shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)


April 23, 1996
Raccoon Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Mary Brabston, Martha Butterfield, Terry Carney, Ken Carson, Prem Chopra, Robert Duffy, Ahmed Eltom, Leroy Fanning, Nick Honerkamp, Phil Kazemersky, Tom Kozubowski, Renée Lorraine, John Lynch, Jim Macomber, Gail Meyer, Anna Panorska, Tom Payne, John Phillips, Verbie Prevost, Bill Prince, Barbara Ray, Mike Russell, Joyce Smith, Kristin Switala, Margaret Trimpey, Sally Young

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Betsy Alderman, Tom Bibler, Neal Coulter, Shawn Evans, Bruce Hutchinson, Doug Kingdon, Bob Marlowe, Jim McDonell, Katherine Rehyansky, Maria Smith, Shela Van Ness

NEW MEMBERS PRESENT: Ralph Anderson, Prakash Damshala, Fritz Efaw, Gene Ezell, Jim Hiestand, Deborah McAllister, Judy Miler, Jim Stroud


AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Greg Sedrick, Roger Thompson

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 1:15 p.m. by President Martha Butterfield in the Raccoon Mountain Room.

Committee Reports

Graduate Council

Greg Sedrick, Chair, proposed one change in the Masters of Science in Engineering Management entrance requirements: Applicants with a certain grade point average would not be required to take the GRE. This ruling would apply not only to new applicants, but also to existing students. Professor Prem Chopra moved, and Professor Phil Kazemersky seconded the motion to approve the change.

Professor Nick Honerkamp asked if there were any accreditation ramifications. Professor Sedrick replied no. He added that the existing Master of Science in Engineering degree no longer requires the GRE. Professor Terry Carney further explained that accreditation in engineering works a bit differently than it does in other disciplines. Universities have the choice of accrediting either their undergraduate or graduate programs. At UTC we chose the undergraduate program so that our students can sit for professional exams.

Professor Ken Carson asked what the qualifying grade point average is. Professor Sedrick said a 2.5.

The motion passed by voice vote.


Professor Bill Butterfield has agreed to chair the committee for another year. One of their duties will be to determine if we should continue to hold convocation.

New Business

Executive Committee

Professor Nick Honerkamp proposed the following people for the Executive Committee:

First Vice President - Ken Carson

Second Vice President - Gail Meyer

Secretary - Renée Lorraine

He welcomed nominations from the floor. There were none, and the slate was elected by acclamation.

Committee on Committees

Professors Fritz Efaw, Verbie Prevost, Phil Kazemersky, Marvin Ernst and Mary Brabston were nominated. There being no further nominations, the five were elected by acclamation.

Handbook Committee

Professors Jim Hiestand, Ralph Anderson, John Phillips, Mike Russell, and Deborah McAllister were nominated. There being no further nominations, the five were elected by acclamation.

Grade Appeals Committee

Professors Terry Carney, Nick Honerkamp, and Irene Loomis were nominated as the three regular members of the Committee, and Professors Oralia Prebul-Niemi and Jim Avery were nominated as alternates. There being no further nominations, the five were elected by acclamation.

Honor Court

Professor Gene Van Horn was nominated to continue as Chair. Professors Tom Waddell, Marea Rankin, and Lenny Krzycki were nominated as regular members; Professors Jim Hiestand, Nick Honerkamp, and Virginia Keatley were nominated as alternates. The seven were elected by acclamation.

Graduate Council

Professors John Trimpey, Bruce Hutchinson, Tatiana Allen, and Jerry Dauer were nominated. Professors John Trimpey and Bruce Hutchinson were elected.

Old Business

Professor Roger Thompson distributed a revised version of the recommendations of the Academic Standards Committee which had been remanded to the Committee at the April 18, 1996 meeting. He explained that they were interested in having flexibility as well as being streamlined. The Committee tried to accommodate the needs of different divisions and attempted to add depth to the degree programs.

Professor Terry Carney asked if the registrar had seen the document. He believes that the 25% rule will be awkward if a student switches from a degree requiring 128 hours to one requiring 154. Professor Thompson said that he has worked with Brenda Davis, and she foresees no problem with it. Chancellor Fred Obear remarked that the 25% refers only to the degree earned by the student; the record-keeping really is not that difficult. Because of the variable credit hours, many institutions are going to a percentage rather than a flat number of hours. We are joining a trend.

Professor Anna Panorska had a question about the International Student Exchange hours. She was concerned because she believes international students often have to "translate" their transcripts anyway. Professor Thompson explained that the intent was to keep students from having to petition so many courses. Professor Terry Carney noted that there are many international students in engineering. He believes that they are not affected by this change. As he reads it, the passage refers to UTC students who take courses abroad and transfer them to UTC. President Butterfield agreed that point 3 refers to UTC students earning credits abroad. Associate Provost Jane Harbaugh said that "international students" does usually mean students coming from other countries; this passage may need clarification.

Professor Tom Payne suggested deleting "international" in the sentence about "credit earned at a foreign university while participating in an international student exchange program approved by UTC’s Office of International Education."

Professor Terry Carney asked why the number of hours is being dropped from thirty to twenty-four for the last hours in residence, if the intent is to improve the degree requirements. Professor Thompson explained that the basis for the thirty hours was originally that students take fifteen hours per semester. Now twelve hours is full time, so the number would be twenty-four rather than thirty. Basically the senior year would be spent in residence.

Professor Carney questioned section 2a, which says that forty-two hours must be taken at the 300/400 level. He wonders why this is categorized as a restriction on transfer credit. Professor Margaret Trimpey asked if section 2b meant that if you started at UTC, you would need less than forty-two hours. Professor Thompson replied no.

Professor Ken Carson proposed the following changes:

The heading "2. Restrictions on Transfer Credit" would be deleted. Number 2a would become 2. Number 2b would become 3. Number 3 would become 4.

Professor Ralph Anderson, who has served on the Petitions Committee, said that they have many petitions concerning the sixty-hour rule. This change means that a student could go to a community college in the last two years, but still have at least sixty-four hours at a four-year institution. He thinks it is a good idea.

Professor Gail Meyer wanted to revisit Terry Carney’s first question concerning the number of hours considered full-time. On page 2, thirty-two hours is suggested.

Professor Verbie Prevost moved to separate Section 1c out of the proposed revisions and vote on the others. The motion was seconded by Margaret Trimpey.

Professor Butterfield asked about the intent of page two of the narrative. Was the rationale that most students do take only twenty-four hours? Professor Thompson said that if you are looking at two semesters of full-time course work, twenty-four hours would be sufficient. Professor Gail Meyer questioned whether this was one-fourth of their university career. A "senior year" would typically be more than twenty-four hours.

Professor Robert Duffy asked what the Petitions Committee had done with the 30/60 hour rule in the past. Professor Trimpey said that the Committee hears about fifteen petitions per year. Most of them are from students who have degrees from other colleges and come here with fewer than thirty hours left.

Professor Ralph Anderson said that the committee has been less flexible on the thirty-hour rule than on the sixty-hour rule. Sometimes students have well over sixty hours at a four-year institution, including UTC, and have gone to Chattanooga State for a two-year degree in the middle of their university career.

Professor Ken Carson asked for an explanation of the philosophy of the last thirty hours being from UTC. Professor Terry Carney explained that engineering has several capstone courses. The department wants to see students perform in these areas before giving them degrees from our institution. Professor Ralph Anderson agreed; their program has a field internship which comes in the last semester hours. Several other members gave examples of where exceptions should be made in the thirty-hour rule when it did not impact the student’s major.

Professor Gail Meyer wondered about the reasoning in 1(c) involving twenty-one hours. Professor Thompson explained that sometimes students get jobs out of town when they have just one course left. Professor John Lynch added that sometimes students need courses which are offered only once every two years; students need some flexibility. Professor Lynch added that he likes the requirement of twelve hours at UTC at the 300/400 level in the major.

Chancellor Fred Obear said that he had an interesting petition on his desk now. The student has over 150 hours in a degree program which requires 128 hours, has a 3.5 grade point average, but could not do her last thirty hours at UTC because of her pregnancy and her husband’s job. She has already been accepted into graduate school. He believes the thirty-hour rule is not really necessary in this case. He recalled that part of the original reason for the thirty-hour rule was that students did three years at UTC, then moved away for the last year but expected their degree from UTC. Professor Harbaugh agreed with his recollection.

Professor John Lynch asked if the new wording might reduce the number of petitions. Professor Thompson believed it would.

The motion to accept the recommendations was made at the last meeting. The motion to vote on the recommendations except for section 1(c) passed by voice vote. The motion to accept the recommendations as amended passed by voice vote.

With regard to section 1(c), Professor Nick Honerkamp asked if members would present a succinct pro and con. Professor Thompson spoke in support of the change because it provides some relief for the student in case of hardship. Professor Phil Kazemersky said the reason to oppose the change was that it reduces the thirty hours. Professor John Phillips concurred, adding that the hours are taken away from UTC at the end of the student’s career.

The motion passed by voice vote. President Butterfield asked Professor Thompson to get a revised copy of the recommendations to her for distribution at the first full faculty meeting in September. Professor Carson suggested a different format for reporting the changes, perhaps a three-column format with the current wording, the proposed change, and the rationale for each point.

President Butterfield then introduced President-Elect Gene Ezell, who assumes his duties July 1. He thanked past members, welcomed new members, and asked all members to pick up a list of dates for the next academic year. The Executive Committee members were asked to pick up another list from him.

President Butterfield thanked all those who had served on Council and said that it had been a pleasure working with them.


The meeting was adjourned at 2:35 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Young


top.gif (189 bytes)