shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)


October 6, 1994
Signal Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Valarie Adams, Jim Avery, Tom Bibler, Ken Carson, Prem Chopra, Betsy Cook, Neal Coulter, Lloyd Davis, Robert Duffy, Fritz Efaw, Ahmed Eltom, Phil Giffin, Nick Honerkamp, Larry Ingle, Doug Kingdon, Renée Lorraine, Jim Macomber, Jim McDonell, Anna Panorska, Katherine Rehyansky, Mike Russell, Greg Sedrick, Jim Stroud, John Tinkler, Jeannette Vallier, Ling-Jun Wang, David Wiley, Sally Young

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Martha Butterfield, Aniekan Ebiefung, Howard Finch, John Garrett, David Levine, John Lynch, Loretta Prater, Maria Smith, Margaret Trimpey


AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Peri Meadows, Tim Summerlin, Dan Webb

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 3:16 by President Tom Bibler.

Approval of Minutes

On page 3, Professor Mike Russell said that his statement on summer school salary should read, "We now get paid 3/32 of our nine-month salary to teach a summer school course."

Anna Panorska’s name was misspelled in the list of members present.

On page 2, Greg Sedrick’s answer should read, "No, but that the Academic Standards Committee was to recommend a chair at its first meeting. After receiving their recommendation, the Committee on Committees would appoint the Chair."

The minutes were approved as amended.

Report from the Committee on Committees

Chair Greg Sedrick reported that Professor John Trimpey is chair of the Bookstore Committee. The Academic Standards Committee has not yet met; therefore, they do not yet have a chair. Several people have joined the Adjunct Faculty Committee, including Joyce Smith (English), Jack Freeman (Biology), Jim Rinehart (Political Science), Jim Wyatt (Business Administration) and Sandy Kurtz (Teacher Preparation Academy).

Professor Renée Lorraine was elected to replace Professor Jocelyn Sanders on Faculty Council.

Report of the Handbook Committee

Professor Nick Honerkamp, Chair, referred to the report distributed to Council (and attached to these minutes) and explained the rationale for changes.

In reference to item four concerning the presence of administrators at rank, tenure, and promotion meetings, Professor Larry Ingle asked if the Committee intended for administrators never to be present; the wording prohibits it.

Professor Doug Kingdon replied that the Committee intended that they not be present during voting. He suggested that the wording could be changed.

Professor Honerkamp said that he would add "unless specifically invited by that committee."

Other alternative wordings were suggested. Professor Ingle recommended that "by a positive vote of the Committee" could be added.

Professor Kingdon said that the Committee was concerned that the presence of an administrator could influence voting of the individuals on the committee.

Professor Renée Lorraine moved approval of items 1 through 4 with the addition of "unless invited by the committee" to item four. Professor James Stroud seconded the motion.

Professor Larry Ingle asked if items 2 and 3 have wording that would not require a change in the Handbook.

President Bibler remarked that if Council voted to approve items 2 and 3, new wording would come.

Professor Honerkamp said that if Council approves items 2 and 3, then changes in the wording will be made on the Death Benefits Committee and Tenure of the Faculty Council President.

Professor David Wiley asked that items 1 and 4 be separated from 2 and 3 and be voted on separately.

Professor Lorraine accepted his suggestion as a friendly amendment, as did Professor Stroud, who seconded the original motion.

Professor Wiley’s motion to approve #4 with the addition of "unless invited by the committee" was seconded by Professor Mike Russell. Professor Wiley pointed out that committees follow Robert’s Rules of Order; therefore, the committee would necessarily have to have a majority vote to invite an administrator to the meetings.

Professor Mike Russell offered another friendly amendment, which would make the wording change "unless invited through a positive vote of the committee." Professor Ingle seconded the motion. The amendment passed unanimously.

Council then voted on item number four as amended. The motion passed unanimously.

With reference to item number three, concerning the tenure of the Faculty Council President, Professor Wiley said that he would like to see specific wording before voting. Professor Honerkamp replied that he did not want to bother with wording unless the concept was approved by Faculty Council.

Professor Lorraine moved and Professor Wiley seconded a motion to approve changing the term of the Faculty Council President to a two-year term, with the Handbook Committee working on rewording that section.

Professor Stroud asked if the two-year term was repeatable.

Professor Kingdon wants there to be a route for impeachment.

As an "old Jeffersonian," Professor Ingle noted that a single two-year term does not give faculty the opportunity to "throw the rascal out."

Professor Russell reminded his colleague that Jefferson himself served eight years.

The motion passed by a 20-5-1 vote.

Council then turned to item two concerning an Ad Hoc Committee on Death Benefits. Professor David Wiley moved and Professor Mike Russell seconded a motion to have Faculty Council establish an Ad Hoc Committee on Death Benefits composed of at least three members. Professor John Tinkler asked if the Committee would be made up of those who participate in the fund. President Bibler asked if Professor Wiley had a plan. Professor Wiley answered no. Professor Tinkler offered a friendly amendment that those on the Death Benefits Committee be participants in the fund. Both the mover and the seconder of the original motion accepted the amendment.

Professor Ingle asked about the history of the fund.

President Bibler replied that historically it was an AAUP/Faculty Council Committee, but since there is no longer an AAUP group on campus, members thought a change should be made.

Professor Wiley said that the committee sends out notices once a year.

Professor Ingle asked, "If we vote, are we saying we need a committee?"

President Bibler answered "yes."

Professor Stroud asked if this would add another committee.

President Bibler answered "yes."

Professor Honerkamp noted that adding an Ad Hoc Committee does not require a Handbook change.

Professor Ingle asked if the Committee could be abolished next year.

Professor Honerkamp answered "yes."

Professor Fritz Efaw asked if this change was requested by the Committee. Why is action needed?

Professor Wiley explained that money is given to the widow or widower of a participant. It is helpful to the family at that time because insurance money does not come immediately. He believes that we do need a committee so that there is regulation and a report each year.

Professor Lorraine called for the question.

Professor Prem Chopra asked if it was legitimate for Faculty Council to have a committee composed only of people who participate in the fund.

Professor Wiley believed that it was all right and that there was a history of it.

Professor Kingdon remarked that membership itself is not restricted; only "leadership" is restricted.

When Professor Wiley as parliamentarian was asked for a ruling about this matter, he reminded President Bibler that the parliamentarian only advises, but does not decide.

Professor Honerkamp said that Ad Hoc committees do not have to follow specific guidelines.

The motion passed by voice vote.

Professor Lorraine moved approval of item number 1; Professor James Avery seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote.

Faculty Council Resolutions

President Bibler began by giving some background about the resolutions. Other campuses have Faculty Senates, not Councils, but representatives from these groups were concerned that faculty has no representatives on THEC and the Board of Trustees, although students sit on both boards. The University of Memphis drafted the resolutions, which have already been passed by faculty bodies at The University of Memphis and The University of Tennessee (Knoxville). It is under consideration at The University of Tennessee (Martin).

President Bibler changed the wording to reflect references to our own campus. He would like to see both resolutions passed.

Membership on these governing boards would rotate among campuses just as the student members do.

Professor Ken Carson said that the wording on the longer resolution does not really accomplish that.

President Bibler explained that that resolution refers to subcommittees.

Professor Ingle wanted to know what is changed by passing these resolutions.

President Bibler noted that Professor Sedrick is on the Student Affairs Committee, but not because he is a Faculty Council member. If we had members of the Faculty Council on these subcommittees, we would have a better idea of what is going on.

Professor Wiley moved and Professor Phil Giffin seconded approval of both resolutions.

Professor Lorraine questioned the wording of the last sentence concerning sub-committees. The sentence should read "solely for members of the UT Chattanooga Faculty Council."

Professor Ingle asked how many people are on the Board of Trustees.

President Bibler believed that there are fifteen or sixteen voting members, including one student.

Professor Ingle asked if the rotating faculty member would have a vote.

President Bibler answered "yes."

The motion passed by voice vote.

Professor Ingle asked to what extent this resolution could make an impact on the Board of Trustees. He does not believe that the student trustee has made much difference for students.

Professor Bibler conceded that it would not be a large voice, but it would be a better voice than we have now.

Professor Neal Coulter asked if it would take legislative action to make this change.

President Bibler was not sure.

Professor Stroud said that at least it sends a message that faculty members believe they are underrepresented.

Old Business

Professor David Wiley distributed a memorandum to Council as a response to President Johnson’s memorandum about prayer. He asked that it be included in the minutes.

President Bibler said that it would be and that the matter can be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.

Professor Lorraine moved and Professor Stroud seconded a motion to include discussion of Professor Wiley’s memorandum about prayer on the agenda for the next meeting. The motion passed by voice vote.

Mr. Dan Webb presented Council with new information on TennCare. He brought along Peri Meadows, from Human Resources, who presented information about a new HMO, Health Source, which will be available soon.

With regard to the dental plan, our current provider is trying to get more people to sign up. Mr. Webb asked that we recommend to him dentists for this plan.

Professor Stroud suggested that we are working with a handicap. Those who are busy do not want to be in; those who are less busy may not have the large clientele for a reason.

Ms. Meadows reminded faculty that they can make changes before January 1 to modify the way their dental insurance is set up. You can choose your own dentist, but you will pay a higher premium.

Ms. Meadows then began talking about Health Source, an HMO which has been in Knoxville for a while. She distributed a chart which shows how Health Source compares with our current plan. (The chart is attached to these minutes.) Health Source will be sending out information next week to our home addresses; in addition, we will be getting information through Campus Mail.

The HMO will cost less than the basic plan we now have. Many questions faculty have can be answered on October 17, when a Health Source representative will be here. Two meetings are planned, at 1:30 and at 3:30. Details will be forthcoming.

Ms. Meadows said that we do not expect any premium changes in our current plan. Eighty-eight new Hamilton County doctors have signed up, and Erlanger has been added to the provider list.

Professor David Wiley asked about the politics of this change. Why do we now have two choices?

Ms. Meadows explained that the HMO concept has expanded. Previously the Chattanooga market has not been very receptive to the HMO concept.

Professor Efaw asked what we should do if we do not get the information.

Ms. Meadows said to call her office if you do not get information about Health Source by October 17.

Professor Efaw noted that if you go to a non-TPN provider, there is a reduction in benefits. Will that happen with an HMO also?

Ms. Meadows said that an HMO works quite differently. There is a $5.00 co-payment per visit and no deductible, but if you go to a doctor outside of the network, there is no coverage.

Professor Efaw remarked that it is difficult to find out what health care is really going to cost you in part because you do not have a policy to explain what is covered.

Ms. Meadows said that Blue Cross will not give out a list of Usual and Customary Charges.

Professor Efaw suggested that we start our own list. Several members also thought that this was a good idea.

Professor Honerkamp asked how much choice an HMO would give us. Would we still have a problem finding doctors?

Ms. Meadows said that the HMO now has approximately eighty physicians. First you would be screened through a primary care physician; then you might be sent to a specialist.

Professor Honerkamp asked if they were still recruiting.

Ms. Meadows said "yes."

Professor Stroud remarked that the HMO sounds even more restrictive.

Ms. Meadows agreed.

Professor Russell asked if the HMO primary care physician recommends you to a specialist outside of the HMO, will the HMO pay?

Ms. Meadows said "yes."

Professor Wiley asked if emergency care was covered.

Ms. Meadows said yes, on a fee for service basis.

Professor Efaw asked if you could request your own specialist.

Ms. Meadows said no, not if there is a specialist in that area in the HMO. If there is not a specialist in the HMO, then you get a fee for service payment on the specialist of your choice.

Mr. Webb commented that the HMO might be slow in getting started, but that they are going to be trying hard.

Ms. Meadows said that you could always change back, but there is a six-month pre-existing condition clause in both policies.

Professor Kingdon suggested that we could just go to the Ad Hoc Committee for Death Benefits.

In other old business, Professor Ingle asked about the EDO. He noted that the ostensible reason for the EDO was to guarantee fair and equitable merit pay. Since all recent raises have come from the legislature, he moved that the Faculty Council recommend that all tenured faculty members choose not to participate in the EDO process this year.

Professor Stroud seconded the motion.

Professor Wiley inquired as to whether faculty members who refused could be considered insubordinate.

Professor Stroud believed that the EDO was currently voluntary.

Professor Ron Cox said that he did not have that understanding. We do have to have an annual evaluation, but perhaps it does not necessarily have to be the EDO.

Professor Stroud asked for clarification. There’s no requirement that the evaluation be an EDO?

Professor Cox replied, "That’s right."

Professor Wiley agreed.

Professor Mike Russell said that he had heard reports that people who are unwilling to sign their EDO forms did not get raises.

Professor Lorraine had heard the same stories.

Professor Ingle remarked that we are not getting raises now.

Professor Wiley asked what the purpose of Professor Ingle’s motion was: To do away with the EDO or to force merit raises?

Professor Stroud said that the reason for his second of the motion was to do away with spending time on a futile enterprise.

Professor Wiley said that if faculty members are willing to take the consequences, it might be all right, but we really do not know what is going to happen as a result of such refusal. The legislature might surprise us with a 16% raise this year, although admittedly unlikely!

Professor Tinkler remarked that if the legislature does that, people will be beating department heads about the head and shoulders with EDO packages.

Professor Russell said that he would prefer the old system, where you just have a report. He moved to table this matter until we find out if we get an October across-the-board raise.

Professor Wiley remarked that we could vote for this, and it only makes a statement about how we feel about the EDO. No one has to follow our recommendation.

Professor Ken Carson said that he would prefer for us to make a statement about the EDO process itself rather than making some faculty uncomfortable if they chose not to go along with the motion, if it passed.

Professor McDonell noted that as an untenured faculty member, he would not feel comfortable voting on what tenured faculty members should do.

Professor Wiley suggested that if you do not do a required thing, it could be considered grounds for revoking tenure.

Professor McDonell says that he does not feel the EDO process is onerous now. He has not been here a year when there were merit raises. He does not see that the EDO has much meaning now.

Professor Honerkamp thought that the motion should be tabled until we know that the EDO is required. He did note that the EDO is the only method presently named in the Handbook for merit raises.

Professor Honerkamp moved and Professor Kingdon seconded the motion to table this matter until the next meeting.

Professor Stroud asked that Legal Counsel be consulted.

Professor Bibler remarked that Legal Counsel does not want to hear from faculty, but he would try to accomplish such consultation.

The motion to table passed by voice vote.

New Business

Professor Anna Panorska expressed concerns about the untenured woman who wants to start a family. What type of maternity leave can she expect? Does a faculty member come forward to take the responsibility?

Professor Wiley asked if she had consulted her department head.

Professor Panorska responded that they have a new head.

Professor Lorraine said that she had been on a committee sponsored by former Provost Sandra Packard to address maternity leave. She thought they had decided on two weeks with pay or a semester without pay, but she cannot remember seeing the policy in writing.

Professor Sedrick asked if the tenure clock stopped if the person took a semester’s leave without pay.

No one knew the answer to that.

Professor Panorska asked who set the policy.

Professor Lorraine thought it might be in the information packet.

President Bibler promised to try to find out the answer about leave and tenure.

Professor Ling-Jun Wang wondered if the tenure clock does stop, how many children can the person have? Is it a one-time privilege?

Professor Honerkamp noted that in his department, a person had a major illness, and the person’s classes were taken care of by volunteers.

Several people agreed that it would be preferable not to have to call upon the charitable feelings of your colleagues.


There were no announcements.


The meeting was adjourned at 4:37 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Young


top.gif (189 bytes)