shorttop.jpg (1907 bytes)


October 19, 1995
Signal Mountain Room
University Center

ELECTED MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Bibler, Mary Brabston, Martha Butterfield, Ken Carson, Prem Chopra, Betsy Cook, Nick Honerkamp, Bruce Hutchinson, Phil Kazemersky, Doug Kingdon, John Lynch, Jim Macomber, Gail Meyer, Anna Panorska, Tom Payne, John Phillips, Verbie Prevost, Bill Prince, Katherine Rehyansky, Mike Russell, Joyce Smith, Kristin Switala, Margaret Trimpey, Sally Young

ELECTED MEMBERS ABSENT: Neal Coulter, Robert Duffy, Ahmed Eltom, Shawn Evans, Leroy Fanning, Tom Kozubowski, Eric Lane, Renée Lorraine, Jim McDonell, Barbara Ray, Maria Smith, Shela Van Ness

EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS PRESENT: Sheila Delacroix, Charles Renneisen, Grayson Walker

AMONG THE GUESTS PRESENT: Michael Bell, Richard Brown, Ralph Hood, Ralph Moser, Jerry Patton, Alan Rabin, Clint Smullen, Tim Summerlin, Mike Whittle, Monty Wilson, Janet Wixson

Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 3:20 by President Martha Butterfield.

Approval of Minutes

Professor Bruce Hutchinson asked that his statement on page six be changed to read that "the Administration has known there was a problem for months; we should not be asked to move quickly now."

Professor Nick Honerkamp said that Professor Renée Lorraine’s statement on page six should read that "the Administration had said that was not possible," not "the Chancellor."

Professor Mike Russell asked that his statement on page four be corrected to read "In consultation with the Department Head," rather than with "the Dean."

The minutes were then approved as corrected.

Committee Reports

Ad Hoc Honor Court Committee

Professor Tom Bibler passed out the recommendations of the committee to the membership; they are attached to these minutes. Recommendation 1 should read, "If an offense includes both an academic aspect (an Honor Court violation, e.g. cheating) and a conduct violation (under the jurisdiction of the disciplinary dean and the conduct board, e.g. unauthorized entry), it should result in two separate hearings and the possibility of two separate penalties."

The Committee met with Karen Holt, University attorney, to discuss the biology break-in. These recommendations resulted, including that there be two separate hearings, consideration of aggravating circumstances, and that the University Echo publish a summary of Honor Court actions.

The fourth recommendation addresses a "hole" in the current procedure. If a faculty member handles the action, others have no way of knowing if a student has other infractions. Therefore, faculty are asked to forward names and circumstances of actions so that repeat offenders can be tracked.

Professor Bibler moved adoption of the four points; Professor Doug Kingdon seconded the motion.

Professor Mike Russell asked if it said in the Student Handbook that faculty can give the punishment. Dean Charles Renneisen said yes, if both parties agree. If the student does not agree, a hearing is held.

Professor Russell said that in the biology break-in, he thought the punishment was inadequate. Couldn’t something else have been done in this particular incident?

Professor Bibler said probably so, if the faculty member involved had wanted to press charges, but the faculty member did not. Karen Holt said we would have had a weak case without that faculty member’s support.

With respect to the fourth section, Professor Bruce Hutchinson asked if a student would realize that by accepting the F, it would be an admission of guilt and might have ramifications later. Professor Bibler said that was a good point.

Professor Hutchinson said that he was concerned about having two processes. Could you get conflicting penalties or perhaps identical penalties? Dean Renneisen said that two different charges would be involved; you could have concurrent or consecutive sentences. Personally he agrees with all recommendations. He noted that these would have to be Administrative Procedures Act (APA) changes, which is a longer process.

Professor Jim Macomber suggested coordination between the two bodies. Who would be responsible for that? Dean Renneisen said that normally the Honor Court hears the case first; then Dean MacDougall holds his hearing. He would then decide whether to add to the penalty.

Professor Nick Honerkamp noted that we seem to be recommending two actions. He believes it would be the responsibility of whoever hears it first to send word to the others. Dean Renneisen said that if a case goes downtown, Dean MacDougall hears it after the judge gives his sentence.

Professor Hutchinson wants there to be some clearly drawn procedure, even if it is just that a memo must go from one to the other.

Professor Honerkamp suggested that there be an amendment to the recommendations. Professor Hutchinson recommended having the committee word such an amendment to make sure that it was correct. Dean Renneisen said that those at the hearing would not know about the previous dispensation until after they had made their decision; then it might come into play with their penalty.

Professor Russell said that if the charge is serious, both the Honor Court and the Student Conduct Board would know about it.

Professor Honerkamp explained that there are two processes. The Honor Court is less formal than the hearing at which lawyers are present. If students have two places they can get a penalty, we do not want to put them in double jeopardy. Professor Bibler reminded Council that the two hearings are on different charges. For example, in a case like the biology break-in, the Student Conduct Board would look at the question of the possible break-in and the Honor Court would look at the question of trying to get access to test questions.

Professor Gail Meyer wondered if the faculty member involved in the biology break-in had been informed of what not filing charges meant. Mr. Richard Brown said he believes the faculty member wanted it to be handled internally and did not want to file criminal charges.

Professor Hutchinson reiterated his desire for the recommendations to be sent back to the committee. If the committee does not want to make any changes, so be it.

Professor Margaret Trimpey asked if there was a clear cut policy for what happens once both the Student Conduct Board and Honor Court are finished with their hearings. Dean Renneisen said yes. The disciplinary deans handle the rest. With respect to social, either side can appeal to the Chancellor. Honor Court appeals go directly to the Chancellor.

Professor Honerkamp explained that Professor Hutchinson was actually asking how each would know of the other’s ruling. President Butterfield said that the Honor Court chair might send a memo to the Student Conduct Board.

Professor Mike Russell moved an addition to point one: Whichever body adjudicates the case first communicates its action to the other. Professor Margaret Trimpey seconded the motion.

Professor Meyer asked if it was legal to do this. Professor Honerkamp suggested sending the matter to Karen Holt. Professor Doug Kingdon recommended passing it pending approval of the University attorney.

Dean Renneisen said that the Echo was willing to summarize cases. Professor Bibler suggested that the Honor Court chair solicit information pertinent to point four from faculty on a regular basis.

The amendment passed by voice vote.

The motion passed by voice vote.

President Butterfield said that both threats against faculty and incidents of cheating are going up. At a recent conference she attended, it was suggested that you have two people in the room monitoring students during an examination. She reiterated that we must be willing to report unruly students and suggested that the Chancellor may have some sessions about student rights and faculty rights.

Professor Gail Meyer said that faculty must be willing to take responsibility. She has heard students who were upset because their professor has handed out a test and left the room. We need to protect students who do not cheat. Professor Margaret Trimpey believed that students should report those they see cheating. Professor Meyer agreed, but said that if the faculty member did not seem concerned, why should the students be concerned.

Report of the Executive Committee

President Martha Butterfield reviewed the April minutes and found several items which need to be followed up on.

The Bookstore Committee needs to look at a new textbook adoption policy because the old one is no longer operative. She wants them to work with the custom publishing group.

The Faculty/Administrative Relations Committee chair from last year had asked that the new committee look at the recommendations about common decency and mediators. For that reason, President Butterfield has asked the immediate three past chairs of the Faculty/Administrative Relations committee to serve. Bill Butterfield, Betsy Darken and Jim Hiestand will consider these matters.

She reminded committee chairs that the Executive Committee sets the agenda for the meeting the week before. Please get information to her by the Thursday before the regularly scheduled meeting.

Report of the Committee on Committees

Professor Ken Carson, chair, apologized for missing the last meeting because of the storm. Omitting chairs was a clerical oversight, and a corrected list will appear with the next minutes.

Report of the General Education Committee

The Committee approved Communications 320 as a Category G course. The Committee has been working hard on revision of general education and has three models almost ready to reveal. They will have multiple small sessions to review drafts and share them with departments. She would like to have a called Faculty Meeting or put it on January’s agenda, if that agenda is an otherwise short one. The committee’s goal is to have a plan adopted by the April meeting to go to the Board of Trustees.

New Business

Ms. Janet Wixson and Professor Clint Smullen gave a UTC Network Update. We have approximately 800 academic network users. Each port costs nearly $1,000, which includes wiring, hubs, and routers, but not the computer and ethernet card.

New dial up numbers exist: on campus, 4971 and off campus, 265-2664. They will soon double the size of the "data pipe," which may help users to get on the Internet more quickly. On Monday, October 23, a major network outage will occur.

A contract has been finalized with MCI. It appears that it will cost the user $12 per month for the MCI dial up account, which gives 15 hours of prime-time usage, a rate of $.75/hour for extra hours, and unlimited use between 1 AM and 6 AM at no cost.

President Butterfield asked the status of the campus with respect to our goal of having the entire campus networked. Professor Smullen noted that Metro, Brock, and Race/Hooper are yet to be done, but the Provost would have to tell us where funding is.

Provost Grayson Walker said that Brock’s internal wiring is the next step and will be completed this year. Hooper and Race seem to be lost causes. Next year they will go up to the Fine Arts Center, perhaps starting this summer. Once Metro has been renovated, it will be done.

President Butterfield asked if we might borrow against the performance funding monies as was suggested for the library.

The Provost said that didn’t seem necessary at this time, to which Professor Smullen commented, "CECA is ready to spend any money we’re given."

Old Business

Professor Mike Whittle, chair of the Library Committee, asked to be on the agenda concerning the serious budget crisis. The committee asked the administration for more money, but was told that money could probably not be freed. Two other options include not cutting back periodical subscriptions by quite as much or improving the process by which cutting takes place.

Provost Grayson Walker said that the $150,000 needed represents a sum of "considerable magnitude" at this time of year. The "essential services" part of the motion is a key. For example, we could take money out of the networking budget, but those not on the network would think of that money as "essential."

Professor Whittle asked if we needed to cut the entire $150,000 now. That figure was determined on the basis of not getting any increases; perhaps we might get more money in the future. Professor Delacroix said that we cannot predict what the future will hold. Perhaps we can get to $125,000 and stop, but the other $25,000 would have to come from somewhere.

Provost Walker said that the revision of the THEC funding formula was favorable to libraries. If the state approves it, it would help, but we cannot count on it this year. Mr. Ralph Moser noted that if the state had acted on the formula this year, we would have had more money.

Professor Alan Rabin, who is a member of the Library Committee but who was speaking for himself and not on behalf of the committee, said that he questioned the current procedure because journals cross over disciplinary lines. He talked to other departments which had journals on their lists which did not belong to their areas. Thus a journal might be cut by a department which does not really use it but which is essential to another department. He proposed that Professor Delacroix and department heads determine what journals are to be cut; then all departments would have input and could consider the cost of journals, not just titles. When he presented his idea to John Fulmer, Bruce Hutchinson, and Charles Nelson—all department heads—they thought it was good.

Professor Rabin made several points:

We have not seen in print the percentage of the serials budget which will be cut, only a dollar amount. He knows that the library budget is about $660,000 which means that $150,000 is a 22% cut.

Although the University is fond of long-range planning processes, faculty were given only a four-week plan for cutting serials.

He believes that the library staff has disregarded Professor Hutchinson’s motion about Faculty Council’s input into the process. The faculty of the University has, in fact, had little input.

He believes that it is possible that cuts will be unilaterally made by the University Librarian.

In his opinion, the faculty will have a negative input, since they are able to cut journals of another department.

Professor Kristin Switala responded to Professor Rabin’s concerns, saying that the attacking tone with respect to the University Librarian was uncalled for. She asked Professor Delacroix when she came to the University. Professor Delacroix said that she had come in August and had to have a decision in November. Professor Switala said that she believed the University Librarian has worked as hard as possible in a short time. Her department, Philosophy and Religion, decided that they had to do it and did it. This is reality; we have to make cuts.

Professor Rabin agreed that Professor Delacroix has done a remarkable job. He said that perhaps he did implicitly criticize those who made up the lists. But given the broad lists, the way we were given to choose does not work well. He has called many people; many are not happy with the process. He noted that we have two weeks left. Rather than put the burden on Professor Delacroix, since there are over 3,000 journal titles, he wants her to work with department heads and consider costs. He knows that some publishers are overcharging. He believes that we were not given enough information to make good choices. He wants fairness; this process isn’t fair.

Professor Mike Russell pointed out that the librarians are faculty; they vote with us at faculty meetings. He sympathizes with Professor Rabin’s position, but as a practical matter, a meeting of department heads would be unwieldy.

Professor Rabin said that even if deans did the negotiating after meetings with department heads, that would still give more negotiating opportunity.

Professor Nick Honerkamp pointed out that some departments have gone through the process with their faculty, but he does not think that department heads should then go above the decisions of the departmental committee. Perhaps departments will now have to pay for some of the journals they want to receive.

President Butterfield asked Dean Summerlin if the Dean’s Council had discussed meeting with department heads. Dean Summerlin said that he had invited Professor Delacroix to the Arts and Sciences Department Heads meeting; people explained their concerns.

Professor Verbie Prevost asked if one department ranked a journal high and another department ranked it low, could the department which ranked it high still keep it? Professor Delacroix responded yes. She has seen the reports and says that people have been very creative in responding to her request. Many have sent her lists of journals which do not seem applicable to their areas and have asked her to add journals which did not appear on their list. She thought some departments were a bit dishonest in how they prepared their lists, putting free journals on the lowest rung. She noted that the Economics Department did not rank anything; thus she wonders at their concern.

Professor Hutchinson said that at the Department Heads meeting he had asked Professor Delacroix if it would be all right to indicate the ones they were willing to drop and that she had said yes. Economics cut $73,000 in journals and does not think that they were irresponsible.

Professor Honerkamp asked why the Economics Department did not rank them as requested. Professor Hutchinson said that they received a twenty-page list with about twenty-five titles per page; they thought it a waste of time to try to rank them.

President Butterfield asked if there was a recommendation from Council about department heads taking a look at it.

Professor Jim Macomber said that he would like to see some last-minute involvement with each department. Professor Delacroix said that department heads are the ones who sent the memos and lists to her. Professor Katherine Rehyansky asked if it would be feasible to distribute a list of proposed cuts. Professor Delacroix responded yes, that is part of the plan. The List will be ready by October 27. President Butterfield noted that if the bill is due November 3, we do not get much turnaround time. Professor Delacroix agreed, but said that date was necessary because the bill was already four months overdue.

Professor Doug Kingdon asked if the list could be ready by Thursday, October 26. Professor Delacroix said probably not, but she would try. Professor John Phillips said that department heads should know the criteria. Professor Delacroix said that the department heads gave the library rankings; that is one of the criteria. Others are in the original letter available up on Web and Gopher, available to each department, such as history of use, publishing, history, and so forth.

President Butterfield encouraged department heads to get information back to Sheila because of time constraints. She also noted that the Counselors to the President meet on the 23rd and that the library is on the agenda. They want to find out from Joe Johnson what the UT System can do to improve the money situation; most campuses don’t get money from the Athletic Department as UTK does.

Professor Delacroix noted that other methods of access are being examined. Current Contents is one method. It is a full data base which has been mounted on line in Knoxville. We can buy into that. It gives us access to the tables of contents of over 7,000 journals. You can search by author, title or subject.


President Butterfield wished everyone a happy fall break!


The meeting was adjourned at 4:47 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sally Young


top.gif (189 bytes)