shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)


March 7, 1996
Signal Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Bibler, Mary Brabston, Martha Butterfield, Terry Carney, Ken Carson, Neal Coulter, Ahmed Eltom, Nick Honerkamp, Bruce Hutchinson, Phil Kazemersky, Doug Kingdon, Tom Kozubowski, John Lynch, Jim Macomber, Verbie Prevost, Bill Prince, Mike Russell, Joyce Smith, Kristin Switala, Margaret Trimpey, Sally Young, Shela Van Ness

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Betsy Alderman, Prem Chopra, Robert Duffy, Shawn Evans, Leroy Fanning, Renée Lorraine, Bob Marlowe, Jim McDonell, Gail Meyer, Anna Panorska, Tom Payne, John Phillips, Barbara Ray, Katherine Rehyansky, Maria Smith

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Sheila Delacroix, Fred Obear, Charles Renneisen, George Ross

AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Rebecca Carlisle (Echo), Brenda Davis, Gene Ezell, Lance Gurley (MCI), Carolyn Mitchell, Ralph Moser, Carter Pate, Jerry Patton, Thomas Scott (MCI), Heather Wilson (Echo)

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 3:21 by President Martha Butterfield.

Approval of Minutes

The minutes of the February 15, 1996 meeting were approved as circulated.

The minutes of the February 22, 1996 called meeting were approved with one correction. On page 3, it was Doug Kingdon, not Doug Kutz, who seconded the motion that Council accept Option 3.

MCI On Line

Ms. Janet Wixson explained that a partnership exists between MCI and UTC; so far there are over 500 MCI On Line accounts. She introduced Mr. Tom Scott, a senior National Account Executive from MCI, who oversees the Tennessee area.

He explained that MCI’s UTC On Line account costs $12/month for 60 hours and $0.95 per hour after that. This account, which has a $10.00 sign-up fee, gives you dial up access to the Internet using Netscape and Eudora software (provided by MCI). It is available to faculty, students, and friends of the University.

Professor Ken Carson asked who "friends of the University" are. Mr. Scott answered that it was anyone who heard about UTC On Line and called the 800-number to sign up. He explained that people in the community can use it; for example, Tennessee Temple is accessing it. One advantage of UTC On Line over other services is that MCI has dial up numbers in most Tennessee cities, so you can access your e-mail through your laptop from almost anywhere in the state.

President Martha Butterfield said that she knows AT&T is planning a similar service. How does MCI plan to compete? Mr. Scott explained that AT&T’s service will not be available for at least 90 days whereas MCI’s is available now. Further, they do not plan to have as many local dial in numbers.

Professor Sheila Delacroix asked if a user left UTC, could he or she continue to use the service. Mr. Scott replied yes; it is up to the user to cancel the service. MCI gives unlimited e-mail, he added. In the next month or so, MCI will be offering housing for homepages. Faculty will not need University approval for an MCI homepage; the responsibility is that of the individual and MCI. They are developing a partnership with Microsoft and will be adding Microsoft Network soon.

Professor Phil Kazemersky asked about Explorer software. Mr. Scott explained that Explorer is the Microsoft Web navigator and will replace Netscape. Professor Mary Brabston explained that she had used Explorer for four or five hours and found it very similar to Netscape in the way it works.

Professor Carson asked if there would be an additional charge for a homepage, to which Mr. Scott said yes, but it would be nominal. He urged people already on the Net to look at campus MCI at for information. Interested people were urged to pick up software today or to call Monty Wilson at 4039. A student representative can come to your classes to explain the service to students.

A department-wide group sign-up can also be arranged. Professor Terry Carney asked if everyone in the department had to be included. Mr. Scott said that departments could define themselves; all MCI was interested in is where to send the bill.

Committee Reports

Committee on Committees

Professor Ken Carson, chair, reported that April York-Baker will serve on the Student Conduct Board to replace a student who resigned.

Ad Hoc Committee on Faculty Administrative Relations-Mediation

Professor Bill Butterfield said that the committee’s report was self-explanatory and hoped that there would be a motion from the floor.

Professor Shela Van Ness moved and Professor Nick Honerkamp moved adoption of the first suggested motion contained in the "Recommendations to the Faculty Council from the Past Three Chairs of the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee, 1993-94-95": "We propose that the Faculty Council establish a Mediation Committee based on the concepts espoused in this proposal."

Professor Butterfield explained that mediator use is voluntary. A faculty member and chair, for example, could agree to meet with a mediator (chosen from a list of volunteers who have training). The mediator has no power; his or her purpose is to facilitate discussion. All conversation is confidential; nothing is reported. Mediation could keep disputes from going to the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee.

Professor Ken Carson asked if mediators could be "subcontractors" to the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee. Professor Bill Butterfield said yes; but they wanted there to be no expense.

Professor Verbie Prevost asked how many people qualify now as mediators. Professor Butterfield said that six are already qualified, but that others could be trained. He knows of a Better Business Bureau mediation workshop to be held in Chattanooga in the fall; people interested in becoming mediators could inquire about being certified then. Other groups also certify mediators.

Professor Mike Russell said it was his understanding that mediation had been suggested previously because the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee had been overwhelmed. Professor Butterfield said his recollection was valid; frequently people had come to that Committee for help, but they did not want to go through the formal process. The Committee, therefore, just ended up giving advice; nothing was resolved. Professor Russell said that he thought if he had a problem, he would prefer to go to the Committee first, then to the mediator. Professor Butterfield said that he could still do that; the mediator is purely optional. In fact, a person could go to the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee first to get advice; then go to the mediator; then make a formal appeal to the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee if the problem was not resolved through mediation. The mediator and the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee would not really be related.

Professor Nick Honerkamp suggested amending the motion to read that the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee is authorized to point people in the direction of the certified mediators. Professor Carter Pate asked if we needed official linkage so that people would know mediation was available. Professor Ken Carson moved a substitute motion: that the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee be directed to develop language for the Faculty Handbook concerning the function of mediators to be inserted in the description of the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee. The motion was seconded by Professor Tom Bibler.

Professor Butterfield said that he would prefer not to have great linkage between the Committee and the mediators because they have separate functions. Professor Prevost pointed out that people would need a way to contact mediators. Professor Butterfield said a list of mediators could be circulated, and people could call them themselves. Professor Bibler noted that the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee is already in place; adding wording to the Handbook would help and the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee could have an up-to-date list of mediators. Professor Martha Butterfield suggested that mediators could be listed below the members of the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee on the Committee List.

Professor Terry Carney pointed out that the mediators do not fit the pattern of a Faculty Council Committee; they are not elected. The only committee change would be if they leave.

The motion passed by voice vote.

Attention then turned to motion number two, which read: "We propose that the university have an instructional excellence retreat based on the uses of a collaborative model in a university setting and that, after the retreat, a faculty-administration committee be formed to propose how this model can be implemented."

Professor Terry Carney noted that in his experience, the TQM model works only if it comes from the top; he does not believe it will be successful if it comes from the faculty. Professor Tom Bibler questioned the terminology "instructional excellence retreat," noting that the Instructional Excellence Committee is not a Faculty Council committee. Professor Margaret Trimpey believed that the topic was not suitable for an Instructional Excellence Retreat.

Professor Mike Russell then asked what had happened to Professor Bill Butterfield’s earlier idea about having elected chairs, instead of heads. He thought elected chairs might take care of some of the administrative problems. Professor Butterfield explained that he was told that having heads was a system-wide policy; therefore, a recommendation for such a change was not on this proposal. Chancellor Obear said that the change could be brought up at a system meeting. President Martha Butterfield said that she would mention it at such a meeting. Professor Bill Butterfield opined that if people were elected chairs by the faculty and approved by administrators, they might be better facilitators. His committee left it that Faculty Council could bring up the idea at the system meeting. President Martha Butterfield said that a committee had looked at the question of heads vs. chairs and found little interest in change.

Professor Nick Honerkamp observed that proposals two and three are similar. He wondered whether we would need two if we approved three. Professor Terry Carney noted that "TQM" has a focus on "customers." Therefore, he believes that two has a deeper objective than what is proposed in three. For two to work, there needs to be a prior focus on whether the University wants to go in this direction.

President Martha Butterfield said that as a former member of the Faculty Administrative Relations Committee, she realizes that problems frequently are not resolved. Professor Ken Carson suggested that the Faculty Council communicate our concerns to the Administration by recommending motion three; then if number two is in order, we can recommend that later. Professor Honerkamp moved and Professor Shela Van Ness seconded the motion to recommend number three. Professor Bill Butterfield said that a motion was not really needed; a "sense of the group" could be communicated. Professor Honerkamp asked President Butterfield to serve as "point woman" in this regard.

Executive Committee

President Martha Butterfield expressed concern that the Student Rating of the Faculty results were still not in the hands of the faculty. When she inquired as to why, the answer seemed to be that the results were in the hands of the Deans. She believes that even though the Deans were reminded of the ruling, student written comments are being copied. She has asked Professor Ken Carson to come up with wording for a formal protest about this practice. The problem points to a larger issue, however: The administrators do not trust faculty to be honest about their evaluations; and faculty members do not trust administrators to evaluate them.

Professor Nick Honerkamp presented "A Resolution Opposing Senate Bill 3229." He observed that the bill has now gone back to committee and believes that some legislators may be getting cold feet about it. It is certainly an abridgment of academic freedom no matter how you personally feel about the teaching of evolution. Professor Nick Honerkamp moved and Professor Tom Bibler seconded the motion to approve the resolution.

Professor Jim Macomber wondered about leaving out the last "whereas" which refers to the Scopes trial. Professor Honerkamp said that passage of the bill would have an economic impact because it puts our education system up to ridicule. Professor Margaret Trimpey agreed; Tennessee has already made national news with regard to the Scopes trial being "revisited." A member observed that the Tennessee Attorney General has already ruled it unconstitutional. Professor David Wiley noted that the resolution does not address the House Bill 2972. Professor Honerkamp said that we can add "House Bill 2972" to the resolution each time "Senate Bill 3229" appears.

Professor Macomber reiterated that every "whereas" except the last has a high note; he would still like to remove the last one. Professor Verbie Prevost agreed that the tone changes there. Professor Honerkamp thought it was appropriate to warn people. Professor Macomber then asked if it could be worded more like the others. Professor Jim Russell said that as an historian, he agrees with the last "whereas." Professor David Wiley wondered how "local education" is defined. Professor Honerkamp said he did not know how to interpret it; it is ambiguous to him. Professor Wiley asked if the resolution would affect UTC. Professor Honerkamp responded, "Who knows?" President Martha Butterfield believed that amendments were being added to it. Professor Joyce Smith suggested that the last "whereas" read: "Whereas this bill will subject the State of Tennessee to public ridicule and derision," leaving off the reference to the Scopes trial. Professor Macomber liked the change, and Professor Honerkamp agreed to the change. Professor Wiley asked where the resolution would be sent. President Butterfield said to all members of the legislature. Professor Honerkamp observed that East Tennessee State University has already sent a resolution on this. Professor Van Ness suggested that it should also go to the governor.

The motion, as amended, passed by voice vote.

It was observed that we no longer had a quorum, and Terry Carney moved to adjourn. The motion failed 11-6. Because the report from the Graduate Council and the motion on the Calendar could not be voted on, they will appear again on the agenda for the March 21 meeting.

Old Business

There was no old business.

New Business

Action of Board on Masters in Environmental Science

President Martha Butterfield reported that the Board of Trustees has accepted the Masters in Environmental Science. It now goes to THEC. The Board’s response was favorable, and they observed that there is nothing else like it in the state.

Report on Letter from Eli Fly

President Butterfield said that Eli Fly had sent a report to campus regarding the Governor’s budget request. A 3% raise has been suggested, funded 2% by the state and 1% by the institution. It would not be retroactive.

Professor Bruce Hutchinson said he thinks local public school teachers have gotten better raises than we have. Can the Budget and Economic Status Committee look into this? There seems to be compression here. Professor Mike Russell said that his wife teaches in the Chattanooga City Schools, and that she has received better raises than we have. Professor Hutchinson believes that they earn their money, but thinks we still should be aware of the compression problem. Vice Chancellor George Ross said that he would try to find out the data and get it ready for the next meeting.

President Butterfield expressed sympathy to Greg Sedrick, whose father died; to Prem Chopra, whose father died; and to Mary Tinkler, whose mother died. The Council secretary was instructed to send notes of condolence to them.

Teaching Resource Center

President Butterfield said that our next guest was here as a result of faculty efforts. Following the Evaluation of Teaching Committee’s recommendations, a UC Foundation proposal was written and funded to develop a Teaching Resource Center. After a national search, Dr. Karen Adsit was hired as Director.

Dr. Adsit said that she is now housed in a temporary office with a borrowed computer and desk. Since her arrival, she has been meeting with faculty, deans, and department heads trying to identify priorities for the Teaching Resource Center so that she can focus her efforts in needed directions. On the basis of these interviews, she has written a mission statement, identifying four main areas of concern: Faculty Development; Media and Materials Production; Software Review, Evaluation, and Implementation; and Educational Technology Grants and Research.

She is working on a Homepage for the Teaching Resource Center. She will be happy to come to your office and help you see how technology can help you; please call her (755-4026) to discuss implementing new techniques. She can also help with multimedia design. She also hopes to provide a bridge between theories of teaching strategies, using them, and seeing if they work. Further, she has met with Grants and Research people to see what content-specific grants are available that she might help faculty apply for.

In April, she will try to schedule 45-60 minute demonstrations to show faculty how to implement some of the new technology. As she passed out spearmints to members of Council, she said that she hoped the Teaching Resource Center, like the candy, could give faculty a "fresh perspective" on teaching.


The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Young


top.gif (189 bytes)