shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)


November 18, 1993
Signal Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Valarie Adams, Jim Avery, Will Bertin, Tom Bibler, Martha Butterfield, Ken Carson, Monte Coulter, Neal Coulter, Susan Davidson, Lloyd Davis, Robert Duffy, Howard Finch, John Garrett, Nick Honerkamp, Larry Ingle, Doug Kingdon, Renée Lorraine, Mike Russell, Ossama Saleh, Greg Sedrick, Edgar Shawen, Clint Smullen, John Tinkler, Terry Walters, Carolyn Wiley, David Wiley, Sally Young

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Lawrence Akers, Aniekan Ebiefung, Fritz Efaw, Jack Freeman, David Levine, Clifford Parten, Loretta Prater, Larry Tillman, Joe Trahan, Ling-Jun Wang

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Jane Harbaugh, Fred Obear, Charles Renneisen, Grayson Walker

AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Brenda Davis, Sarla Murgai, Marea Rankin, Leland Robinson, Roy Stinnett, Ken Venters

Call to Order

President Tom Bibler called the meeting to order at 3:17 p.m.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes were approved as distributed.

Report from the Curriculum Committee

Dr. Ken Venters reported on four items from the Curriculum Committee.

1. Chemistry course description changes. This is an information item only.

2. A proposed new Women's Studies course (USTU 202), "Survey of Women in South Asia: Indian, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Bhutan."

3. A new course, USTU 440, "Social Studies Concepts and Perspectives."

4. A change in the math requirement for Sociology and Anthropology majors earning a B.S. degree.

Professor Doug Kingdon moved and Professor Greg Sedrick seconded the motion to approve the Curriculum Committee's recommendations on items 2-4.

After remarking that he was glad "Women in South Asia" was to be taught, Dr. Ingle asked who would teach the course. Professor Sarla Murgai said that she would. Dr. Ingle wondered if it was a history course, because part of the rationale for the course was that no similar history course was being taught. Professor Murgai replied that it was a USTU course. He suggested that (a) be dropped from the rationale. He further noted that only 21% of the books listed in the bibliography are in UTC's library. Dr. Murgai responded that all the books are on order; the orders will be processed as soon as funds become available.

Dr. Ingle further questioned the course as a curriculum unit developed by the U.S. Agency for International Development of Educational Programs. He wants courses to be developed here. Dr. Murgai replied that the Agency provided some guidelines but that she had developed her own course. Dr. Ingle asked what part of the syllabus reflected the U.S.A.I.D. guidelines. Dr. Murgai believed about 50%.

Dr. Harbaugh objected to Dr. Ingle's line of questioning by asking if a faculty member should be prohibited from using what sources he or she wishes. Dr. Ingle replied "no." When asked by Dr. Harbaugh about why he objected to Dr. Murgai's using this source, Dr. Ingle noted that he believed the U.S.A.I.D. had certain political interests. He does not want UTC to buy into a preconceived curriculum proposal for which we do not know the political agenda.

Professor Neal Coulter noted that it is relatively common for government agencies to create such course guidelines.

Dr. Harbaugh said she was deeply troubled that we cannot go to the sources we want to without being questioned.

Professor Mike Russell remarked that he thought Professor Murgai could do whatever she wanted to with the topics listed on the syllabus, no matter who gave the original suggestions.

Dr. Murgai said that the government did not suggest the course content to her; she just took the parts she wanted to help her develop a wide range of topics.

Professor Renée Lorraine commented that Women's Studies courses are not likely to be pro-establishment, to which Professor Edgar Shawen replied, "There are various establishments."

Discussion then moved on to USTU 440. Professor Russell wondered about the origin of the course. Dr. Bibler replied that it is part of the Tennessee Educational Reform Program (TERPI) for elementary education. Because teachers often take the courses they had and translate them with little success to the elementary level, this course was developed to model ways of teaching the social science content they know from different points of view, focused on the elementary level.

Professor Shawen asked why it had a USTU number instead of an education number. Professor Kingdon replied that it is the last of their concepts courses and cuts across numerous disciplines; it does not really "belong" to any one department. The intent was not to make it the domain of any one college; it could be taught by a professor in Arts and Sciences. It is not really intended to be an education course.

Professor Shawen questioned why it required EDCI 306 or permission of the instructor to register. Professor Kingdon replied that education majors would have to have EDCI 306; others would not.

The motion passed with one no vote and two abstentions.

Professor Venters noted that the next Curriculum Committee meeting is November 23 at 3:15 to discuss Freshman Seminar.


Report from the Handbook Committee

Dr. Nick Honerkamp asked Council to ignore p. 34 of the copied Handbook material, which was included in error.

The proposed Handbook change involves section 3.6.3. and is made at the request of Knoxville, which wanted a delineation between tenure and promotion criteria. The Handbook Committee proposed removing section 3.6.3. and substituting the underlined text on pp. 35 and 36 (included as part of these minutes.)

Because a substantive change requires the approval of Faculty Council and the general faculty, Professor Honerkamp expressed concern that we would be unable to have the two required readings before the Board of Trustees meets; therefore we would have no handbook before next year.

Professor Doug Kingdon moved and Professor Renée Lorraine seconded a motion to approve the Handbook changes as presented by Dr. Honerkamp. When asked why there was no longer tenure criteria by rank, Dr. Honerkamp said that the whole section was being deleted because legal counsel believed that someone could argue that he or she had met requirements for tenure by being appointed at the rank to begin with.

Professor Martha Butterfield reminded the Council that Knoxville has had the Handbook since October 1992. They have continued to nit-pick. She wonders if we could change just a few words of the document which would satisfy their legal requirements so that it can still be approved by the Board of Trustees in February. Dr. Honerkamp said that the problem with 3.6.3. was that it was almost identical in wording as the criteria for appointment.

Professor Butterfield suggested adding "demonstrated excellence in the areas" and leaving the rest the same.

Dr. Honerkamp said he had hoped to waive the two-reading requirement. Professor Butterfield noted that the Chancellor could rule on that and added that agenda items must be in Knoxville by January 10 to be considered by the Board of Trustees in February.

Professor Wiley asked if we could call a special meeting of the faculty to vote only on this issue.

Professor Bibler asked if the Board of Trustees could approve all sections except 3.6.3. The Board had approved UT-Martin's with an omission.

Professor Ingle asked if the underlined portion had come from Knoxville. Professor Honerkamp replied that the Handbook Committee had written it.

Professor Russell did not want to leave out all the factors related to tenure at each rank.

Professor John Garrett asked if we couldn't leave out the second sentence in 3.6.3. "In general, the criteria for granting tenure are the same as those for appointments in the various ranks. These criteria should be considered as guides and are assigned varying degrees of weight." Professor Honerkamp said no, because the listing indicates the same criteria. Professor Garrett said he was not comfortable with the wording of the changes. He believes teaching has been given precedence and thinks "excellence in teaching" cannot be defined evenly across the ranks.

Professor Honerkamp reminded him that emphasis on teaching reflects the mission of this University.

Professor Avery wanted to know if we could get approval from Katie High about the changes before we take it further. Professor Honerkamp said he could fax them to her.

When asked what was cut from 3.6.4., Professor Honerkamp noted it was information that was included elsewhere.

Professor Butterfield proposed to amend the original motion to take only Paragraph 1 of the new material, strike the rest of the new, and leave the rest of the criteria in. The new paragraph 1 would replace the old paragraph 1.

Because the amendment significantly altered the original motion, Dr. Kingdon withdrew his motion and Dr. Lorraine withdrew her second.

Professor Butterfield then moved and Professor Russell seconded the motion to substitute new Paragraph 1 for old Paragraph 1 and leave in the old criteria.

Professor Tinkler asked if some of the itemized goals in the new section would just "die," namely numbers 6, 7 and 8. Professor Butterfield said that was not her intent; "teaching" in fact, includes staffing, advising, and the like. Those could be incorporated in "teaching and advising" in our current EDO.

Professor Shawen questioned the wording. Whereas "ability" was required for assistant professor, associate and full professors were required to have "reputation." Professor Ingle noted that we should not be rewriting the section on the floor of the Council; we should return it to the Committee. When asked by Professor Bibler if Ingle was speaking against the motion, Professor Ingle replied, "No, not really."

Professor Honerkamp stated that in the former Handbook, Katie High had written "please replace" by the three levels of professor. Professor Honerkamp further believes that if we change this section substantially, it must go to the full faculty.

Professor Butterfield reminded the Council that the language which was struck out had been approved by the UTC faculty last year and by the Board of Trustees previously. Why do they question it now?

Dr. Harbaugh noted that the UT Martin Handbook has been adopted as a model now. The Board of Trustees now likes that model. Ours was approved years ago.

Professor Butterfield said that we had not been told to follow UTM's style. Dr. Harbaugh agreed, but reminded that Katie High does like it.

Professor Ingle inquired as to whether the paragraph we're voting on had been approved by Knoxville. Dr. Honerkamp said it had been faxed, but we had heard nothing. Dr. Ingle would like to have the facts about the legal office's opinion before we vote on it.

Professor Wiley asked if moving the paragraph would require a vote of the faculty. He urged taking an active role.

Professor Honerkamp is convinced that Katie High is eager for us to have the Handbook approved; she's getting a lot of pressure.

Dr. Bibler suggested that the Council could rule that the change is not substantive enough to need two readings by the full faculty.

Differences in wording were pointed out, especially related to the idea of "excellence." The rewritten paragraph 1 does not really go with what follows.

Professor Lorraine agreed that the two needed to be more closely related. She moved to amend the paragraph to read: "The following criteria for appointment at the various levels reflect the basic elements for tenure consideration." Professor Butterfield seconded. The motion passed by voice vote.

Professor Honerkamp noted that the Handbook Committee is a distillation of the faculty as a whole; they may object because the paragraphs concerning ranks are identical.

Dr. Harbaugh said that she could not remember when Faculty Council has decided what goes to the faculty at large. What Faculty Council passes does go to the faculty at large, and the at large faculty can add to the agenda, but she does not believe Faculty Council decides what does not go.

Professor Kingdon wanted to know why it would need to go to the full faculty if it was determined not to be substantive. Wasn't this just an editorial change? Couldn't it be sent as an information item?

Dr. Harbaugh believed it would be a mistake not to have the full faculty look at it.

Professor Wiley agreed; even if inconvenient, the full faculty should look at it. They could then suspend the rules about two readings if they wished.

Professor Butterfield noted that the first draft was approved. When Katie High suggested some little changes, we made those and they were not substantive. She further noted that because the faculty can add items to agenda, she believed we could go either way on this.

Professor Wiley noted that we could do nothing and send it as it is now to the Board of Trustees.

Professor Ingle wanted a ruling on whether we would consider it substantive or not before he voted. Professor Wiley ruled that a motion was already on the floor, so we could not entertain another motion.

The motion failed.

Professor Shawen moved that we approve the new wording with the omission of #8. Professor Ossama Saleh seconded.

Professor Honerkamp said that the Committee had looked at the question of staffing and thought that it reflected the reality of their situation. If they do not meet the staffing needs of their department, they will not get tenure. Professor Shawen wondered why it wasn't in the old language. Dr. Harbaugh believes it is.

Acting Provost Grayson Walker commented that tenure is first a look at excellence—then the need of the University.

Professor Butterfield noted that point #8 could be interpreted as offering six sections when needed. If you are not willing to teach two extra courses, you are not given tenure. Professor Ingle remarked that even if we do it, there's no need to put that on the individual. He or she cannot do anything about it. Professor Garrett noted that #3 seems to take care of the issue.

The chair ruled that substituting the whole section would require the document to be sent to the whole faculty.

Dr. Garrett opposed the wording of the eight points, which looked to him like criteria for a community college, not a university. He believed the wording "evidence of scholarly competence" is "milquetoast-ish"; "excellence in research activities" would be more appropriate.

Dr. Shawen said he would accept a friendly amendment.

Dr. Russell thinks it doesn't say enough about research.

Professor Lloyd Davis said he planned to vote no. We shouldn't worry about the timetable on an issue this important.

The vote was 8-15-3 and the motion failed.

Professor Wiley moved acceptance of the change as written. Professor Lorraine seconded. The vote was 14-10-2, and the motion carried.

Professor Bibler asked if we wanted a called faculty meeting to meet Handbook deadlines. Professor Wiley moved and Professor Lorraine seconded a motion to have a called meeting of the full faculty. The motion passed with one no vote.

Report from Acting Provost Grayson Walker

1. With respect to advisement and registration, he noted that the University is open until December 23 and resumes Monday, January 3, 1994. Classes begin Friday, January 7. Students need to be advised although the faculty are on vacation. Usually advising needs are met by twelve-month faculty and faculty volunteers. The Administration is not expecting faculty to come in between graduation and Christmas.

2. Academic Information Services Discussion. In considering the nature of the relationship between the library, academic computing, and CECA, one realizes that the goals of these groups often intersect; it might make sense to have them under the same administration. Towson State (in Maryland) has an Associate Vice President for Information Services. Dr. Walker wants input; because Dean Jackson is retiring, we could take a look at what his replacement should do. We do not have a proposal now, but conversations are going on. He will try to put together a proposal fairly soon so that the library will have a leader next year.

Dr. Wiley would like to form a faculty committee to look at such matters. We do not have a committee which deals with Information Services, yet we are on the edge of changes now. If the entire information access is commercialized, it could be costly.

Professor Marea Rankin noted that there was a committee previously which dealt with these matters. Professor Russell recalled that it was called the Computer Priorities Committee.

Professor Rankin noted that CECA has been consulted; why aren't the library people being asked? Dr. Walker said that library personnel are being contacted on a one-on-one basis so that they can talk about that matter as well as others.

Professor Ingle wondered if we were considering substituting computer/library and CECA instead of having a Dean of Libraries.

Dr. Walker believed that we cannot meet all faculty information goals without having one person to oversee that.

Professor Russell wondered whether we would be looking for a librarian or for a computer expert.

Dr. Walker said no decision had been made about that yet. He believed someone in library science should run the library, but that it would be ideal to have someone who knew both aspects.

Would this person be in the library or in the computer center? Dr. Walker said we hadn't gotten that far yet.

Professor Garrett fears another vice chancellorship or associate provost. We already have high administrative expenses.

Dr. Walker says that increasing administrative positions is not on his agenda.

Dr. Ingle hoped that we would hear about the position before it is advertised in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Old Business

There was no old business.

New Business

There was no new business.


There were no announcements.


The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Young


top.gif (189 bytes)