THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA
FACULTY COUNCIL MINUTES
March 5, 1992
Signal Mountain Room
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, Doug Kingdon, Irene Loomis, Ed McMahon, Gail Meyer, Fred Nixon, Betty Pickett, Peter Pringle, Marea Rankin, Tapan Sen, Edgar Shawen, David Shepherd, James Stroud, Gavin Townsend, John Trimpey, Margaret Trimpey, Jeannette Vallier, Ken Venters, Donald Weisbaker
ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Don Cassell, Robert Wilson, Terry Zivney
EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Marvin Ernst, Jane Harbaugh, Joe Jackson, Fred Obear, Sandra Packard, Charles Renneisen
AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Deborah Arfken, Eugene Bartoo, Roland Carter, Matt Cory, Neal Coulter, Richard Hannah, Jim Macomber, Eileen Meagher, Carter Pate, Roy Stinnett, Bob Swansbrough, Bob Vallier, Grayson Walker, Terry Walters, David Wiley, Marilyn Willis
Summary of Actions
Council approved curriculum proposals from the Department of Management,
Department of Marketing, and Department of Social Work.
Council amended and approved a proposal for a graduate faculty.
Council accepted the report of the Ad-hoc Early Registration Committee.
Council remanded for further study the recommendation for a Fall break.
Council amended the proposed content of part of Section 3.4.1., number 3, of the Faculty Handbook.
Call to Order
President Butterfield called the meeting to order at 3:16 p.m.
Approval of Minutes
The minutes of the meeting of February 20, 1992, were approved.
President Butterfield announced that a called meeting of Faculty Council would take place on Thursday, March 26, 1992, at 3:15 p.m. in the Signal Mountain Room of the University Center.
She introduced Dr. Richard Hannah, Director of Personnel, to report on negotiations between Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Tennessee and Erlanger Hospital on the Tennessee Preferred Provider Network, in which UTC participates.
Dr. Hannah said Blue Cross had stated that it wanted to contain medical costs and could not accept the conditions set forth by Erlanger. At the same time, Erlanger said it could not live with the "most favored nation" clause demanded by Blue Cross. As of April 1, 1992, Erlanger would not be part of the network. However, T.C. Thompson Children's Hospital would remain in the network after that date and maternity care arrangements would be honored at Erlanger through June 30, 1992. Further, the "unique care" provision would apply after April 1. In other words, if UTC employees could show that they were unable to obtain the required services elsewhere, they would be permitted to go to Erlanger. Dr. Hannah noted that several hospitals would be added to the network on April 1.
President Butterfield observed that the exclusion of Erlanger posed a major problem. She would ask the Council's Executive Committee to work with Blue Cross and Erlanger to try to reverse the exclusion.
Dr. Hannah promised to distribute details of the changes that would take effect on April 1.
Dean Renneisen said it would seem that the network's biggest customers (TVA and UTC) would get the best discounts. That didn't seem to be true. Dr. Hannah replied that it depended on what was meant by "biggest customer."
Dr. Hannah cautioned that employees should determine if their physicians had privileges at those hospitals that would be added on April 1. Professor Swansbrough asked for a list of physicians with privileges at Erlanger and other hospitals. Dr. Hannah promised to try to obtain that information. President Butterfield said that, in the meantime, members should urge others in their departments to check with their physicians.
Professor Kingdon (chair) reviewed proposals from the Department of Management and the Department of Marketing, and information items and proposals from the Department of Social Work (Attachment A).
Motion 1: To approve the proposals. Moved by Professor Venters, seconded by Professor Weisbaker.
Professor Loomis inquired if Social Work majors would still be required to take a General Education Category F course. The answer was "yes."
Motion 1 passed, with 28 votes in favor, 0 opposed and 0 abstentions.
Professor Macomber (chair) presented a document containing a rationale and policy for graduate faculty at UTC (Attachment B). He said that it had the unanimous support of the Graduate Council and paid tribute to Dr. Robert Vallier, who had led development of the proposal.
Motion 2: To accept the proposal. Moved by Professor Kingdon, seconded by
Professor Helton sought clarification of the criteria for full membership in B(2)(c). Was the Graduate Council seeking proof of licensure in those disciplines where it applied? Professor Macomber said that was the intent.
Professor Shawen had two observations. He had concluded that (1) the process of designation to the graduate faculty detailed in C(1)(b) created a remarkable bureaucratic machinery and invited stratification, division and dissension within departments; (2) excusing faculty with administrative responsibilities from activity in research, as detailed in B(2), seemed to defeat the purpose. In response, Professor Robert Vallier said that the designation process was designed to ensure that it was a faculty action, reviewed by the appropriate level of administration, and that university-wide criteria would apply. Professor Macomber said that administrators would not necessarily be granted a dispensation. They could apply for it if they believed that their administrative responsibilities were so substantial that they were unable to discharge scholarly activity.
Professor Carrithers wanted to know what was involved in the origination process set forth in C(1)(b)(i). Professor Vallier responded that the faculty would have veto power. Professor Carrithers was concerned that such a power could lead to competition among departmental faculty to teach at the graduate level. Professor Vallier replied that a faculty member could appeal a negative decision.
Motion 3: To amend Motion 2 by replacing "permanent" with "graduate" in C(1)(b)(i). Moved by Professor Stroud, seconded by Professor Weisbaker.
Professor John Trimpey wanted to know how the process would apply to the American National Bank and Trust Company Chair of Excellence in the Humanities. Professor Vallier said that there was a provision to handle that situation.
Professor Anderson argued that all faculty in an academic unit should have the right of review, not just graduate faculty.
Motion 3 was approved, with 15 votes in favor, 9 opposed, and 4 abstentions.
Professor Townsend asked how many of the activities listed in B(3) would have to be shown to demonstrate a "commitment" to graduate education. Would it make sense to spell out the required number? Is one enough? If competition is keen, how would the selection be made? Professor Vallier replied that the list gave examples and was not intended to be exhaustive.
Professor Nixon was not clear about the use of the word "frequency" in C(1)(a). What did it mean? Associate Provost Ernst observed that much depended on the number of opportunities for graduate teaching available to a faculty member.
Professor Meyer inquired if graduate courses included 400-level courses that some students take for graduate credit. Professor Macomber replied that graduate faculty status would not be required to teach such courses.
Professor Bellar agreed with the intent of the proposal. However, she did not understand its purpose. There were no perks for attaining graduate faculty status and the review process had the potential to create tension in some departments. Professor Vallier responded that the proposal resulted from recommendations by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) and the Conference of Southern Graduate Schools. We could work out any wrinkles.
Professor Margaret Trimpey asked if faculty members who did not apply for membership in the graduate faculty would be disqualified from teaching graduate courses. Associate Provost Ernst replied, "Yes."
Professor McMahon wanted to know if the committee had reviewed the credentials of faculty currently teaching graduate courses to determine their eligibility. Professor Macomber said the committee had not engaged in such a study.
Professor Meyer wondered how long the designation process would take. Associate Provost Ernst drew her attention to procedures that would apply in emergency circumstances in C(1)(d).
Professor Herron asked if the proposal would lead to the creation of new administrative offices. Provost Packard assured him that no additional staff would be employed to implement the proposal.
Motion 2, as amended, was approved by voice vote.
President Butterfield noted that the proposal would require a vote of the faculty. It would be placed on the agenda for the general faculty meeting on April 23, 1992.
Ad-hoc Early Registration Committee
Professor Walters (chair) presented the committee's report (Attachment C).
Motion 4: To accept the report. Moved by Professor Bibler, seconded by Professor Venters.
Motion 4 passed by voice vote.
President Butterfield announced that she would pass over New Business and proceed to consideration of Old Business.
Professor Carney reported that he had met with Dean Fox and Ms. Brenda Davis to develop a proposal for a three-day Fall break, starting in 1993. A proposed Academic Calendar, with comments, had been distributed (Attachment D).
Professor Carney noted that there were problems in the time available for processing grades and that special problems were posed for housing, the School of Nursing, and orientation. Perhaps some of the difficulties could be avoided by scheduling slightly longer class sessions in the Summer terms.
Motion 5: To remand the recommendation for a Fall break to a committee for further study. Moved by Professor Bibler, seconded by Professor Weisbaker.
President Butterfield said that she wished to delay consideration of the Department Head Evaluation and move to the Handbook.
Responding to the Council's request (Motion 5, Faculty Council Minutes of February 20, 1992), Professor Carney, chair of the Handbook Committee, introduced Amendments to Chapter III of the Proposed UTC Faculty Handbook (Attachment E, containing all proposed contents completed to date).
Professor Campa argued that department heads should not be invited to appear before rank and tenure committees (Section 3.4.1., number 3). He maintained that they intimidate committees and their appearance had posed a long-standing problem.
Professor Anderson said that it was unnecessary to ask department heads to appear merely to give information about the student evaluations of candidates for promotion or tenure. That information was contained in candidates' EDOs and was included in their dossiers.
Motion 6: To amend Motion 1 of the Faculty Council meeting of February 20, 1992, by (1) inserting after "March 1" in Section 3.4.1., number 3, "The department head shall not be present at any meeting or during any deliberations of the rank and tenure committee." and (2) deleting the last sentence of Section 3.4.1., number 3 ("The head will not be present during discussions leading to final recommendations."). Moved by Professor Campa, seconded by Professor Townsend.
Professor Herron said that equity had been achieved. He would support the amendment.
Professor John Trimpey concluded that the amendment would not prevent the committee from obtaining information from the department head.
Motion 6 passed, with 18 votes in favor, 0 opposed, and 2 abstentions.
Council adjourned at 5:09 p.m.
Peter K. Pringle