Site Index

Reed reported on the activities of this past summer, and spoke of unresolved issues (Campus Chest, calendar, salaries, administration of the Athletic Department, etc.). He urged the Senate and the entire faculty to work together to have as productive year as we can.

This year's goal ($425,000) is the same as last year. The campaign will begin in mid- September. The big change this year is that the University administration will take over the internal administration of the drive, thus saving around $40,000 (United Way charged 10% to administer the drive.)

Quinn reported on the major results of the 10% budget cut. He said, however, that our goals and our five-year plan have not altered, even though our progress has been slowed. Preliminary figures show our enrollment has increased by around 200, even though the number of first-time freshman is down. The extra money will be used to increase library hours and (hopefully) to fund promotion raises.

Johnson discussed the overall economic situation, taxes, and the fiscal problems higher education in Tennessee in general and at UT in particular are now facing. He then commented on some of the issues that the University presently faced. As to the UTSI incidents, he reported that an ongoing investigation was being conducted as to whether the practice had spread (if at all). On the NCAA investigation, Johnson reported on the self- imposed sanctions and that the University would not tolerate rules violations in its athletic program.

On the Dickey/Shaklee issue, Johnson reported on Dickey's public apology, saying that Dickey "made a mistake." On the Blackberry Farms issue, Johnson said the University was cooperating with a state investigation.

In response to a question, Johnson said he did not believe the state fiscal crisis was contrived in order to get a state income tax. Another question addressed the issue of how administrators are cutting costs (as faculty have been forced to do). Johnson said administration had to bear its share of the burden and. like faculty, many administrative positions were not being filled.

Several questions and comments arose over the UTSI incident. Basically, Johnson said the proper rules and procedures were in place but were violated.

Minkel recounted the incident and updated the Senate on the UTSI problems. When evidence of plagiarism was discovered, people in the appropriate departments on this campus were consulted. Faculty members on this campus agreed that plagiarism had been committed. Two faculty members at UTSI have been dismissed and two degrees have been rescinded (appeals have been lodged). In all, the works of 71 students at UTSI have been or are being reviewed. Minkel reported that he has to date not found additional cases, although "the book is not closed." Minkel added that dealing with the media had been a generally dismal experience. Minkel urged major professors to continue to do their work diligently.

Yovella reviewed the duties of the campus police. The department has 44 officers, trained in a 280-hour training course, and commissioned by the city, county, and state. He urged faculty to become more involved in crime prevention on campus.

Pam Gryder, Vice President of the Student Government Association, reported on project to get organizations and individuals to sponsor serials and periodicals. Interested faculty may call 4-2477.

Faculty Senate minutes of July 1, 1991 and Executive Committee minutes of August 26, 1991 were approved with addition.

Resolution congratulating the UTK Chapter of AAUP for being awarded the outstanding chapter award passed without dissent.

A resolution was introduced regarding the sale by faculty of solicited complimentary copies of textbooks. Mundy moved (2nd Wallace) that "solicited" be stricken from the resolution. After a short discussion, the amendment failed. Mayhew moved (2nd Jared) that all material after "conduct" be stricken. It was done so immediately. Foggin then moved (2nd Winistorfer) to strike the fourth "Whereas". It was unanimously carried. The resolution then passed.

Quinn began by announcing that the six candidates for the position of Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will be interviewing on campus during the next two months. Quinn invited all faculty to the open meetings and to send their reactions to Ken Walker (chair, Search Committee). Quinn said that he was telling all candidates that he intended to remain as Chancellor at least through the upcoming capital campaign.

Quinn then reported on the state of the University, due to budget cuts. He said there were 295 fewer faculty and staff this year, no general salary increases, operating budgets cut, equipment budgets virtually wiped out. He thanked the faculty and staff for the "dedication, hard work, and sense of community" shown by these people during the present crisis. Quinn said he thought that Tennesseans eventually would see the wisdom of greater support for all levels of education in the state, and predicted that tax reform was in the future ... although not in an election year. Quinn said we needed approximately $200+ million from the state for capital improvements, a state appropriation of $140 million, and private funds in the upcoming campaign of between $120 and $150 million.

Quinn said his priorities were increased faculty salaries, increased endowments for chairs for present faculty members, an additional ten chairs of excellence, one- semester research leaves for some faculty members, creation of a substantial fund for new equipment, increased stipends for graduate assistants, an endowment that would fund 50 fellowships to first-year graduate students, and an increased number of undergraduate scholarships. Quinn will be calling all deans to check on where new positions are needed or will be needed over the next 5- years. Quinn also said he appreciated the issue of equity for faculty members who have been here for some time and have seen new faculty members hired at salary figures near (or, in some cases, above) present faculty.

Reed reported on the recent Board of Trustee's meeting, and that Board members were genuinely concerned about the integrity of the University. He said the Senate's president-elect was trying to get a "Senate column" regularly in Context to inform faculty of issues and accomplishments. On another matter, both student organizations have asked what the Senate's position is on the Athletic Department, funding, activities fees, etc.

Reed said that meeting with the Senate Presidents of other Senates of the system had made him realize that we had several common interests.

Faculty Senate minutes of September 9, 1991 and Executive Committee minutes of September 30, 1991 were approved as distributed.

1. Planning Committee for SACS (report Norman). Norman reported that the SACS visit was originally scheduled for 1990, but was moved to 1992 because of many changes underway on the campus. Norman said that accreditation very likely was no problem, but the process could be used by the campus to examine what it is doing (and not doing) and how it could be doing it better. Norman said that by the end of the month a second draft of the self-study will be made available to the faculty. From November 1 until early January, faculty members are invited to read and respond.

2. Bylaws Committee (report Marla Peterson). Peterson took the Senate through a plethora of changes in the Senate's bylaws. She then reported that the committee was "discussing" the issue of administrators serving in the Senate. If faculty have opinions on this, they are invited to contact Peterson, or another member of the Bylaws Committee (C. Cleland, L. Crawford, R. McConnel, A. Olins).

3. Athletics Committee (report D. Lee). Lee summarized the high points of a "fact sheet" distributed to the senators on the Athletic Department. Phillips suggested any vote on the student resolutions be deferred until the next meeting (seconded Mayhew and Wallace). Wallace then commented that announcements should be last on the agenda and business first at all meetings. He then moved this (seconded L. Miller). The Phillips motion was passed without dissent, but Wallace withdrew his motion.

The Senate took up the motion (earlier distributed) of L. Gross and S. Jordan having to do with the control of a principal investigator of an R01 account on transportation. Phillips said the issue was wider than this, having to do with the control of such accounts. Phillips so moved (to refer this to the Research Council, to come back to the next meeting). Seconded T. Hood. The motion to refer carried.

Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of October 14, 1991 were accepted with the corrections that K. Cook attended the meeting and that the Athletics Committee report show that Phillips also moved that the student resolutions be considered first today. Minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of November 4, 1991 were accepted.

After some discussion of parliamentary procedures, T. Hood moved (L. Gross seconded) that the Senate become a committee of the whole to discuss the various resolutions concerning the Athletic Department's funds. The motion passed. The two student resolutions (earlier distributed) were described. D. Lee described the Athletics Committee's resolution (earlier distributed) and the reasons for it; the uniqueness of the current arrangement whereby the Athletic Department provides the University Development Office with a large number of athletics tickets was emphasized. S. Grump, GSA President, urged that the student resolutions, which do more than preserve the status quo, be given full consideration. Phillips moved (seconded L. Gross) that the Senate pass a resolution commending the students for their resolutions. The motion passed.

The Senate next turned to the Athletics Committee's resolution. The resolution passed.

The resolution of the Budget Committee, distributed at the meeting and calling for an investigation of alternative budgetary control of the Department of Athletics, was discussed and approved without dissent.

The Senate next took up a resolution (distributed at the meeting) on conflicts of interest for faculty members who sit on boards and committees responsible for monitoring the activities of the intercollegiate Athletics Department. S. Wallace explained the resolution which was approved.

A resolution from the Research Council (distributed at the meeting) regarding purchasing procedural guidelines was discussed next. L. Gross expressed the opinion that the resolution does not address his resolution referred to the Research Council at the Senate's last meeting. The Research Council resolution was approved without dissent.

L. Gross asked that his resolution (seconded S. Jordan) from the October 14, 1991 Faculty Senate meeting be considered again since the Research Council was not reporting back on it at this meeting. (The Research Council has not met in the interim and is not planning to meet before the end of the fall semester.) P. Phillips proposed adding "etc." after "accounts" in line two of paragraph three. The amendment passed. G. Sinkankas moved that the Principal Investigator be informed of denials within three business days rather than one. Seconded K. Misra. The amendment was approved. The resolution was passed with no dissenting votes, 4 abstentions.

A statement was made from the floor requesting the Research Council to discuss and recommend a position on principal investigator prerogatives to expend contract funds, per the budget, within university fiscal policy without administrative interruption, i.e., rate of pay to graduate students and professional staff, purchase of equipment, travel, etc. A counter comment pointed out the pay inequities that could result from not having a "university standard" administered centrally.

The Senate next approved (without dissent) the Bylaws changes read at the last meeting.

UTK Faculty Senate-Chancellor Committee on the Evaluation of Administrators. Reed briefly described the report in general terms. P. Bergeron moved to amend by requiring evaluation of administrators every three years, rather than every five years. The amendment failed.

Anne Mayhew moved that the report be returned to the committee. S. Wallace made a friendly amendment that the issues of the confidentially of the evaluations, the inclusion of non- faculty in evaluations, and the manner of how the Chancellor would report to himself on his own evaluation all be considered by the committee before reporting back at the next Senate meeting. His amendment was accepted and the new amendment was approved.

Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of November 18, 1991 were accepted as distributed. Minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of November 25, 1991, were accepted as distributed.

1. Educational Policy Committee (report B. R. Carruth)

As to Undergraduate Council minutes of October 3, 1991, there was some concern expressed regarding the apparent decentralization of the teaching of computer science at the University. Then those minutes were approved.

Graduate Council minutes of June 27, September 12, and October 17, 1991 were approved.

2. Committee to Review Campus Chest Policies and Procedures

Borthick was not present, so Reed read a letter from Campus Chest chair Ben Granger (who was out of town) that objected to any uncoupling of Campus Chest and United Way. Wallace moved (2nd Cleland) that the report be tabled until committee members were present (none were). Passed without dissent.

1. Reed announced the transfer of $500,000 from the Athletic Department to academics (primarily library and minority recruitment). Along with that, it was announced that the official party going to the Fiesta Bowl had been significantly cut. Reed said he had received a great deal of "voluntary feedback" when it was announced that he (as President of the Senate) had been invited to go. After some discussion, David Lee said that he was going to the Fiesta Bowl, but was paying the majority of his own expenses. There was more discussion of the Athletic Department budget and bonuses.

2. Reed reported on recent disclosures regarding what is now thought to have been a proper investigation of a campus incident around a year ago. Recent changes with respect to the campus police have fostered more communication and activities with student groups to improve campus safety.

3. F. Borthick having arrived, the Senate returned to a consideration of the report of the Committee to Review Campus Chest Policies and Procedures. Borthick said the committee believed its most important goal was the removal of all bias for (or against) all agencies and/or coordinating agencies (see recommendation 1). Borthick also reported the committee's recommendation of how to cut down on undesignated funds and of the University itself administer the campus (which saved a great deal this year). After very little discussion, the report was approved without dissent.

4. Evaluation of Administrators (report Leuthold)

After Leuthold presented the report, the report was brought to the floor for discussion. Richard Strange moved to table the report until after the January 22 AAUP meeting (where the issue would be discussed), but that motion died for want of a second. After more discussion, Mundy moved (2nd Wegmann) that the word "randomly" be added to the next-to-last line of p. 2, so that it would read "... committee should be randomly appointed After more discussion, Mundy and Wegmann said they would withdraw the motion if the report was withdrawn to take account of questions and suggestions raised. Leuthold agreed and tried to withdraw the report from the floor. Hood moved, however (2nd Labotka), that report be approved. Motion canceled 23-16.

5. Wheeler was thanked for his service to the Senate as secretary from 1986-1991.

President's Report

Reed noted the addition to the agenda of reports of the Nominating Committee and of a subcommittee of the Budget and Athletics Committees. He also noted that there are four handouts for the meeting: a resolution on state funding, a report from the subcommittee of the Budget and Athletics Committees, UTK Faculty Senate Executive Committee Minutes for January 27, 1992, and a memo from the Nominating Committee. He then reported that President Johnson had appointed a Chancellor Search Committee. He also noted that many recent news articles have reported on financial problems at a number of universities across the nation. Finally, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee has suggested augmenting the existing Budget Committee with individuals who can assist UTK in making budget decisions. He asked for comments on this idea.

Chancellor's Report

Quinn and Reed are having discussions on selecting a committee to implement a program to evaluate administrators. He indicated that the campus budget probably will be the same next year as it is this year. He does not know when budget hearings will start; he is waiting on the arrival of more information on the campus budget. He also discussed the need for more long- range planning concerning budget cuts which may last longer than originally hoped. Recommendations will go to the new chancellor. Finally, after the Faculty Senate passed a resolution on Campus Chest and an editorial appeared in a local newspaper, he reported that he has been deluged with critical letters from individuals throughout east Tennessee. He read one of his explanatory letters responding to a critical letter-writer. The university is seeking a compromise solution that treats all the charitable agencies in a uniform and equitable manner.

With the corrections that Foggin, Graveel and Winistorfer were present at the December 9, 1991 Faculty Senate Meeting, the minutes of that meeting were accepted. The minutes of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee meeting of January 27, 1992, were approved as submitted.

1. Committee on Assessment Alternatives (report A. Mayhew)

Mayhew reviewed the history of assessment on the UTK campus. She observed that the report makes two recommendations: (1) the campus should establish a task force within the Long Range Planning Committee to have assessment as its standing responsibility, with a specific focus on performance funding rather than the larger issues of quality in the undergraduate and graduate programs, and (2) the Committee recommends that the Educational Policy Committee should report regularly to the Senate regarding assessment issues.

The current Undergraduate Catalog statement (p. 36) on assessment remains in force. L. Gross asked about the costs and rewards of assessment. Total funding seems to have increased, but the total cost has not been tallied. The major and mid- cycle reviews of units cost roughly $30,000 per year. Norman reported that roughly $6M would be lost if the institution did not participate in the performance funding process. T. Hood asked about recommendations in the body of the report, such as those on p. 3 concerning times of financial stringency and alternatives to standardized testing. Mayhew responded that those recommendations are simply suggestions for consideration by the campus administration. Norman briefly described current discussions with THEC about the evaluation of an institution's performance. The directions of the discussions are similar to those of the committee report under discussion. The report was approved.

2. Legislative Committee (report T. Hood)

The committee reiterates its support for a fair tax system and, in view of the current situation, supports stop-gap, but temporary, legislation to improve funding for education. A resolution on these matters was discussed. G. Hall moved that in the second paragraph the words "ability to serve the needs of the citizens of the State and its" be inserted after "erodes UTKs." Motion passed. A. Mayhew moved that the last four lines of the resolution be replaced by "immediately improve funding of education and other state services by elimination of present exemptions from the state sales tax." L. Gross seconded the amendment. The amendment passed 28 to 23. L. Nabelek moved that "and other state services" be deleted in the fourth line from the bottom of the original resolution. After some discussion, the amendment failed. The amended resolution was passed.

3. Nominating Committee (report G. Fox)

The committee requests suggestions for candidates for Faculty Senate President- Elect, 1993-94.

4. Athletics/Budget Subcommittee (report L. Gross)

P. Lizon first reviewed the history of the subcommittee. L. Gross began by drawing attention to the numerous appendices of the report. He then noted that Men's Athletics is an auxiliary enterprise with an account at UTK. The committee still is not clear how budget control is exercised, although the President does have oversight authority. The duties of the Athletics Board do not include budget control. The committee did not discuss control (as opposed to budget control) of Men's Athletics. The committee recommends that (1) a line-item budget for Men's Athletics be submitted to the Chancellor and staff for review and approval, as is done for all other auxiliary enterprise, prior to being presented to the Athletics Board and (2) the appointment of the university's NCAA Faculty Representative be limited to a non-renewable term of five years.

P. Phillips asked who pays for the accounting services provided to Men's Athletics; the subcommittee and the Athletics and Budget Committees will seek the answers.

D. Lee asked, on behalf of the Athletics Committee, that the vote on the report be delayed until the Athletics Committee can look at the report. L. Gross was not opposed, but noted that the subcommittee was charged with reporting to the Faculty Senate at this meeting. T. Hood noted that the Senate Bylaws require that material for this kind of action be distributed at least one week before the Senate meeting. S. Rabun asked whether athletics deficits paid by the University are recovered in later years. Gross reported that the committee could not get a definite answer to the question. T. Hood suggested asking Ely Fly. The subcommittee and the Athletics and Budget Committees will seek answers to this question, too. The entire matter will be brought before the Faculty Senate at its next meeting at which the Athletics and Budget Committees will comment on the report.

L. Nabelek expressed concern about news reports that several faculty met with the Chancellor to "represent" the general faculty. Reed responded that, in fact, the Chancellor invited the individuals who attended the meeting and those individuals told the Chancellor that they could speak only for themselves.

Reed encouraged Senators to think seriously about where the University should be headed in order to be able to respond quickly to potentially rapid changes in state funding and, consequently, university budgeting priorities.

Chancellor's Report

Quinn reported that budget hearings will begin March 13. He then reported on a compromise concerning the Campus Chest Campaign. The planned brochure and pledge card were described in some detail. The university will continue to administer the funds as it did this year.

President's Report

Reed reported that a UTK faculty member will be the commencement speaker this term.

Joint Subcommittee on Budgetary Control of Men's Athletics. The Athletics Committee and the Budget Committee asked to report. On behalf of the Athletics Committee D. Lee discussed new NCAA eligibility requirements and data on graduation rates of athletes versus those of the general student population. (Report on the February 10, 1992 meeting of the Faculty Senate Athletics Committee were distributed with the Senate Meeting materials). Lee then addressed the subcommittee report. In particular, he noted that budget information now is provided reasonably readily and that the various formats in which information is provided are reconcilable. He also reported that the Athletics Committee does not agree that the current organization of athletics is inherently sexist. During discussion J. Kovac pointed out that it is the setting of priorities before budgets are established, rather than accessibility to budget data after budgets are established, that was the major concern of the Faculty Senate. It also was pointed out that analysis of available data is of crucial importance. T. Hood expressed the desire for periodic review of the decision of UTK to be involved in 'big-time" athletics. Quinn responded that UTK's athletic operation is not a drain on finances: although it costs a lot, it also earns a lot. T. Hood responded that he was not implying that athletics is not well run, but that it is important to assess periodically the impact of athletics.

P. Lizon reported on behalf of the Budget Committee. He reviewed prior actions, including the adoption by the Budget Committee of the subcommittee's two recommendations. S. Wallace asked D. Lee about hesitation of the Athletics Committee regarding Recommendation 2 concerning the NCAA Faculty Representative. Lee responded that it was beyond the charge of the subcommittee and that the recommendation was not based on adequate study.

On behalf of the subcommittee L. Gross discussed several statements in the Report of the February 10, 1992, meeting of the Athletics Committee. He argued that any implication that the campus level could not adequately handle athletics budgets is incorrect. He also noted that rather than using "inherently sexist treatment," the report of the subcommittee should have used "disparate treatment". He also pointed out the basis for Recommendation 2. R. Jones noted the need for a faculty representative to serve for an extended period in order to serve effectively on NCAA committees. P. Phillips expressed disappointment with the Athletics Committee's response to the subcommittee report and the opinion that it is divisive. After some additional comments, Recommendation 1 passed and Recommendation 2 failed by voice vote.

Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of February 3, 1992, and minutes of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee of February 17, 1992, were approved without change.

1. Committee on Committees (report M. Peterson)

Peterson reported that at the April 6 meeting there will be an election for the college representatives on the Committee on Committees and that Senators will be asked about their committee preferences for next year.

2. Educational Policy Committee (report Betty Ruth Carruth)

Carruth discussed the committee report distributed at the meeting and recommended approval of the Undergraduate Council Minutes of January 23, 1992, and Graduate Council Minutes of November 21, 1991. and January 30, 1992. Minutes were approved.

3. Nominating Committee (report G. Fox)

Fox reported on the committee's approved slate of Fred Grimm and Glenn Graber for President-Elect. I. Nabelek nominated P. Lizon, who accepted. J. Foggin nominated Ray Mundy, who accepted. Nominations were approved. Election will be by mail ballot.

4. Committee on Age Discrimination and Faculty Salaries (report K. Stanga)

Stanga described the history of the committee and its purpose and context. He then noted the nature of the data presented in the report and some of its limitations and advantages. The data did not suggest the existence of a material age discrimination, but did suggest some areas for further study and action.

The resolution in the minority report was discussed next. It was explained that all faculty, both those on 9-month and those on 12-month appointments, are covered by the resolution in the minority report. B. Fisher proposed substituting "percentile differentials for rank and discipline occur within a department" for "salary overlap in the professional rank occurs." At this point R. Beck noted that according to the minutes of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee meeting of February 3, 1992, the minority report was not ready to go to the Senate. After some discussion a motion was made and seconded that only the resolution be placed on the floor. After further discussion L. Gross withdrew his second and moved to refer the matter to the Budget Committee. P. Phillips moved to amend the motion to send the matter to the Executive Committee. The amendment was accepted by Gross and the amended motion was approved. T. Hood then moved for adjournment. The motion was seconded and approved.

L. Crawford pointed out that the Recommendations printed on the back of the item, The Hidden Toll of Library Malnutrition (part of the Library Committee Report) are not part of the minutes. With that deletion, the minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of March 2, 1992, were accepted. The minutes of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee of March 30, 1992, were also accepted.

1. Committee on Committees (report M. Peterson)

Peterson distributed a committee preference sheet to senators and asked that those sheets and the ballots for the Committee on Committees be completed and submitted during the meeting.

2. Library Committee (report M. Moffett)

Moffett discussed the committee's report (distributed with the agenda). She briefly noted the major points of the report. K. Cook expressed some concern that decisions about circulation of current periodicals have been made by a relatively small group. J. Kovac noted a distinction between a committee of the Faculty Senate making a recommendation and the Faculty Senate doing so. J. Quinn noted that the "one-time gift" from the Men's Athletic Program to the Library is, in fact, a reallocation made by President Johnson and that $425,000 went to all libraries.

3. Compliance Committee of the Research Council (report S. Thomas)

Thomas briefly discussed the committee's report on data storage. H. Jacobson asked whether the committee has suggestions for departments trying to establish guidelines. Thomas responded that the committee does not have any general recommendations. J. Kovac noted that there is a problem funding data storage and that the state government, also needs to be educated about the need for data storage. C. Cleland observed that an estimate of cost for storage is needed before raising the matter. All seven recommendations in the report were approved.

4. Committee on Evaluation of Instruction (report M. Moffett)

Moffett reported on the student evaluation process and on the peer review process. A statement on the latter will be distributed to the faculty to point out the flexibility of and opportunities offered by the policy. J. Kovac asked whether the extensive data-base analysis originally included in the proposal is being done. Moffett said that a data-base does not exist in part because of the changes in processing equipment. There currently is no plan to establish and analyze a data base.

5. Student Affairs Committee (report P. Pierce)

Pierce discussed the University Programs and Services Fee or Student Activities Fee. She noted the greater student involvement in determining the allocation of the funds. The committee recommendation that the Student Affairs Committee be charged to, in one year, review and evaluate the function of, and. student satisfaction with the Student Budgetary Review Board was approved.

G. Reed brought forth the Executive Committee's recommendation that Sam Jordan serve as Senate Secretary next year. It was approved.

G. Fox of the Nominating Committee reported that Glenn Graber has been elected President-Elect of the Faculty Senate.

G. Reed expressed his appreciation and praise for this year's student government leadership.

Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of April 6, 1992 were approved. He next considered the minutes of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee meeting of April 20, 1992. L. Gross asked for clarification of why Mundy's proposal concerning age discrimination was not approved. Reed responded and then T. Hood noted that age discrimination suit has now been brought against the university. The minutes were then approved.

1. Committee on Committees (report M. Peterson)

Peterson introduced two student government officers for next year. Then she asked for corrections to the membership list for 1992-1993 and a correction which will be made in the next version. She next presented the Senate Committees List for next year with the addition of Ted Paludan to the Faculty Affairs Committee. The list was accepted.

2. Educational Policy Committee (report Martha Alligood)

Alligood presented highlights of the curricular changes. After a brief discussion the minutes from the meetings of the Undergraduate Council on March 19, 1992, and of the Graduate Council on March 12, 1992 and April 27, 1992 were accepted.

3. Faculty Affairs Committee (report Carol Foggin)

Foggin reported on the committee's study of changes in the Faculty Handbook concerning faculty appeals and on its consideration of two faculty cases. After explaining some of the reasons for changes in the Faculty Handbook, she distributed flow-charts for appeals and Reed opened the floor for discussion. S. Wallace asked whether there were issues not resolved by the committee. Foggin noted that there always are areas for further consideration. J. Kovac noted the need for clear appeals procedures and urged the Senate through the Faculty Affairs Committee to be proactive in establishing appeals procedures. L. Gross asked whether the Senate has the authority to force issues regarding disciplinary action to go to the Board of Trustees, as stated in the proposed addition, p. 54. L. Crawford noted that the Board must approve the proposed changes and, if it does so, then it will need to establish procedures for dealing with such issues. J. Foggin proposed adding to the end of Article 1, p. 52, the words "or through the Faculty Affairs Committee." P. Schumann seconded and the amendment was approved. The amended revisions were then approved and accepted.

T. Miller introduced a resolution (distributed at the meeting) commending the students of UTK and Knoxville College for their organization of a rally to demonstrate concern with the Rodney King verdict and encouraging faculty to join students in their petition to the Justice Department. J. Foggin proposed deleting "apparently unsupported" from the second whereas statement. The motion was seconded by L. Crawford and approved. The resolution was then approved.

L. Gross moved that the President shall appoint a subcommittee of the Budget and Faculty Affairs Committee to report to the Senate at or before the October 19, 1992 Senate meeting to provide summary information on: overlap of salaries of faculty at different ranks, based on 1991-92 salary data, salaries for newly hired faculty and any implications of this for possible charges of age discrimination. The committee shall make any recommendations they deem necessary for Senate action regarding these matters. R. McConnel seconded. G. Graber noted that a committee already has studies data and found no evidence of age discrimination. Gross noted that his motion does not contain any age limits and that he feels dissatisfied with the earlier committee report and the treatment of the minority report. The motion passed.

Chancellor Quinn noted that this meeting is his last as Chancellor. He noted that the budget situation looks somewhat better now and that budget hearings are complete. The exact funding is not yet known, nor is the answer to the question of whether there will be salary increases. Quinn then reviewed the budgets of the last three years and their effects on the university. He also noted basic inefficiencies in the organization of the institution and the system. He reviewed some of his efforts to learn about the university and to have other administrators learn more about what is happening. He then expressed the feeling that the university still does not know where it is going and the belief that now is a good time for faculty to be involved in determining how funds should be allocated. He is forming a committee to consider such matters, but does not know whether the new chancellor will use it. He then suggested that outstanding effort should be rewarded and large inequities should be corrected. He concluded by thanking the faculty.

Reed said he has learned much about the university during the last two years and wishes more could have the experience. He then reviewed some of the year's activities and asked for comments. There being none, the meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.