shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)


November 17, 1988

Signal Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Ahmadi, Breeden, Cochran, Darken, M. Edwards, Hiestand, Honerkamp, Ingle, Kleiman, Kuhn, Marlowe, McDonald, Noe, Pringle, Printz, N. Riley, Sanders, Schonblom, R. Smith, Sturzer, J. Thompson, J. Vallier, Venters, B. Walton, Wiley

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: C. Anderson, Bibler, Churnet, LeWinter, Ozbek, K. Smith, Taylor, M. Trimpey

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Harbaugh, Jackson, Renneisen

AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Fjeld, Gaston, Hannah, Hunt, I. Reid, Robinson, Summerlin

Call to Order

Faculty Council President convened the meeting at 3:18 p.m.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the November 3 meeting were approved without change.

Budget and Economic Status Committee

Materials omitted from the package for the November 3 meeting are attached (Appendix A).

Professor Martha Butterfield reported that the Committee is withdrawing its recommendation that faculty salaries in all departments be raised to be competitive in the market place.

Professor Neil Riley described the Expenditure and Revenue Summary. Tables 1 and 2 provide aggregate expenditures and revenues for the University. Tables 3 and 4 summarize expenditures in terms of changes from 1986 to 1988. The "Chairs of Excellence" revenue entry is "bogus," since this is not a continuing item. He called particular attention to the budget line for the UTC Arena.

Tables 5 and 6 relate expenditures to allotments from THEC's "regular state appropriations." Professor Jan Printz asked whether calendar or fiscal years were used in the summaries. Professor Riley reported that fiscal years were used.

Professor Jim Hiestand was struck by the variability in Tables 3 and 4 and asked if this was typical. Professor Riley attributed the differences to funding levels. Professor Printz suggested full-formula funding may have helped in 1986-87.

Professor Mary Jo Cochran asked an intelligent question which the secretary did not record.

Professor Riley stressed that THEC funding formulas indicate expenditures in various categories with recommended norms; however, actual rates vary from these baselines. The Budget and Economic Status Committee welcomed the tables as a way to determine emphases and felt that they aided in making recommendations for change.

Professor Martha Butterfield returned to the recommendations made by the Committee on November 3. The Committee recommends (moved Professor Sturzer, seconded Professor Wiley) that it is desirable that the salary floors be adjusted annually, including adjustments for compression factors and inflation.

The Committee wishes to assure that relative salaries are considered annually in salary recommendations.

President Pringle commented that new faculty would benefit more often from changing salary floors. Professor Stan Fjeld pointed out that no Assistant Professors are at the current floor. Professor Lee Robinson reminded the Council that floors for Associate and Full Faculty would be affected. Professor Felicia Sturzer felt that those just above the floor will suffer salary compression when floor salaries are raised. Professor Riley agreed that when any particular salary need receives preference, other needs cannot be met simultaneously.

Dean Reid asked how "compression" was measured. Professor Butterfield stated that disciplines were not considered. Professor Printz recommended that deans and department heads be given authorization to make adjustments within departments. She believes that discrepancies within ranks within disciplines are the principal problem.

Professor Lee Robinson reminded the Council that it is less expensive to adjust floors annually. If floors represent a "minimum level of decency" we should increase them annually. Professor Riley was concerned that other persons would be penalized in consequence.

Professor Betsy Darken asked why the Committee felt the floors were the principal area of concern. Professor Butterfield cited that floors were the place to start. Several members fought over the definition of "compression" without agreement, and Professor Ingle asked for a rephrasing of the motion to eliminate this confusion.

Professor Honerkamp moved (Professor Hiestand seconded) that the words "and expansion" be added after the word "compression" in the original motion. After a short debate over terminology, Professor Darken moved and Professor Printz seconded that this recommendation be returned to Committee. The motion passed (18-5-0).

Professor Marcia Noe moved and Professor David Wiley seconded the Committee recommendation that floors be adjusted as follows:

Asst. $21,000 $24,000
Assoc. 26,000 29,500
Prof. 32,000 36,500

Professor Sturzer asked for discussion of the figures.

Professor Fjeld corrected some errors in the material which was distributed after acknowledging the contributions of faculty and staff who assisted him. Table 2, Row 31, Column 5, should read "17." In the heading for Table 3, the floor is $29,500 rather than $29,000. Professor Fjeld continued. Salaries by rank, he observed, tend to flatten out to some extent with promotion. There is a large variance at the Assistant Professor level.

Professor Fjeld also pointed out that salary is often negatively correlated with years of service. Table 2 assumes a 4% raise for everyone and determines the additional cost of meeting the proposed floors. In Table 3, the salaries of a few faculty are compared with their city-school counterparts. These faculty were raised to the new floors prior to the compression. Thirty-eight thousand, nine hundred dollars ($38,900) would be needed to meet the recommended floors. Professor Printz asked what the fractional increases would be. Professor Schonblom calculated them to vary from 13.5 percent for Associates to 14.1 and 14.3 percents for Fulls and Assistants, respectively.

The motion passed (15-0-7).

It was moved (Professors M. Edwards, Venters) that floors be raised for instructors from $18,000 to $20,000. Professor Printz pointed out that Library faculty will be hurt if the proposal does not pass and that new public school floors of $18,000 will make us uncompetitive in the local market. The motion passed unanimously.

It was moved (Professor Wiley, M. Edwards) that THEC formula funding include an inflation adjustment based on the cost of living. Professor Ingle pointed out that such a policy would benefit all of higher education. The motion passed unanimously, but no one expected THEC to adopt the policy simply because it was passed by the Council.

Response to Stadium Questions

Chancellor Obear answered some questions regarding the Stadium.

1) What is the source of funding for a new stadium? He answered that the source of funds will depend upon the Legislature. A variety of sources have been used in previous projects of this kind.

2) Who lobbies for the new stadium? Among others, the Chancellor listed Harold Wilkes, Bob Brennan, himself, community leaders and the legislative delegation.

3) Is it appropriate to spend state funds on a new stadium when there are pressing academic needs on campus? The Chancellor replied that the project ought not to detract from expenditures for capital for other academic priorities. Stadium funding is similar to recent funds for the Tivoli, the Bessie Smith Hall, Engel Stadium and so on. Funds for such regional projects are not unusual, and each session another area of the state receives help.

4) What is the authority of the Athletics Board? The Athletics Board cannot make decisions except in areas delegated by the Trustees through the Chancellor. The Board's formal function is to recommend and to advise. No other group has the responsibility for providing advice to the Chancellor regarding athletics. The Board also assists in hiring or recommending termination for the Football and Men's Basketball coaches.

Professor Hiestand asked, "Do you lobby by position or by conviction?" Chancellor Obear replied, "I lobby by position, but also, in this case, by conviction."

Professor Sturzer felt that it would be reassuring to receive a written statement from the Legislature that stadium funding would not affect academic funding adversely. Chancellor Obear felt that revenue sources vary so much that such assurance could not be given. Chancellor Obear will counsel the Legislature against funding the stadium at the expense of academic concerns.

Professor Ingle asked if Bryan Patten's objectives would be served by the present proposal. Chancellor Obear agreed that no change to NCAA I-A classification was possible from the proposed stadium, but that a larger stadium would not assure a change in NCAA classification either. Professor Ingle asked what funds were visible down the line. Chancellor Obear was reluctant to predict, although features of the proposed stadium would allow future expansion. He predicted that Marshall University will be moving out of the Southern Conference in the next decade.

Professor Ingle also asked if the need for on-campus space was a more important consideration than a new football facility. Chancellor Obear cited direct advantages for the new facility, although we would like the campus space. Professor Printz asked if we could make money without moving to NCAA I-A. Chancellor Obear agreed that NCAA I-AA status requires support, but a move to I-A does not assure that we could avoid a deficit. In addition, the NCAA may spin off the top sixty football powers into a new classification and close out schools that cannot compete at that level. Costs in our new stadium will continue at about the same level as at present.

Professor Betsy Darken would be glad to see the end of footballs coming though Math Building windows, but she wants assurance that proportional funding for football will not increase at the expense of academic programs.

Professor Edwards complimented Chancellor Obear on his role as University spokesperson in the community, particularly in representing the academic priorities of the campus. He quoted the Chattanooga Times' criticism of mediocre education in Tennessee following the announcement that the SCSC would be built in Texas. Professor Edwards felt that if UTC does not place academics first, who will? Professor Ingle prophesied, as a worst case scenario, an empty, useless stadium followed by a decision to terminate football. Chancellor Obear could not visualize UTC ending football. The impact on residence halls, recruitment and enrollment would be significant, especially among minority students.

Report from Executive Committee

President Pringle reported that:

1) The Executive Committee has reviewed and approved the resolution recognizing our late colleague, Dr. Joel Davis, and it has been mailed to Joel's widow. A copy will be attached to the minutes of today's meeting.

2) The Executive Committee has considered the non-member concerns contained in Appendix F to the minutes of the October 20 meeting and has referred each concern to the appropriate party for reaction and response.

He reminded Council that nominations for Faculty Council President for the one-year period beginning July 1, 1989 will be solicited between December 1 and 15.

He invited Dr. Richard Hannah, Personnel Director, to make an announcement.

Dr. Hannah reported that labels are being placed on the new Preferred Provider List for immediate distribution.

Facilities Concerns

Professor Jan Printz asked for return of the "blue light" to Fletcher. Professor Noe reported that soap dispensers are broken in the 3rd floor of Holt Hall. Professor Wiley complained about lines at the library photocopy machines. Dean Jackson concurred. Professor Ingle reported that a colleague has reported violations of smoking regulations. Professor Darken deplored noisy machines that are rolled out to the football field to blow leaves during Friday morning classes. One exit from Lot 12 was reported to be blocked frequently by parked cars. Professor Jan Printz regrets seeing all the lights on after hours everywhere in Fletcher, among other buildings. Professor Noe noted open windows in Holt Hall. Professor David Wiley cautioned an unnamed colleague about speeding on Vine Street. Professor Hiestand complained about the short deadline provided in recent insurance memos from Neal Wormsley. Dr. Hannah promises to "get you in" if you contact the Personnel Office immediately, but cautioned us to expect many changes. Professor Kuhn felt that the second complete list of years of service honorees was not required. Professor Edwards reported a concern of colleagues that written midterm grades were asked about on student evaluation forms. Associate Provost Harbaugh defended the action taken. Professor Schonblom stated that written grades in labs and courses need not be integrated. Professor Honerkamp asked what was legal regarding posting grades by SSN. There was agreement that posting is illegal if people can be identified. A listing of Social Security numbers isn't permissible if it is still alphabetical. The UT System lawyers have answered this question in different ways at different times.

Dean Renneisen asked faculty to attend the Maki Mandela speech.


The Council adjourned at 5:14 p.m.

J. Eric Schonblom
Secretary, pro tem

top.gif (189 bytes)