shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)


March 16, 1989

Signal Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Ahmadi, Bibler, Breeden, Campa, Churnet, Cochran, Darken, M. Edwards, Hiestand, Honerkamp, Ingle, Kuhn, LeWinter, Marlowe, McDonald, Noe, Pringle, Printz, N. Riley, Sanders, Schonblom, Sturzer, Taylor, Thompson, M. Trimpey, J. Vallier, Venters, B. Walton, Wiley

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Anderson, Kleiman, Ozbek, R. Smith

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Ernst, Jackson, Obear, Packard, Rudley

AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: M. Butterfield, Renee Cox, Fjeld, Garrett, Henry, Holt, M. Jones, Noel, Scranton, Stiles, Wood

Call to Order

President Peter Pringle convened the 3/16/89 meeting of the Faculty Council at 3:17 p.m.

Approval of Minutes

The Secretary noted a correction on page four of the minutes of the 3/2/89 meeting: The acronym for the Teacher Education Reform Planning and Implementation Committee should have been TERPI. With this correction, the minutes were approved as distributed.

Budget and Economic Status Committee

The Chair of the Budget and Economic Status Committee, Professor Martha Butterfield, presented the Committee's report. She thanked all the members of the Committee for their diligence. The Committee met every other week in the fall and since January, it has met weekly. She then called on various committee members to walk Council through the various sections of the report (See Appendix A).

Committee member, Neil Riley, presented Section I - "Funding of Faculty Lines." The first part of the report deals with perceived falling rates of compensation on the campus. Raises in salaries have not been keeping up with inflation. The changes in hospitalization have been the equivalent of a reduction in salary. The Committee recommends that the salary pool be adjusted each year for inflation, plus at least 2%. The Committee believes the current system is not quite what it should be. Now even if the total salary pool increases at a rate equal to inflation, money is removed to raise minimal salary levels, to fund exceptional merit, etc. This has the effect of giving the other 80% of the faculty something less than inflation increases. For someone to receive a real increase in salary, all the rest must pay that cost. This is not the correct thing to do. The recommendation should be done for a number of reasons: 1) All faculty work hard and are diligent and deserve to have a salary increase; 2) The 2% is there for retention, compression and backwardation; 3) The Budget Committee will be able to say what the salary pool should be each year--this is a normative approach to budgeting. Professor Maurice Edwards moved the adoption of the recommendation on page one.

Professor Jack Thompson asked how the 2% was arrived at. Professor Riley said if inflation in any given year was 4% then the raise pool should be 6%. Other salaries outside a university environment tend to rise at the inflation rate plus 2%. Chancellor Obear asked if the salary of each faculty member should at least go up by the rate of inflation. Professor Riley said the Committee meant the faculty pool, not each individual faculty salary. Professor Ric Schonblom said the controllers of the finances will want to know where the 2% is to come from. He believes the Committee should say where. Professor Riley said the Committee views the campus as a collection of assets. Expenditures for all assets on campus with the exception of faculty salaries rise with inflation. We want to be treated in the same way as the Arena or Fine Arts Center. We cannot tell the administration where to get the money, but we believe this should be done. Professor Schonblom pointed out that in the past when the faculty has said we want the administration to take our raise out of the "such and such," they have gone along with it. Professor Riley said this has not happened in his five-year tenure here. We have been told there is only so much for the salary pool and it can be divided any way we want. President Pringle said it was not strictly accurate to say that there was only a limited pool. Dr. Boling told President Pringle that as long as tuition monies increased then there are additional monies that the University may use at its discretion for faculty salaries. Chancellor Obear said this assumes a growth factor. There is a certain flexibility available at least on a theoretical basis. Some years the legislature prescribes a specific amount. President Pringle said last year the widespread assumption was that faculty received a 4% salary increase and this was inaccurate. Professor Riley said that for any given year the budget pool ought to allow for inflation from the previous year, plus have an overall increase of 2%. Professor Martha Butterfield added that one of the purposes the Committee set at the beginning of the year was to deal with the budget year. These recommendations if adopted can be used in the planning for next year. They can be used in conversations with the legislators and THEC to say this is the way we need to go.

The recommendation on page one passed by voice vote with one abstention.

Professor John Garrett from the Committee presented Section II, "Faculty Salaries and the UTC Budget." This is where backwardation came from. He promised to teach Council what an inelastic supply curve is and what it is doing to UTC. He expressed gratitude for the blackboard.


This is a standard supply curve. As we get cheaper they hire more of us. In the early 70's people stopped going into academia.

Working conditions and real take-home pay went down. Graduate schools let out smaller and smaller classes year after year. The supply curve is shrinking. Moving in. We have a bunch of people retiring over the next ten years. The new supply curve is inelastic, steep. That means the price jumps up a whole bunch. Because to create a lot of new professors you have to expand graduate programs--which requires more professors. The problem compounds itself. We will have lots of trouble hiring people. There is no relief in sight. We will have to bring people in at high salaries. We will have unfilled slots and when we do fill them we will be paying new people more than those who have devoted their careers to UTC. Professor Mac Shawen pointed out that this will be more of a problem for some disciplines than for others. Salaries advance at very different rates. Professor Garrett said it was assumed for the first five years that this would occur in someone else's discipline. It is spreading to each and every discipline. The hiring problem will get worse. The only solution is resources--money. We need to find new sources of state money. There is nothing nice about the trends. To do what needs to be done at UTC you need a large increment in the amount of resources the state gives the institution. This is a dire conclusion. In Tennessee we have a three-tier system with each tier funded at a different level. UTK is on top; Memphis State is in the middle and everyone else is on the bottom. As the crunch hits the state system, the state will choose which institutions it will keep up to snuff. Our prospects do not look good to Professor Garrett. We need to claw and fight our way up to the Memphis State level. This is a political decision. We need to pressure our politicians. We do have many voices in Nashville. Professor M. Butterfield pointed out that Professor Garrett was referencing the THEC budget on page 5--salaries have been funded at a zero inflation rate.

Professor Ken Venters moved approval of the recommendations contained in IIA, IIB, and IIC.

Professor Nick Honerkamp asked how the current Council President and the heir apparent felt about IIA1. Professor Campa said he endorsed them and will be aggressive. President Pringle said he would write the first letter and Professor Campa could write the subsequent ones. Professor Schonblom stated his belief that IIC2 is unworkable because UTK has contrary interests and we will always be outvoted. Professor M. Butterfield said the intent was to discuss common concerns--e.g., raises for faculty salaries on all campuses. Professor Schonblom said it won't work. If UTK wins, we lose. He opposes IIC2. Professor Felicia Sturzer asked why THEC uses a zero inflation factor for salaries. Professor Riley said perhaps this should be asked in one of the letters President Pringle has President-to-be Campa write. Vice Chancellor John Rudley said they look at the amount of funds available. There are additional funds available, but only in years of full formula funding. Our first fight is always to obtain full-formula funding. Professor Sturzer said inflation factors exist for certain things, but not others. This has never been explained. Funding is not determined by quality programs or even numbers of students. It is a very political function. She agreed with Professor Schonblom. IIC2 won't work. UTK will win. We cannot afford to play nice. Professor Jan Printz said the salary money was up to us, not the System. She moved to delete IIC2 from the main motion.

Professor Larry Ingle spoke against the amendment. He said the System wants us divided. We need a System-wide approach. We cannot win fighting alone. We must galvanize support among colleagues on other campuses. Professor Schonblom pointed out that the Tennessee Higher Education Faculty Assembly exists for this purpose. It meets two times per year on such matters as this. Professor Marlowe asked what "equal representation" means. Professor M. Butterfield answered, "One or two representatives from each campus." Professor Marlowe asked if this was the case, how could we be outvoted. Professor Butterfield said she didn't think we would be. She believes it's a valid approach. Professor Habte Churnet asked if it mattered if we had a Systems Committee. Professor Butterfield said hopefully it will. Professor Betsy Darken asked about the Committee that already exists. Professor Schonblom said it is the Tennessee Higher Education Faculty Assembly and that it devotes 75-80% of each agenda to faculty compensation, insurance, etc. As a positive outcome of these meetings, he cited death benefits to spouses. The Faculty Council President names our representatives. Professor Mary Jo Cochran asked who they were. President Pringle has sent Professors Printz, Schonblom and himself. Professor Printz pointed out that Professor Schonblom is the current President of the Assembly. Professor Printz reported on the meetings at length. The amendment to delete IIC2 passed by a vote of 19:5:3. The main motion to approve all the other Section II recommendations passed by a voice vote. There was one abstention.

Section III - "Salaries by Sex and Rank" was presented by Committee member Stan Fjeld. President Pringle asked if these data don't regularly go to Vice Chancellor Rudley. The Vice Chancellor said they did not. Professor Fjeld pointed out that associate professors in Management and Engineering are quite well paid and their salaries affect the figures. Mean salary in Management is $43,000 and in Engineering is $41,000. They are all male. Provost Sandra Packard said that Dick Gruetzemacher is doing a salary equity study. There is a clear difference in the marketability of disciplines. His study will consider a wide number of variables including years in rank. He will be doing this study during the spring and summer. Professor Printz moved to approve the Section III recommendation.

Professor Darken said the Provost's point was well taken. The salary discrepancies do not necessarily indicate sex discrimination. Professor Butterfield said that was not the intent. The Committee just felt Mr. Rudley would like to have the data. Provost Packard said we want to know historically how the various variables have affected salaries in each category. Professor Sturzer felt simply referring the materials was not enough. She would like Council to direct him to remedy any sex discrimination found after complete information is obtained. Professor Darken offered a friendly amendment that Dr. Gruetzemacher be asked to report to Faculty Council by September 1989 on his findings on faculty salary by sex and rank. Provost Packard asked that a date not be specified due to Dr. Gruetzemacher's other duties. Professor Darken still wanted the specific date. He will include all information he has gathered. Professor Steve Kuhn asked if the point of the amendment was to secure as much information on this topic as possible. Professor Darken said it was. Dr. Gruetzemacher is to include the results of all his further investigations. The amendment passed by voice vote without dissent. The main motion, the recommendation on Section III, also passed by voice vote without dissent.

Professor Butterfield discussed Section IV - "Ratios of Faculty Positions to Administrative Positions." She called Council's attention to the January 30 Faculty Council Minutes and the Bill Fisher data. Just what individuals were included was not clear. The data include open and unfilled positions in the 315 positions. She was not clear whether or not coaches were included. The figures do include administrators who hold faculty ranks such as Barbara Wofford. The consensus was that coaches were not included. The recommendation from the Committee is that Council adopt a motion in support of the Chancellor's stated goal of reducing administrative expenditures in the 1989-90 school year and diverting extra funds to faculty salaries. Approval of the recommendation was moved by Professor Maurice Edwards. Professor Mac Shawen stated he would like to have the goal spelled out and to have a more numerical goal such as bringing the ratio to the average of all institutions. Professor Shawen declined to move this suggestion as an amendment. Professor Larry Ingle did, however. Professor David Wiley asked how we know the average of all institutions is what we should adopt. Professor Printz said she'd like someone to figure out what the average is because many junior colleges are worse off than we are. She said Steve (Kuhn) was fast. He asked what she meant by that. Professor Robert Marlowe asked what the standard deviation was. We may be talking about the same number and just not know it. Professor Schonblom said the standard deviation for four-year institutions is on the order of 0.7 and for the others is on the order of 0.3. Professor Marlowe said the numbers are essentially the same and that the motion was meaningless. Provost Packard noted that different institutions describe and define administrators in different ways. She also pointed out these data do not include part-time faculty. Chancellor Obear said the stated goal would not affect the ratio. The amendment failed by a vote of 2:20:4.

The discussion returned to the main motion. Professor Sturzer asked how the costs would be reduced. Chancellor Obear said budgets would be reduced. It would be more than just personnel. It could come from many places--development, student affairs, operating budgets, part-time faculty, etc. Next year will be year one of a five-year effort to do this. Some will come from the administrative costs of the academic units under the Provost. Professor Maurice Edwards asked why we could not use some of the interest from the $23 million in the Centennial funds. Chancellor Obear said many of the funds and much of the interest are restricted as to use--professorships, Chairs of Excellence, land, etc. Other funds are included in the U.C. Foundation funds. The dollars are not available to solve faculty salary problems. Provost Packard said some of those funds are currently being spent as designated--for travel, faculty development, etc. Professor Shawen asked if he correctly interpreted the recommendation to indicate that the Committee did not wish to adjust the ratio. Professor Butterfield said that was correct. This recommendation passed by voice vote without dissent.

Section V - "Benefits" - was presented by Professor Butterfield. This section presents many items to be worked on by multiple groups. Faculty Council Executive Committee needs to work with our legislators as do our administrators. The Committee feels THEC has made errors--the zero factor for inflation, for instance. We are getting decreased funding because THEC has us in the wrong category. We graduate more than 100 masters candidates per year and THEC has no category for this. Professor Ingle suggested we consider each of the Section V subcategories separately. President Pringle agreed.

Professor Ingle asked what exactly was meant by the last sentence in the first paragraph on page eight. Professor Butterfield replied that there were major concerns about salaries, about health insurances, etc. and we need collaborative/collective action. The alternative plan has been totally unacceptable. She would like to see a return to the old plan with the prerequisite higher premiums. Professor Betsy Darken asked how high the premiums were likely to be. Professor Butterfield said they would likely be about $40/month. President Pringle said the local legislative delegation is very interested in doing something about the whole insurance problem. Professor Printz said we must be sure we don't penalize our employees who make $12,000/year and less. This is about one-fourth of the campus. We need to have the legislators to come up with more money. Professor Schonblom said most people want low premiums and high deductibles from their health plan. The motion to approve the health plan recommendation failed by a vote of 12:1:15.

The discussion turned to maternity leave and leave of absence. Professor Ingle asked what "nat bit" meant on page nine. Professor Butterfield said this was a typo and should read "may not." President Pringle had assumed this was a technical term like "backwardation." Professor Butterfield asked that the recommendation be sent to Sarah Phillips in Personnel at UTK as well as to Mr. Wormsley. Chancellor Obear asked what "referred to" means. Professor Butterfield said the Council cannot adopt personnel policy but that the referral to Mr. Wormsley might be redundant. She would be willing to delete Mr. Wormsley here. She does feel that all the benefit recommendations do need to go to Mr. Wormsley. She suggested that Vice Chancellor Rudley could take all the recommendations to the System-wide Benefits Committee.

Professor Jocelyn Sanders asked if there was anything in the recommendation to take care of the possibility that the maternity leave might be rejected. Professor Butterfield said this had not been considered. The biggest concern was that the current policy really does not apply to faculty. There probably needs to be two distinct sections to the policy: maternity leave separate from leave of absence and maternity leave for faculty and non-faculty. Professor Betsy Darken said the recommendation was really asking these various people to come up with a maternity leave policy for faculty and others, but it doesn't say what that policy should be. Professor Butterfield said the substance of the policy is addressed in the narrative. Currently, leave of absence doesn't address maternity leave at all, nor is there any reference to faculty. Faculty are excluded because they don't have sick leave. Longevity would be lost. Professor Sturzer asked if the current policy provided for other kinds of leaves of absence for faculty. Professor Butterfield said that presently we do have leaves of absence, but nine-month faculty are probably excluded because they don't have sick leave. Professor Jack Thompson said it was unclear what the recommendation includes. Does it include making nine-month faculty eligible for sick leave? Professor Butterfield said, "Not necessarily." The policy does need to include references to faculty and maternity leave. Professor Shawen asked if there was no recommendation on paternity leave. Professor Butterfield said it was paternity leave that was ruled unconstitutional. Ms. Karen Holt from the staff of the University System Legal Counsel said the statute has been rewritten and cleaned up to just refer to women. The purpose had not been clear. Professor Butterfield said the Committee was merely identifying a problem area in the existing policy. Professor Nick Honerkamp spoke in favor of the motion. The loopholes need to be closed. We need an explicit maternity leave policy. During a System visit here Dr. Boling didn't know what maternity leave was. The maternity leave recommendation passed by voice vote with one abstention.

The recommendation on sabbaticals was moved and seconded. Professor Honerkamp asked what the Committee had in mind in terms of EDO evaluations when the person was not here. Professor Butterfield said she wasn't sure how it could be worked out, but that a sabbatical for educational purposes needs to be translated into the EDO. Some faculty have lost longevity and been penalized in salary because of being on sabbatical. Provost Packard said that currently if faculty are on sabbatical, participation in the EDO process is their choice. If you are on leave without pay, participation in EDO depends on the nature of the leave activity. Professor Honerkamp asked what if he accepted a Chair of Excellence at some far-off University and was absent without pay. The Provost said participation in EDO would be his choice. If you are off doing research, teaching would not be an evaluation area. Professor Honerkamp noted this would preclude eligibility for exceptional merit in some departments. The Provost said such criteria would need to be clarified at the departmental level. Professor Ingle urged that leave for educational purposes needs to be separated from a true sabbatical. On a sabbatical one can do whatever one wants. Professor Butterfield assured him the Committee was talking about true sabbaticals. These need to be adequately funded by either state or foundation funds. Provost Packard pointed out the Handbook has two separate descriptions--faculty development and sabbaticals. We get more funds by combining the two terms. Some years we have more funds than others, depending on whether the faculty has taken a full year at half pay or a half year at full pay. The recommendation passed by voice vote unanimously.

The last recommendation, page ten, dealt with reasonable notice for changes in benefits. Professor Schonblom moved that "other concerns about benefits" should be eliminated from this recommendation on the grounds of redundancy. This amendment passed by voice vote. The recommendation was then approved unanimously by voice vote.

Professor Butterfield said a faculty member had asked why 20% of longevity pay is taken out in taxes. The System selected this over taxing at the normal rate because it was less detrimental to employees receiving small amounts of longevity pay. She went on to present three other recommendations from the Committee: 1) that membership on the Budget and Economic Status Committee be staggered so that there is continuity; 2) that at least one member be from Accounting and Finance and/or Economics; 3) that an IBM-CMS account be established by the Committee. Professor Ingle moved approval and commended the Committee for its report. Professor Printz noted these recommendations would need to go to the Handbook Committee. These recommendations passed unanimously.

Developmental Studies: Study Skills

This item was postponed to the next Council meeting.

Campus Inequality

Information on this topic was provided by Professor Jim Henry (See Appendix B). Provost Packard said Richard Hannah has brought this issue to the Chancellor's staff and it is being studied. We need to determine whether or not this can be done in accordance with THEC policies. Both Provost Packard and Vice Chancellor Rudley support the change. Professor Gary MacDonald spoke in favor of the recommendation saying his wife was also affected. The recommendation passed without dissent.

Report from Executive Committee

President Pringle reported the following:

1. Receipt of a response from President Alexander as a result of the motion on Faculty Counselors. He advises that he will be on campus later this month and will meet with Executive Committee to discuss this and other items.

If you have items, please give them to a member of the Executive Committee. The date is March 29.

2. Receipt of a response from Mrs. Davis on Council's recommended actions on transfer and conditional students. (See Appendix C).

3. Attendance at a meeting with Dean Fox, Mrs. Davis and others on the academic calendar. Discussions are continuing on three different drafts of a calendar for 1990-91. President Pringle will keep Council informed.

He then called on Professor Renee Cox to discuss procedures of the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee. Professor Cox said that the Echo editor has asked to see one of the Committee's reports. This is a report on a grievance that has been sent to the Chancellor. The Committee has been told that the report is public information. The Handbook (p. 15) says that such reports are confidential. State law takes precedence. The Committee regrets this and has protested. The report in question does not quote from or even mention any faculty member other than the one who filed the grievance and his Dean. Ms. Karen Holt commented that sitting through Council meeting was certainly educational. She said she was here to dodge any slings and daggers anyone would like to throw at legal counsel. She said the Handbook has many problems and really needs to revised. This section even has an internal inconsistency--it sends documents to Board of Trustees which has open meetings. There is no choice about making the report public when it becomes an institutional record. Professor Jan Printz noted that, as a prior member of the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee, she has cleaned out her files and she is sure other past members will also. She asked if there was anything wrong with the Committee simply reporting to the Chancellor that the grievance was either upheld or it was not. Ms. Holt said what the report contains is up to the Committee, but she did not feel it was necessary for the Committee to censor itself. Professor Honerkamp predicted that the workload of the Committee will plummet--faculty will be averse to using the Committee in light of publicity. Professor Printz disagreed. Professor David Wiley noted the main report to the Chancellor could be made orally. Ms. Holt pointed out that detailed notes were often helpful to the Trustees in trying to understand the chronology of a problem. Professor Schonblom asked when the document becomes a record. Ms. Holt said a good rule of thumb was when it had gone through the levels here on campus. Professor Wiley asked if it was likely that the Committee members be subpoenaed. Ms. Holt said that it was not. Professor Butterfield asked why school boards were able to exclude personnel matters from public scrutiny. Ms. Holt said all state/county records other than student records are open. Professor Honerkamp said school personnel records are also open. Times correspondent Maria Noel asked if grievances became part of the Personnel record and was told they did not. Chancellor Obear asked if Council minutes went to all faculty and was assured they did. Professor Printz urged faculty not to give up on the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee. She has faith in the Committee's sophistication and wisdom. The written report will be the only thing changed.

President Pringle then called on Mr. Rick Wood and Mr. Richie Scranton to discuss the Amphitheatre. They were from the Student Alliance and have been working on the Amphitheatre project for the past two years. The project has been endorsed by the SGA. The Amphitheatre is to be located between the Fine Arts Center and the Library. It will provide a place for students and faculty to go to be outside. There will be no state funds allocated for this. It is a "first time student fund raiser." Faculty and staff are encouraged to make donations. For $30 you can buy a brick in the Amphitheatre. They have raised $7,000 so far. The student goal is $50,000 and Chancellor Obear has pledged $10,000 when that goal is reached. Alumni/Development has pledged to match the student goal once it is attained. They have also received gifts in-kind. They hope construction can begin this summer. There will be a phone-a-thon and a concert/carnival coming up. They also hope for a $1.00 increase in activity fees to go to this project. Professor Marcia Noe moved enthusiastic endorsement. This required a two-third's majority because it called for a rules change. The rules change and the motion both passed unanimously by a show of hands.

Facilities Concerns

1. Professor Kathy Breeden expressed continued concern about the cars parking on Vine Street. They block the view of cars exiting from Lot 12.

2. Professor Nick Honerkamp was concerned about being able to exit the left side door of the Signal Mountain Room. Several faculty had had difficulty leaving the meeting.

3. Professor Jan Printz is still concerned about the phone system. You cannot hear often and you are disconnected frequently.

Member Concerns/Announcements

1. Professor Ric Schonblom announced the formation of the Black Students' Engineers Club.


The meeting was adjourned at 5:22 p.m.

Faculty Council Nugget

Professor Neil Riley says the Faculty is one of a collection of University assets. The Budget and Economic Status Committee Report makes "collection of asses" a more apt description.

Tom Bibler

top.gif (189 bytes)