean Ray Fox presented a short talk on the academic calendar. Both UTK and CSTCC have seventy-three days in their spring semester. Three options have been identified regarding our calendar:

a. Shorten the summer terms by lengthening the period by fifteen minutes. Have three day terms of four weeks each and two evening terms of six weeks each. This would give seventy-three days in Spring and seventy-one days in Fall.

b. Drop reading day in Fall and Spring (Professor Hiestand commented there was no reading day this Spring).

c. Shorten the time needed to verify graduation candidates by adding a disclaimer and allowing all close to graduating to march. They would, of course, be verified after the fact.

We could do some or all of this and come up with seventy-five days in the Spring. Dean Fox meant this as information. Council should bring comments on the calendar to Fall meetings.

6. Professor Maurice Edwards said that the TIAA/CREF contribution and SRA deposit issue that Vice Chancellor Rudley promised to check into has not yet been checked into.


The meeting was adjourned at 4:54 p.m.

Faculty Council Nugget

1. In all fairness, the Gadfly ought to come forward and present him/herself as a candidate for Council Secretary.

2. If Professor Ingle wants handcuffs, he'll probably have to crochet them himself.

3. This is more a whole pot of gold rather than a nugget--my last meeting as Secretary.

Tom Bibler

[Organizational Meeting]


April 25, 1989

Signal Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Ahmadi, C. Anderson, Bibler, Breeden, Campa, Darken, M. Edwards, Hiestand, Ingle, Kuhn, Marlowe, Pringle, Printz, N. Riley, Sanders, R. Smith, Sturzer, J. Thompson, M. Trimpey, J. Vallier, Venters, Wiley

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Churnet, Cochran, Honerkamp, Kleiman, LeWinter, McDonald, Noe, Ozbek, Schonblom, Taylor, B. Walton

ELECTED NEW MEMBERS PRESENT: Callaway, Dardenne, Mawata, J. Trimpey, Verburg, Watson



Call to Order

The April 25, 1989 organizational meeting of the Faculty Council was convened by President Peter Pringle at 2:13 p.m.

Results of Division Elections

The results of the division elections were attached to the agenda (See Appendix A). Two vacancies remained unfilled, or at least unreported, at meeting time: one in behavioral sciences and one in adjunct faculty.

Election of First Vice-President and Chair of Committee on Committees

Professor Tom Bibler was elected First Vice-President unanimously by voice vote.

Election of Second Vice-President and Chair of Handbook Committee

Professor Paul Watson was elected Second Vice-President unanimously by voice vote.

Election of Committee on Committee members (5) from Faculty Council
(Two from Arts and Sciences and not more than one from any other academic area)

The election of the following was unanimous by voice vote:

Arts and Sciences: Professors David Wiley and Felicia Sturzer
Other Academic Areas: Professors Jack Thompson, Mary Jo Cochran and Larry Kleiman

Election of Handbook Committee members (5) from Faculty Council
(Two from Arts and Sciences and not more than one from any other academic area)

The election of the following was unanimous by voice vote:

Arts and Sciences: Professor Bob Dardenne and Gail Meyer
Other Academic Areas: Mary Tanner, Fay Verburg, and Margaret Trimpey

Election of Secretary from General Faculty

There were no nominees who had been previously consulted who would agree to serve. The election of Council Secretary was postponed to some future date.

Honor Court Committee

The following professors were nominated in this order:

Kit Rushing - Chair
Deborah Arfken
Clint Smullen
Barbara Norwood
Bill Wright
Chris Mawata
Kathy Breeden

Professor Rushing was elected Chair unanimously by voice vote. It was decided to take the others in the order listed, making Professors Arfken, Smullen and Norwood members and Professors Wright, Mawata, and Breeden alternates. This passed by voice vote with one opposed.

Grade Appeals Committee Election
(Three members and two alternates from general faculty)

The following professors were nominated in this order:

Randy Peterson
Don Weisbaker
Barbara K. Andersen
Terry Carney
Ron Bohrer

It was decided to make the first three members and the last two alternates. This motion passed by voice vote with one opposed.

Graduate Council At-Large Members Election
(Two Faculty Council members from units not offering graduate degrees)

Professors Larry Ingle and Ron Smith were elected unanimously by voice vote.


President Pringle adjourned the organizational meeting at 2:33 p.m. He invited all new Council members to stay for the last regularly scheduled Council meeting of the 1988-89 year which would be convened at 2:35 p.m. (Listing of newly elected Council committee members is found in Appendix B).

Tom Bibler

top.gif (189 bytes)