September 6, 2001                                                     Signal Mountain Room

                                                                                    University Center


Elected Members Present:               Rob Bailey, Linda Cundiff, Susan Davidson, Joe Dumas, Fritz Efaw, Zibin Guo, Diane Halstead, Jim Hiestand, Michael Jones, Vance Lesseig, Deborah McAllister, Claire McCullough, John Mies, Teresa Norris, Joe Owino, Vickie Petzko, Oralia Preble-Niemi, Verbie Prevost, Cheryl Robinson, Leland Robinson, Chris Stuart, Judith Wakim, Barbara Walton


Elected Members Absent:                Tom Bibler, Roland Carter, Steve Eskildsen, Dawn Ford, Karen Henderson, Charles Knight, Irene Loomis, Sarla Murgai, Marcia Noe, Valerie Rutledge, Terry Walters


Ex-Officio Members Present:           John Trimpey, Bill Stacy


Among the Guests Present:              Chuck Cantrell


Call to Order:

First Vice President Preble-Niemi called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.


Approval of the Minutes of April 19 and 24, 2001:

The minutes of April 19 were corrected to read under New Business that it was Professor Claire McCullough not Professor Fritz Efaw that requested markers for the white boards in the classrooms.

The minutes of April 24 were not corrected but an objection was raised by Professor Hiestand concerning his "lifetime appointment" as parliamentarian. Professor Hiestand did not recall agreeing to the "lifetime" part of the appointment. He was assured by the secretary that he did agree and it is on tape.

The minutes were then approved as corrected and objected unanimously.


Comments from 1st Vice President Preble-Niemi

Dr. Preble-Niemi requested that council member's state their names when making comments due to the fact that there are new members this year.


Dr. Preble-Niemi reported that she put a resolution on the Web site that was drafted by the UTK faculty senate when the announcement was made about the presidential search. She stated that she would be reporting on this at the University faculty meeting on Tuesday for the faculty to endorse, make changes, or reject the resolution. Dr. Preble-Niemi requested that a member of the faculty council make the motion to approve the resolution.


Administrative Report

Chancellor Stacy

Dr. Stacy gave his report on planning: mentioned budget concerns and that discussion was ongoing and looking at the final compensation piece for an additional raise to faculty beyond the 2.5% for up to a total of 6%.

Dr. Stacy has asked the chairs of excellence to have a committee assist in planning to look at goals and mission statement related to the SACS recent visit. It does not appear that we have looked at the mission statement since 1990. We need to look at what our mission is, is it still the same? How do the departments fit into the mission? We need to see if we are going where we need to be going institutionally. Also need to look at allocation in the light of the limited funding available. Lunches are planned to start dialogue to see where we need to go. We have good resources available locally. Good things are happening finally and hope to give faculty a good raise. Wednesdays will be the lunchtime meeting days initially. (Lunch to be provided courtesy of Provost Trimpey). Will post items on raven for discussion.

Enrollment has picked up thanks to the efforts of Tom Losh and others and is up160-180. We hope to see changes in paychecks by October of 6% raises for faculty and 5% raises for staff.

Budget committee meetings are open and we encourage everyone to attend. We will start the lunchtime meetings on Wednesdays but may alternate with Thursdays so that more can attend.


Provost Trimpey

Apologized for Cumulative Performance Review monies not being sent out. We will take care of it.

With a heavy sigh, Dr. Trimpey reported that the SACS report has been sent in and we are waiting for the response. When it comes in, we will report what needs to be fixed.


Old Business

No report.


New Business

Dr. Preble-Niemi was asked to bring a question to this group for consideration.  Should the outstanding rating in the EDO process be left out? Since there is no monetary reward for achieving that rating, the suggestion has been made to eliminate it.

Dr.Trimpey – I was the one that requested the question be raised. In the Dean's Council someone suggested that we do away with it instead of it being something that makes people feel good because they won an award or they got merit. The Chancellor suggested that the issue be aired on campus in all the major forums to determine how people feel about this issue. There are really 3 choices: leave it alone, eliminate it, or have Faculty Council or a committee handle it. 

Dr. McAllister-letters were sent out to those that received exceptional merit-These letters mentioned another letter and some type of reward. Has anything been done about this?

Dr. Stacy-we will know about that on Monday.

Additional comments were made in response to this suggestion:

If the EDO process is to be reviewed then the time frame of when the evaluation takes place should be included. T

We also need to remember that the evaluation is subjective.

Exceptional merit is difficult when most work hard anyway. Other faculty feel that they should get it regardless. Hard to determine exceptional merit when the attitude is teamwork. We’re all in this together.

Dr. Leland Robinson-as a department head for 10 years, I found that getting exceptional merit was important to many faculty. It can be an incentive, can promote competition. Doesn’t work if the dean has a quota. This process can create hostility. Is it worth the incentive that it is supposed to provide?

Dr. Diane Halstead –This process is similar to management by objectives, which was in place in business settings 20 years ago. Business has done away with it for the most part. Timeframe is a big issue. Conditions change too quickly for it to be effective. Goal setting should be mutual. Rewards and immediate and continual feedback should make this system work, but its not happening. Business has moved to teamwork, groups, committee, etc. The team therefore gets rewarded, not the individual.

Dr. Claire McCullough-Goals need to be more visionary, creative and meaningful. They need to be far reaching.

Dr. Preble-Niemi – Goals are too generic.

Dr. Hiestand (Lifetime parliamentarian)-We are getting away from the topic. Should we do away with exceptional merit?

Dr. Preble-Niemi-What is our recommendation?

Dr. Prevost-We need a committee to explore the idea and see what needs to be done.

Dr. Halstead-Goal setting is a good thing; it’s the system that needs to be looked at.

Dr. Trimpey-A committee would need to be formed because simply eliminating exceptional merit changes the whole form of how we do evaluation. The system can be beat. Lets look at making it more reasonable and manageable.

Dr. Preble-Niemi-Is there a motion?

Dr. McCullough-Faculty need to be aware of this issue and have the opportunity to voice their concerns before we make a recommendation.

The question was raised as to how this should be presented to the faculty. What is the timetable?

After lengthy discussion (which should be a red flag), the motion was made as follows:

Dr. McCullough - Does the university faculty support the examination of the EDO process by the Faculty Council?

Second by Dr. L. Robinson.

Motion carried 15-3-1


Dr. Efaw stated that early in August, Tom Ballard was here to discuss the state legislation factions and what the stand was of representatives on the Hamilton County Delegation concerning funding and education issues. It was suggested that a town meeting be held to include faculty, staff, students, parents, etc. to let the members of the delegation know how we feel about the current money issues; income tax, taxes, money for education, etc.

Dr. Leland Robinson made the motion that the Faculty Council invite the members of the Hamilton County Delegation to a town meeting to discuss the issues of funding, state income tax, taxes, and education issues.

Dr. Efaw made the second to the motion.

Dr. McCullough asked how administration felt about this.

Dr. Stacy says its a great idea.

Chuck Cantrell and Susan Cardwell will help set it up with Executive Committee

Motion carried 20-0-0.


Dr. Prevost reported on the presidential search committee for the UT system.

Originally there was no faculty representation, so Dr. Prevost and student Tiffany Smith were added. Governor Sundquist has stated that this will be a totally open search and he encourages input from faculty and staff. A web site has been set up. Also the advisory committee with Richard Brown and Dr. Preble-Niemi has worked well with the search committee in getting this process up and running. Please provide input to Dr. Prevost, Dr. Preble-Niemi or Mr. Richard Brown.






The meeting adjourned at 3:58 p.m.


Submitted with the greatest of enthusiasm for the start of the New Year,



Susan Davidson

Faculty Council Secretary