Site Index

Lyons thanked the committee chairs for preparing charges and communicating with committee members. The charges will be further discussed at the Sept. 8 Executive Committee meeting. In the meantime, committees were encouraged to use the Faculty Senate web site as a tool. Lyons reminded the committee about the Faculty Senate Retreat on Sept. 4-5. He noted that he and faculty senate presidents from the other campus would meet with Gov. Bredesen on Aug. 21.

Lyons called for Faculty Senate newsletter suggestions, and briefly discussed civic journalism and the need for the Senate to think about media relations. He noted that he and C. White had met with Jack McElroy (News-Sentinel Editor) and that he would be on the Hallerin Hill show on Aug. 20.

Lyons called attention to the single item of business, the Resolution on Presidential Searches, and to the history of senate action regarding presidential searches. He noted that the Faculty Handbook gives faculty a say in the selection of administrators, and that the resolution uses language from the Faculty Handbook and bylaws. He introduced the resolution and called for discussion.

L. Gross said the resolution was unclear about senate selection of faculty representatives, and moved to add the words, "on presidential search committees" to the language of the resolution. Harmon added a friendly amendment to change "faculty representation" to "faculty voting members." The motion was carried. Howell suggested placing the fourth paragraph above the existing third paragraph, there was a second, and the order of third and fourth paragraphs were changed. Discussion followed about whether or not the resolution should include the selection of other administrators, and it was decided to focus the resolution on the presidential search and on getting faculty representation on the official search committee. Gross noted that the resolution does not need to call for a complete review of the bylaws, but to set in motion changing the search process.

Blackwell noted that media reports indicate there may be a Board of Trustees shake-up and Graber agreed that the board crisis is far greater than just choosing a president.

Waller moved to change the third line of the last paragraph from "administrators" to "all academic administrators." Glenn seconded the motion and the motion was carried.

Coddington moved that the second paragraph be changed to "be it resolved that the university is better served...." Graber seconded, and the motion was carried.

Discussion followed about the meaning of "public" search process. Discussion followed about the meaning of "public" search process. Harmon said that Tennessee open records laws require public search records be open. Cox asked how other universities handled public searches and noted that just because UT has had two bad experiences doesn't necessarily mean that how the searches were carried out is wrong. Harmon argued that "sunlight" is always better.

Glenn questioned why the resolution called for administrators as well as faculty to be part of the search process. B. Lyons said that Chancellor Crabtree had noted that he was never consulted about the presidential candidates in the last search, and that current administrators are critical to the search process. Coddington agreed and noted that most academic administrators are also tenured faculty. Dewey, the administrative representative on the Executive Committee, pointed out that it is critical for administrators to have a voice in searches in the spirit of shared governance.

Harmon moved to vote on the edited resolution, Glenn seconded, and the resolution was carried unanimously. B. Lyons will fax it to the governor and other faculty senate presidents, and also hand it to the governor at the meeting on Aug. 21.

B. Lyons called the meeting to order at 3:34 p.m. and confirmed with the secretary that a quorum was present.

Lyons then called attention to the agenda distributed at the meeting. There were no additions and the agenda was approved. Lyons noted and briefly commented on some of the attachments distributed with the agenda.

M. Harmon provided a correction to the second sentence of the paragraph that begins with "Discussion followed...." It should read, "Harmon said that Tennessee open records laws require public search records be open." With that change the minutes were approved.

Lyons spoke briefly about the status of the formation of Faculty Senate Caucuses. He encouraged prompt election of caucus leaders. Lyons then noted that there will be an AAUP-NCAA conference in October in Indianapolis and raised the question of the Faculty Senate sending someone. B. Glenn said he and another faculty member would attend and that he was seeking an administrator to be on a panel at the conference. L. Crabtree suggested C. Woods.

Lyons next reported that J. Johnson would be willing to speak to the Faculty Senate. M. Hamilton will speak October 20, 2003. Lyons asked for comments on when such visits should occur and possible speakers. C. White noted that agendas tend to be full, but is important to hear from such individuals. W. Morgan spoke in favor of more time for discussion. M. Papke suggested inviting Eli Fly to come with J. Johnson. There was general consensus that guest speakers should appear prior to the senate meeting at 3:30 p.m.

Combs said he plans to provide Lyons with information regarding Board of Trustees meetings and then Lyons can distribute that information. Lyons noted that on August 21 he, Combs and faculty from two other campuses met with the governor and later inclusion of faculty members on presidential search committees was approved by the Board. Some want at least one representative from each campus; others favor proportional representation based on number of faculty at a given campus.

C. Hodges noted that one person who truly represents the faculty voice should suffice. In response to a question from Morgan, Lyons said that the search committee does the "real" work, but the Board "elects" the president. S. Blackwell seconded Hodges' comments. White then spoke in favor of a unified faculty voice on the search committee; faculty from all the campuses should agree on goals. Lyons then asked how representatives of campuses should be chosen, if it is decided to have such representatives. Glenn noted that the Faculty Handbook calls for the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to select faculty members of administrative committees. White and Combs again stressed the need for a faculty vision for the president. Lyons summarized by saying that this committee is comfortable with one representative per campus, believes the various executive committees should select those representatives and favors a unified faculty voice from across the state. Combs noted that no specific number of faculty members has been suggested to or by the Board.

Crabtree reported that undergraduate enrollment in Knoxville is down about 700 students and the decline will cost about $5 million. He believes the explanation is the smaller freshman classes working through the system. He also believes the institution has persuaded everyone that it is not a good university. He expresses concern about next year. Crabtree next reported that he has submitted an organizational plan for the Knoxville campus to the interim president. He then discussed problems with management of research on campus; the campus must be more compliant with cost-accounting standards. Some problems have been known, but uncorrected for a decade or more. Financial management will be a primary focus this year. Regarding academic program reduction, he noted that the institution is too big for its financial base. A task force (with faculty representation) will look at about a dozen programs. He also expressed concern that through good planning, the number of faculty lines must be increased. Crabtree affirmed that the task force would include four faculty members, the President of the Faculty Senate, the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee and two at-large members.

In response to a question from Craig, Crabtree said he would not support changes in faculty members' work assignments in order to cause them to have repeat "unsatisfactory" evaluation. Craig then said that the Faculty Affairs Committee would be speaking further with Crabtree's office about such matters.

Lyons asked for comments about the tentative goals given for each committee. He noted that these goals were formulated through meetings with committee chairs in early August.

Crabtree stated that the Executive Planning and Budget Committee probably will be renamed the Executive Budget Committee and that L. Gross will be on that committee. He also noted that an effort will be made to identify individual salary inequities. Groups, such as minorities and females, also will be tracked to see whether there are patterns of salary inequities. White commented that there should be a way to get a raise here without having to get a competitive offer. She also said there is data about females getting smaller salaries and raises; Crabtree responded that he would like to see the data and cautioned that aggregated data can be misleading.

N. Howell briefly described how she hopes the Development and Alumni Relations Committee can become more active. The Development Office would like to be able to report that a higher percentage of faculty contribute to the institution.

C. Cox reported that the Educational Policy Committee has not met and there have been few e-mail comments about the given goals.

Senate restructuring still needs to deal with questions of whether the Faculty Senate is too large, the Executive Committee is too large and appropriately constituted, and there are too many Faculty Senate committees. B. Ownley asked whether the Executive Committee might handle these questions. G. Graber said he does not see any other group doing so. White suggested this might be the year to look at committee charges and the possibility of reorganizing the committees.

C. Craig reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee has met and all members support the given goals. Lyons expressed pleasure that the committee will review the Manual for Faculty Evaluation.

Ownley reported that the Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee will pursue the given goals. She cautioned that some of the goals will require changes in state law.

Lyons reported that M. Keyhani again this year is teaching when we meet, so there is no report from the Graduate Council.

M. Harmon reported that the Government Relations Committee will work with T. Ballard to improve relations with state representatives and other elected officials and will work to foster positive relationships with print and electronic media to improve the public perception of UT.

J. Waller reported that the committee will pursue the given goals and also try to "broadcast" more information in The Beacon.

W. Morgan said the committee will meet soon to pursue the given goals, some of which have been carried over from last year.

G. Graber reported that the Nominating Committee is looking at eliminating some of the barriers to getting faculty to run for senate positions.

D. Bassett said that the Professional Development Committee hopes to get some top-down programs started to complement the usual bottom-up efforts. Crabtree agreed to meet with the committee at least once this year.

E. Sutherland reported that the Research Council will work on its ten goals. Crabtree said that the Council will be involved in addressing the research management problems.

M. Davis reported that the Student Affairs Committee will pursue the given goals. She has met with student leaders already.

L. Baldwin reported that the Teaching Council will focus on the difficult problem of getting more student participation in online teaching evaluations. Creating new teaching awards in conjunction with the Development Office is another goal. Howell suggested that the number of questions asked in student surveys is too large. Morgan suggested that earlier evaluations might affect teaching in the current semester, so that students could see results of their efforts.

L. Jolly said that the major goals of the Undergraduate Council will be to bring the General Education Standards and Implementation Process to the Faculty Senate and then to implement it. Jolly asked that everyone spread the word that the proposal calls for a dynamic approach with on-going monitoring, review and revision. There will be a request for departments and colleges to propose courses for meeting the Communicating through Writing, Communicating Orally, and Quantitative Reasoning requirements of the proposal. She also noted the council needs to look at setting enforceable enrollment capacities for W and O designated courses. Lyons encouraged Jolly and the Undergraduate Council to find a date for an open forum on the proposal. Harmon then praised the proposal, but expressed concern about the writing deficiencies of upper division students. Jolly also noted that the proposal does not alter the current number of general education hours.

The meeting adjourned at 5:18 p.m.

B. Lyons called the meeting to order at 2:03 p.m.

The agenda was approved.

Minutes of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee meeting of September 8, 2003, were approved without change.

There were no reports.

L. Gross moved that all discussions of nominees be confidential. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously. Lyons then noted that copies of the material provided about the nine nominees were distributed with the agenda. He then said that it no longer is clear exactly for what these individuals are being nominated. He, therefore, suggested that a pool of names be forwarded. M. Combs suggested sending a name and an alternate name for the Advisory Council. L. Gross proposed discussing first the characteristics one would like to see in anyone recommended. His list is (1) experience with undergraduate and graduate teaching, (2) experience with recent presidents, (3) current participation in scholarly activity, (4) experience with budgets and other financial matters, (5) an articulate person and (6) someone who currently is primarily a faculty member, not an administrator. J. Coddington said he would like any nominee to have a record of advocacy for shared governance. Combs wanted to add able and willing to devote the necessary time. It also was agreed that candidates should truly represent the faculty; Lyons said the web could be used to allow communication with them. D. Kennedy cautioned that items (1) and (2) from Gross amount to imposing conditions after nominations were sought. Gross responded that he simply listed six criteria he favors. Candace White withdrew her name from consideration. After further discussion it was decided to analyze the nominees.

The committee then moved to discussion of the individual nominees. It was decided to nominate P. Höyng for the Advisory Council and G. McCracken and G. Sayler for the Search Committee. It also was decided to internally designate McCracken as the back-up to Höyng.

The meeting adjourned at 3:20 p.m.

B. Lyons called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.

Lyons added a report from M. Combs to the agenda. The revised agenda then was approved.

Minutes of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee meeting of September 29, 2003, were approved with the deletion of "Expressing pleasure with the overall quality of the pool of nominees," in the next-to-last sentence of the first paragraph under "NEW BUSINESS."

Lyons thanked the members of the Faculty Handbook Committee, those who participated in the faculty retreat, the deans, and those who made comments on the Blackboard site. He then said he expects the vote in the Faculty Senate not to occur until the November meeting, so that there can be time for the Handbook Task Force to incorporate recommendations from the review process to date.

White noted that the proposed meeting dates were distributed with the agenda. It was agreed that the first meeting of the Executive Committee each term should occur one week earlier. The revised calendar will be posted on the Faculty Senate web site.

Combs reported that last Thursday he sent the governor names of faculty nominees from all campuses for the Search Advisory Council and the Search Committee. He also said that J. Haygood has "dropped" a bill in the legislature to have quality as well as enrollments determine state funding for higher education institutions. He reported she would like to have discussions with the campuses about this matter.

Crabtree reported that he and others had met recently with the THEC. It is not known whether there will be any new money next year. He is working on this year's reduced budget. He then reported that the possibility of adding Vanderbilt to the list of core universities associated with the operations at Oak Ridge is being studied.

Lyons invited members of the Handbook Task Force that were present to join the discussion of the second draft. Greenberg reviewed her brief summary of faculty comments about Chapter 1 (distributed at the meeting). Under Nature and Purpose there were several comments and Lyons asked for the thoughts of committee members. C. White and several others spoke in favor of explicitly listing sexual orientation in a non-discrimination statement. Crabtree suggested including sexual orientation and then seeing how the Legal Counsel and others respond. B. Lee suggested including a statement about those with disabilities. E. Sutherland suggested that the term "gender" should be used. D. Kennedy noted concerns about the statement "graduates will promote the values and institutions of representative democracy...." There was brief discussion without resolution.

Greenberg next noted that another comment observed that there is a mechanism for deans to share their views with the higher administration, but not one for faculty views to be communicated by the deans. The committee felt that lines of communication would be available. The next topic was the establishment of terms for deans and heads. Crabtree spoke in favor of annual reviews with more extensive reviews held ever five years and including all relevant constituencies. B. Ownley said that faculty on the "west" campus are concerned about who is surveyed during reviews; only a sample of faculty have been surveyed previously. Kennedy spoke in favor of linking survey results with renewals of administrators.

Greenberg observed next that there were several comments about Units Without Department Heads, but those matters can be solved through the individual unit's bylaws. N. Howell noted that an explicit statement about bylaws should be included to be certain the "right" individuals are involved in decision-making.

The section, Faculty Responsibilities, elicited several comments on the curriculum process. The committee had no comments.

Kennedy suggested that the section, The Faculty Senate, should include the faculty role regarding the policy on professional leave and related policies.

Lyons then asked B. Dunne to review the comments on Chapter 2. Dunne agreed with the suggestion of N. Cook that a certain clause be deleted. No one disagreed. He then agreed with G. Graber's comments on the rights of research participants within the context of a faculty member's "freedom of research." There then was a lively discussion about academic freedom. Kennedy noted that there is no explicit assertion in the draft that faculty have academic freedom. Crabtree said he thought there should be an extensive debate and that the current statement should be refined. Moffett suggested that "research" should be added to "create and perform" and that the word "responsibly" should be incorporated. W. Morgan asked whether "consistent with law" would be better than "responsibly." Lee said he feels "responsibly" is too vague. Kennedy said the interpretation of "responsibly" is too subjective. M. Harmon said the answer to "bad" speech is more speech. B. Dewey pointed out that everything a faculty member does is subject to review.

Dunne then moved to other comments from faculty and deans. Some concerned wordsmithing and others concerned matters that will require further consideration. Dunne concluded with a comment from Combs that institutional recognition of service as part of job performance for a faculty member not be restricted to activities related to the professional expertise of the faculty member. Dunne noted that Chapter 2 concerns one's job performance. White suggested deleting the word "professional." Crabtree suggested deleting "lending their professional expertise to," so that the sentence would read, "Faculty members benefit the community beyond the institution by aiding or leading organizations that create beneficial linkages between the University and the community.

Jolly called attention to the timeline included in the material distributed at the meeting. She said that faculty questions have concerned processes. She also said that students are being involved in the discussion and that editing suggestions are welcomed. Morgan asked whether changes might be highlighted somehow, so that they are easier to locate. J. Coddington urged that there be an assessment component to evaluate the changes. Jolly said that there already is a process for evaluating general education; it is handled by the Office of Institutional Research. White moved that the committee endorse the proposal. The motion was seconded. Lee recalled the comments by L. Gross in the last Faculty Senate meeting that the actual number of hours will be 44, rather than 42, and this fact could impact departmental requirements. Jolly replied that the number of hours and number of courses really are not being changed. In particular, some students may have as few as 36 hours, while others may have 44. Graber then expressed concern that the Department of Philosophy has not been able to have its concerns about the proposal addressed by the General Education Committee, in part because each of two subcommittees thought the other subcommittee was dealing with the matter. Coddington then suggested that all colleges should have an opportunity to have courses listed before any vote is taken. White's motion for endorsement then was approved by voice vote.

Lyons and White noted the importance of Chapter 3 and Lyons asked whether the committee should meet again to discuss it. Howell suggested that only Chapters 1 and 2 be discussed at the next Faculty Senate meeting. Dunne agreed. Lyons then said that a third draft of Chapters 1 and 2 would be made available as soon as possible on the Senate web site for adequate consideration before the next Faculty Senate meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

Lyons called the meeting to order at 3:31 p.m.

The agenda was approved as presented.

Minutes of the October 6, 2003, meeting of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee were approved without change.

Lyons proposed adding a meeting of the Executive Committee on Monday, December 15, 2003, and a Senate meeting on Friday, January 9, 2004, for discussion of the revisions to the Faculty Handbook. No one objected.

Lyons then noted that concern was expressed in the Council of Deans meeting about faculty failure to enforce the policy of allowing no food or drink in lecture rooms. Water is allowed. Lyons next announced that VAULT (Vols Asserting University-sanctioned Labor Transparency), a student organization working to ensure that officially licensed UT merchandise is not made in sweatshops, will meet at 8:00 p.m. this Thursday in 223 University Center. He also reported that the Program Review and Redirection Committee is to meet this week and then noted that the Faculty Affairs Committee needs two faculty and the Research Council needs one. No one reported any further needs for members. He indicated that he will take the initiative to fill these seats.

Lyons next reported that the Graduate Council is voting on a new chair; M. Keyhani chose to resign the position. Lyons then said he thinks the minutes of meetings of the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils should be posted on their web sites as soon as available and perhaps posted on the Faculty Senate web site. He reminded everyone that the Executive Committee is supposed to approve the minutes as is the Faculty Senate. B. Glenn noted that the Senate web site has links to the minutes of the Councils. M. Papke suggested that some subset of the Executive Committee should be responsible for reviewing the minutes and alerting others to important matters. There was general agreement with the idea of asking the councils to provide a synopsis with each set of minutes.

Crabtree reported that newly renovated classrooms are being harmed by food and beverages and the University cannot afford to replace carpets and other items. He said that faculty must take responsibility for enforcing the no food and drink policy. He reported that during spring term students will lead a campaign for maintaining the campus. W. Morgan and L. Gross noted there is a lack of suitable space for brown bag lunches and seminars. He reported that the president inspected parts of the campus and, as a consequence, improvements have been scheduled for certain buildings. Crabtree and others agreed that the campus lacks common areas for eating.

Crabtree next reported that the president has agreed that the nondiscrimination statement should be revised along the lines recommended by the Faculty Senate.

He then noted that review and redirection was unveiled last spring. Program reviews have indicated that certain programs are underperforming. In some cases it is a lack of funding that is the root cause. In other cases it is poor recruitment, failure of faculty to get along with one another or mistreatment of students. S. Davis and Crabtree expressed confidence that a further budget cut will occur for next year. He does not want to address the problem by taking open positions and the alternative is vertical cuts. He said the process has been top-down, but someone had to start it and faculty leaders were informed.

In response to a question from Morgan, Crabtree said there are support staff positions that probably could be eliminated. Eliminating positions would not generate sufficient savings; everything the institution does must be looked at to find efficiencies. He then agreed with T. Diacon that cuts should be used to create some political capital. Davis commented that the cuts will have to be presented to the public in a way the public can understand and support. Gross and others asked whether tenured faculty would be fired at other campuses. Crabtree said there may not be any firing of tenured faculty. Some might be placed in other units. Some might have several years to retrain while their programs wind down. S. Blackwell noted some of the ways that the University of Maryland maintained faculty support while eliminating programs. In response to a question from M. Harmon, Crabtree said there is no surplus in men's athletics after it supports women's athletics. In response to a question from N. Howell, Crabtree said the list of programs will not be made public until after the Review and Redirection Task Force works it over.

White reported that the October Faculty Senate Newsletter was read mostly soon after it was sent out electronically. It does not seem to be read by those who most need the information it contains. She has initiated an on-line survey of faculty, which though not complete, is producing some useful information. Faculty Senators seem to be the main source of information about Faculty Senate matters. White noted that the bylaws do not require a newsletter, although one duty of the president-elect is to edit the newsletter. Harmon suggested that when communicating by list-servers that senators provide very brief statements about the various topics of interest and include links to more details. Glenn noted that having minutes on the web eliminates the original purpose of the newsletter. Papke said that the paper copy of the first newsletter each year has been useful to her colleagues as a handy reference. G. Graber commented that some way should be found to distribute the interviews and similar items that have been appearing in the newsletter.

Moffett encouraged everyone to review Chapters 1 and 2, the current drafts of which incorporate comments from the Faculty Senate meeting. There were no comments or questions about the first two chapters.

Moffett moved next to Chapter 3. She said department bylaws must be consistent with the Faculty Handbook and the Faculty Affairs Committee will determine consistency. C. Craig expressed concern that the Faculty Affairs Committee would be getting into the matter too late. T. Diacon expressed concerns that the new requirements for search committees would create more problems than they would solve. Graber suggested replacing the required vote with faculty agreement. White spoke in favor of keeping the requirement of a majority vote of department faculty to approve the composition of faculty search committees.

There next was discussion about the deletion of a sentence (ll. 27, 28, p2) saying when certain faculty should be on campus. There was general agreement that the sentence should be kept. A lengthy discussion of the deletion of "scholarship" from "research/scholarship/creative activity" resulted in its restoration.

Lyons noted that the final report of the Committee on Senate Structure and Effectiveness (April 2003) was distributed with the agenda. He expressed his hope that the Executive Committee would discuss its appropriate size at a future meeting. He did commend the Executive Committee for the high level of participation so far this year.

Lyons noted that a resolution was distributed with the agenda. Harmon spoke in favor of the resolution and Diacon spoke against such legislation. White asked whether the Faculty Senate should be dealing with such a matter and whether a variety of resolutions dilutes any influence the Faculty Senate has. Craig said he does not feel the institution should be helping students and others to smoke. B. Ownley pointed out that the institution must support agriculture and tobacco is an important business in the state. The resolution failed with a show of hands. The resolution will not be in the agenda packet for the next Faculty Senate meeting.

The resolution on the selection of the committee's chairperson was read and it was approved without objection.

B. Lyons called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.

The agenda was approved as presented.

Minutes of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee meeting of November 3, 2003, were approved without change.

Lyons thanked everyone for attending and announced that Chancellor Crabtree could not attend. Crabtree is interested in participating in a brown-bag lunch with this committee in January. Friday, January 16, 2004, is a possible date.

Lyons then reviewed some issues he and Crabtree have discussed. These include upholding the religious diversity recommendation from two years ago, moving up the budget hearings and involving the Faculty Senate Budget Committee more, including in the Chancellor's Honors Banquet award winners from the Undergraduate Research Fair and giving the banquet a more academic flavor, the composition of the search committee for the Associate Vice-Chancellor for Research, the process of evaluating administrators (Senate recommendations from several years ago have sat dormant), and the non-discrimination resolution passed by the Faculty Senate. He reported that the last matter and the first two chapters of the handbook are with the General Counsel's Office. In response to a question from W. Morgan, M. Moffett described the role of the General Counsel's Office in the revising of the handbook. She and J. Coddington pointed out that the handbook is a contract, so that the faculty should have an opportunity to respond to any changes the General Counsel's Office proposes.

Lyons then noted that the Review and Redirection Task Force is working hard. Faculty are on all four of the main subcommittees and faculty chair some of them. Urban Planning and Education Administration are being looked at with a hearing for the latter scheduled for January 8, 2004, 8:00-10:00 a.m. in Arena Dining CD.

Lyons next reported that C. White is ready to "gear up" the caucuses. He then commented that the number of Faculty Senate committees should be considered. White will draft some options concerning this matter.

Last month White and Lyons worked with L. Davidson to draft a set of guidelines for the use and administration of a restricted fund for which the Faculty Senate Executive Committee will have primary oversight. This shared governance fund would be for sending selected senators to conferences or to collaborate with other senates in the UT System, etc.

Lyons then reported that the Faculty Handbook Task Force believes that tenure should be located in a program and the appeals process offers ample guarantees for academic freedom. He then presented a proposal regarding search committees: "As part of this process, departmental faculty nominate potential search committee members, from which the department head selects a search committee in consultation with the tenured and tenure-track faculty at a faculty meeting." T. Diacon noted selecting a search committee is a complicated matter and giving a head more leeway can benefit the department. He is opposed to legislating how every department should run its affairs. W. Dunne agreed. Coddington said he thought any problems with a particular faculty member's being on a search committee soon would become clear to the faculty as a whole. A straw vote slightly favored consultation in a meeting over simply consultation.

Coddington reviewed the contents of Chapter 4 and a statement (distributed at the meeting) about Chapter 4. The statement gives some principles underlying Chapter 4 and some broader questions raised by the chapter. He also distributed copies of a new section 4.4 on salary which has as a subsection a revised version of the previous section 4.4 on appeals. The paragraph on salary is similar to that for tenured and tenure-track faculty from Chapter 3. C. Hodges noted some difficulties with the salary statement being applied to non-tenure-track faculty. Dunne pointed out that there are three different types of non-tenure-track faculty, so that parallelism with tenured and tenure-track faculty may be impossible. B. Lee suggested changing "compensation" to "salary" in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the salary statement. Coddington agreed. B. Ownley suggested inserting wording that allows exceptions. Dunne spoke in favor of having three special sections, one for each type of non-tenure-track faculty, if any statement is included. D. Bassett noted that in some colleges there are fixed pay rates, so that heads do not make salary recommendations. T. Diacon suggested deleting the first two sentences of the first paragraph. L. Gross objected that research faculty then would not be covered. After considerably more discussion there still was no final agreement about the final form of a salary statement.

Coddington next turned to a possible statement on academic freedom and evaluation. It was decided not to include it. Coddington then raised the question of whether Chapter 4 undermines the following statement in Chapter 2: "Tenure is a protection of academic freedom." He also asked whether Chapter 4 calls into question the mission of teaching, research and service by legitimizing the separation of these activities. No one spoke in support of these concerns; several noted that Chapter 4 cannot deal with everything, including national trends in the use of non-tenure-track faculty.

Lyons summed up the discussion of Chapter 4 by saying that it contains much useful material and that some salary statement will be included. The statement will be drafted and then discussed at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

After a short break Lyons said he and P. Höyng worked on Chapter 5 and asked Höyng to describe how this version differs from the current handbook. Höyng said key differences are the inclusion of non-tenure-track faculty, the creation of a Faculty Ombudsperson, and the emphasis on a Faculty Senate Appeals Committee, rather than the Faculty Affairs Committee. He noted that the proposed approach resulted from considering practices at many other institutions. Lyons noted that there might be a need for more than one Faculty Ombudsperson to provide some flexibility. Gross asked why an ombudsperson is to receive a monetary stipend. After a response, Gross said he asked because he thinks the person should be allowed to negotiate his/her agreement. There was considerable belief that there likely would be sufficient work to warrant having several ombudspersons. Ownley noted that it is necessary to identify who may consult an ombudsperson. Papke argued that there should be an ombuds-office and an ombudsperson should have a part-time appointment to the position. Gross suggested using "a" for "the" before "Faculty Ombudsperson" in Chapter 5 in order to avoid having to identify the number of such officers. There was general agreement with his idea.

Höyng turned next to the matter of the proposed Appeals Committee. In response to a question from S. Blackwell, Höyng said that a faculty member with a grievance is not forced to pursue his or her grievance through administrative channels before approaching the Appeals Committee. Wording changes will be made to clarify this matter. Gross pointed out that it really is not clear which office should be the "end office" in different types of cases. Moffett suggested changing the flow chart for appeals by distinguishing informal and formal paths, with the Ombudsperson being an informal path.

Coddington suggested that in the last sentence of the paragraph on page 4, titled "Hearing Results and Recommendations," the Appeals Committee should be sending the matter directly to the Faculty Senate. After some discussion it was agreed the sentence should say that the Appeals Committee should ask the Faculty Affairs Committee to consider the matter. Lyons then thanked everyone for their comments.

Lyons next briefly made some points about Chapter 6. A missing sentence about banking courses has been restored. The word "immediate" has been inserted in line 41, page 2, before "family member." He favors removing the word "immediate," but federal law may include it. Ownley pointed out that in line 32, page 1, "fees" should be "tuition." She also reported some other possible changes members of the Benefits Committee noted. Gross observed that in line 30, page 1, "Part-time" should be deleted. It also was noted that the list of holidays in section 6.7 should be deleted, but reference should be made to the HR policy link.

Dunne briefly described what was done to the current Chapter 6 to create the new Chapter 7. Gross noted that writing books is allowed, but section 8 prohibits use of one's computer to do so. New wording will be found. Concern was expressed that Department Bylaws be revised to conform with the new handbook, once approved. Lyons indicated that he, and future Senate Presidents will need to communicate this expectation to the college Deans.

Diacon asked what "a distinct audience" for a program in the "Uniqueness and Competitive Advantage" section means. It was decided that "strong student demand" in the "Demand/Need" section suffices and the "distinct audience" statement should be deleted. The revised criteria were approved with this change.

Lyons welcomed Chuck Feigerle the new Chair of Grad Council.

He noted that Anne Mayhew will provide an update on the Review and Redirection Task Force during an open forum on Feb 2 before Senate meeting. He stated that the task force held a hearing for Urban & Regional Planning on December 8th, and that they had decided to initiate an ad hoc committee to look into certificate program or other options, placement for faculty, etc. An impact statement will be developed by the Task Force for consideration by the Faculty Senate. He stated that the Faculty Senate web site includes information on the work of the Review and Redirection Task Force.

Lyons encouraged committee chairs to look over web site, making sure that the calendar of meetings is correct, and that minutes and any reports are being posted.

He expressed concern about the SACS process, and the level of participation by faculty in assessing their units goals. A query of faculty attending the meeting showed that almost everyone had reviewed their unit goals and that almost half had approved them at a faculty meeting or by email.

Lyons indicated that Sylvia Davis has informed him that the results of the employee satisfaction survey conducted last semester will be posted next week. He also noted that the General Counsel's Office is beginning to work on the handbook and has all three chapters approved by the Faculty Senate. He also noted that the Commission for Women has drawn up list of candidates for UT President which has been sent forward.

Finally, he thanked everyone for their work on the Faculty Handbook, and made special note of the contributions of Norma Cook in proposing important revisions.

Lyons noted that Chapter 7 will go to Dean's council on Thursday, will be presented as a first-reading on February 2nd and as an action item on March 1. He asked W. Dunne, a member of the Handbook Task Force to present the key issues in this chapter.

Dunne noted that, as currently written, for faculty on academic appointments, outside compensated services are to be included in the faculty member's 100% full time effort. He posed the question if compensated outside service should be part of 100%? Or should it be left out?

L. Gross expressed concern about the use of 100% commitment, as it implies a faculty member has no right to pursue professional and non-professional activities on their personal time.

C. White proposes striking "100%." B Ownley raised the issue of how are 12-month employees currently handled?

M Combs expressed concern regarding what constitutes faculty member's expertise? W. Dunne responded that if the activity is part of your annual review, it should fall within your professional expertise.

C. Feigerle noted an inconsistency about admin/off-time comp. activities. E. Sutherland also questions use of 100% terminology.

D Kennedy moved that the committee support the concept of including the 20% of compensated outside serves as part of the 100% effort for nine-month faculty. The motion was seconded.

C White noted that the university benefits of compensated outside activities in various ways, and should be counted as part of the 100% effort. She also recommended that the use of the term 100% effort be changed to "full-time effort" or avoided when possible. There was some discussion of how to regard the concept of 100% in comparison to a 40-hour work-week. The point was made that percent of effort and time of effort are not always equal. W. Dunne also remarked that the policy applies to the percent effort of a faculty member, not about a percent of salary. E Sutherland asserted that the percentage numbers are symbolic, for use in annual review.

The question was called. The motion passed by overwhelming majority, voice vote.

The committee then considered the policy as applied to faculty on twelve-month appointments. The current policy treats 20% for compensated outside services as activity in addition to the 100% effort.

L. Gross moved to change 12-month policy to conform to 9-month; C. White seconded

N. Howell noted that some 12-month faculty who take extended time (more than 24 days per year) to teach or consult for outside compensation are expected to use annual leave days when engaged in these activities.

W. Dunne expressed concern that the Institute of Agriculture will need to be consulted before a final draft can be prepared for the first-reading by the Senate.

The motion passed by voice vote

B Lee asked how will compensated outside service be considered in relation to merit raises. W Dunne answered that outcomes/benefits to the institution will be defined in advance (beyond simple monetary enrichment of the faculty member) and followed up afterwards. B. Lee noted the problem of public perception about faculty work loads.

J. Coddington stated that it was important for the university to elaborate, expand and publicize beneficial outcomes. C. White was asked to provide W Dunne with some language on benefits of outside compensated activities.

C White expressed concern about inflexible dept. heads in relation to the expectation that faculty notify their unit administrator about work that comes up during the year.

L Gross stated that the chapter would be improved if compensated outside activity was better defined. D. Kennedy expressed concern that specific language was problematic given the diversity of activities by faculty.

L. Gross noted that provision 6 needed to be revised and clarified. He also recommended that provision 7, on the use of facilities, should reference UT Fiscal Policy 135 item three, which allows the use of a university computer use for writing books.

D Kennedy recommended to delete phrase p. 1 line 35:"which are typically not compensated except for modest honoraria" After some discussion Dunne agreed to this change.

L. Jolly made report proposed withdrawal policy from the Undergraduate Council Minutes of November 4, 2003.

L. Jolly included a synopsis of the 11-04-03 minutes in the meeting packet. She reported that WFs in the current WP/WF policy is not being used significantly-only 12% are WFs. L. Gross suggested that 12% is probably a good reflection of the actual failure rate. C. Craig asked whether allowing W grades until the 84th day might be the same as eliminating the "F" grade altogether and compromising the whole grading system. Jolly noted the bureaucratic problems arising from the current deadlines and students petition/exception requests. D. Kennedy noted that it is useful in evaluating a student's transcript to be able to distinguish between a WP and a WF. B. Lyons asked whether lottery scholarships are an issue in this matter; the general suggestion was that they are not (that dropping courses for any reason exposes students to danger of losing scholarship if they drop below required hours per 24/year. B. Lee stated that faculty are responsible to determine the appropriate grade in each given case; that administrative expedience shouldn't dictate policy changes. There was consensus that faculty should be given better direction on how to apply WF and WP grades. B. Lee remarked that faculty member's ability to be able to defend decision, rather than consistency, that is most important.

L. Gross moves that new W policy not come to Senate, and to keep the current WP/WF policy. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. Lyons requested L. Jolly notify the Undergraduate Council of this decision. He will bring the rest of the minutes from November 4th to the February 2nd Faculty Senate meeting for approval.

E. Sutherland stated that the refresh program for faculty computers not being done this year partly because of perception is that few faculty need new computers after first 2 years of program J. Coddington suggests that Research Council should make resolution regarding the program and bring it back to Executive Committee. B. Lyons encouraged the council to survey actual needs on the part of faculty. There was some concern that the OMB guidelines for computer purchases would result in additional faculty need for computers this year. L. Gross noted that faculty often have other needs, particularly software purchases for teaching.

D. Bassett presented a committee report, which was included in the meeting packet. He discussed the work by the committee on the faculty leave policy, Faculty mentoring and a web listing of professional development opportunities compiled by the committee which will be linked to the Faculty Senate web site. B Dunne said that the College of Arts and Sciences is independently beginning a program to foster new faculty research efforts and awareness of processes, facilitation, etc. B. Lyons thanked him for the work of the committee, and hoped he could give a presentation on the Mentoring report to the Council of Deans and on the Professional Development Directory at the March faculty Senate Meeting.

A copy of the proposed shared Governance Fund was included in the meeting packet. A motion was made to approve the fund as outlined, with addition of sexual orientation to last paragraph; with pledge from members of the exec committing to support fund as well. The motion passed unanimously.

Meeting adjourned at 5:23p.m.

B. Lyons called meeting to order at 3:32 p.m.

The agenda was approved unanimously without change.

Minutes of the meeting of January 12, 2004, were approved unanimously without change.

President's Report (B. Lyons)

Lyons reported that some concerns about the current draft of Chapter 7 of the Faculty Handbook have been expressed. Comments from the Deans Council have been incorporated in the current draft. Lyons also noted that Chapter 8, as well as Chapter 7, was distributed with the agenda.

Lyons reported that he has been speaking with L. Crabtree about the non-discrimination policy and the Senate's resolution about it. He expressed his concern that the Student Government Association, the Graduate Student Senate and the Faculty Senate support the resolution in good faith and said that their efforts should not be met with administrative neglect.

Lyons next commented on the list of facilities services that was distributed at the meeting. He said that his experience is that the contracted services are not provided or not provided as frequently as the contract requires. He hopes to locate the list on the web and distribute the relevant URL.

Lyons then discussed a list of questions that might be used in the review of department heads. The list will be posted on the Web. He also briefly spoke about the Review and Redirection Task Force. He noted that he had sent an e-mail on the matter last week. He also reported that he and L. Gross are preparing a letter about an aspect of the Task Force's work.

Lyons next asked if someone might substitute for him at a meeting of the Calendar Committee at 1:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 24. No one volunteered. Lyons then called attention to a schedule of budget hearings distributed at the meeting. He then asked whether it would be good to have a presentation on the UT Employee Satisfaction Survey before the March Faculty Senate meeting. There was no objection.

Chancellor's Report (L. Crabtree)

Crabtree reported that the schedule of budget hearings is being revised. He then noted that on April 5 in Nashville, there will be a meeting of the Search Advisory Council to select the top candidates for president. Open interviews will occur April 13-15 in the Hermitage Room in the U. C. Further interviews will occur on April 20-21. All interviews are to be web-cast. April 3 is the last date to declare one's candidacy.

Crabtree next reported that the budget cut for Knoxville amounts to 0.97%. In addition, the institution must provide all funds for the 2% salary increase and benefits on those raises. The cuts and the raises amount to about $6.8 million. Other unavoidable cost increases push the total over $12 million. The state also is talking about a possible fixed-amount bonus in July for each state employee. In response to a question from Gross, Crabtree said the new budget does include capital expenditures, although the requirement that the institution raise 1/3 of the building costs will be a big challenge in many cases.

Crabtree next reported that undergraduate applications are up 17% over last year. Transfer applications are up about 15% and so are graduate applications. Demand for residence halls as evidenced by deposits also is up. Gross encouraged Crabtree to find funds to support more graduate students to meet the increased demand in undergraduate courses. Crabtree agreed, but noted that temporary faculty cost the university less. W. Dunne suggested that departments might not be able to find qualified graduate students. Crabtree noted that some departments have private money that should be used to attract graduate students with higher offers.

Crabtree next reported that J. Johnson has said that he is to receive a report on the legal aspects of a non-discrimination policy from the Office of Legal Counsel. Crabtree was promised a copy, but has not received one.

Chapter 7 Update (W. Dunne)

Dunne read part of an e-mail from Gross, that concerns the matter of whether compensated outside activities are included in the 100% effort of a faculty member. Dunne suggested to the Deans Council that outside activities should not be part of one's obligations to the university, but if one is not meeting those obligations, then outside activities should be questioned. The Council responded positively and Dunne then revised the draft of Chapter 7 to reflect that attitude. Dunne briefly reviewed the changes in the current draft.

M. Papke asked how a department head actually can restrict a faculty member's outside activities. Dunne responded that a head can put the problems in writing and, if improvements do not occur, then the cumulative review policy will come into play as a last resort. In response to a question from Gross, Dunne noted that the policy on outside activities concerns only such activities that involve applying academic skills and abilities and are associated with the faculty member's professional expertise. Gross said he believes a clear statement on the types of activities not covered by the policy should be included. C. White suggested that a faculty member should negotiate with the department head which outside activities would be part of one's 100% effort. B. Lee cautioned that there is disincentive to faculty to report their compensated outside activities to their department head, as it could be used against the faculty in their annual review. Dunne responded that the departmental bylaws should come into play. D. Bassett argued in favor of having a one-day-per-week or similar limit on outside activities to be certain that the institution gets its due from each faculty member.

Lyons then conducted a straw poll asking for a show of hands from those who believe outside activities should be part of the 100% effort. Two responded. Many then indicated they believe it should be outside. The committee was almost evenly split on the matter of limiting outside activity to 20%. White then moved that the matter be tabled and a discussion be held on Blackboard with final action to take place at the April 5th Senate meeting. There was a second and then the motion was approved.

Lyons next briefly described the draft of Chapter 8. There were no comments.

Undergraduate Council Report (L. Jolly)

Jolly called attention to the minutes of the February 3, 2004, meeting of the Undergraduate Council. They include curricular changes and are available on the Web. She briefly reviewed what has been done and thanked colleges for submitting their course revisions.

Discussion of Senate Committee Reorganization (C. White)

White noted that several committees are working in parallel on the same matters. She reported that the proposed reorganization does not eliminate functions, but tries to eliminate duplicated activities and to move other activities from deleted committees to remaining committees.

White used a chart distributed at the meeting to present the proposed changes. C. Craig noted that the Faculty Affairs Committee does have a heavy burden associated with vetting bylaws changes to see that they conform to the new Faculty Handbook. Others suggested that the charge of the Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee be moved to the Professional Development Committee instead of Faculty Affairs. J. Coddington suggested that the Benefits Committee remain for a few years until the review of bylaws has been completed. The suggestion was accepted by White. She also accepted a suggestion from Craig that no administrator at the department head level or above be a member of the proposed Appeals Committee. She also agreed with Coddington that Director of the Center for International Education should not be a voting member of the Educational Policy Committee. It was agreed that the revised proposal should go to the next Faculty Senate meeting for a first reading.

Budget Committee (L. Gross)

Gross reported that each dean's budget material will be available in the library. Also for the first time, there will be a uniform set of information on the college budgets. He also noted that OMB rules concerning grants may add $1 million to the budget shortfall beyond what Crabtree mentioned.

IT Advisory Task Force (G. Whitney)

Whitney reported on activities of the task force. She noted that IT cards without Social Security numbers can be obtained now, security matters have been discussed as has the AUP/Privacy document, VoIP teaching and learning systems have been studied and the task force is trying to get the faculty refresh program reinstated.

Senate Elections Update (C. White)

White reported that the election process is proceeding well, but it is difficult to get faculty in a couple of caucuses to volunteer to run for office.

The meeting adjourned at 5:46p.m.

B. Lyons called meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.

The agenda was approved with the deletion of the report from the Chancellor who is attending another function.

Minutes of the meeting of February 16, 2004, were approved unanimously without change.

President's Report (B. Lyons)

Lyons congratulated C. Hodges for her appointment to a position in the Arts & Sciences College's Deans Office. He also called attention to an editorial printed in the Tennessean by C. Warren Neel titled "UT must have a new blueprint to save it from mediocrity." The statement was distributed at the meeting. Lyons also noted that the next few weeks would be very busy with activities associated with a search for a new president. C. White commented that she believes the Faculty Senate's voice will be heard by the search components, if the organization wishes to be heard. Questions for finalists to answer in writing and the structure of the presidency are two matters of prime concern. White expressed concern that the current structure of the presidency may simply set up someone for failure.

Lyons next reported that he and a representative of the student government met with President Johnson to discuss the position of the Senate, the Student Government Association and the Graduate Student Association on the matter of sexual orientation and diversity. He could report only that pressure is still being applied to push the matter forward. Lyons also noted that work is continuing on the revision of The Faculty Handbook and that the General Counsel Office has been encouraged not to wait until the "eleventh hour" to raise matters of concern.

Report of VP for Research and IT (B. Bible)

Bible presented a draft budget proposal for FY 2005 for the Office of Information Technology. He began with a list of recent accomplishments including a stable network environment, a comprehensive security plan, and several system upgrades. The top three priorities for FY 2005 are information security, enterprise solutions and technologies for research and instruction. Bible emphasized accountability, which includes financial reporting and steering committee guidance. The proposed FY 2005 budget will reflect a 5% reduction ($783,800) to be achieved primarily through elimination of positions. In response to a question from L. Gross, Bible said that the total budget for IT is about $20 million for UT Knoxville, Health Sciences, and University-Wide Administration (UWA). He also noted that priorities will drive the budget and that meetings like this one are intended to help set those priorities. Gross noted that as more computing is moved into departments, the operating needs of departments increase. Bible responded that a balance between central and departmental computing services must be found. B. Dewey and others expressed their desires to have more detailed numbers. Lyons encouraged Bible to provide the Budget Committee with full details and encouraged Gross to let Bible know the kind of information the Budget Committee needs. In response to a question from Lyons, Bible confirmed that there is a plan to move Network Services to Hoskins Library in a space currently used by the Office of Disability Services. He did not provide a projected cost for this move, as it will be paid for by physical plant. Lyons indicated he would look into this.

Discussion of Senate Committee Reorganization (C. White)

S. Blackwell described a concern of the AAUP chapter about the mission of the Faculty Affairs Committee. The chapter would like to retain the phrase "and discharge for cause;" the committee agreed unanimously to retain the phrase. The AAUP chapter also has a concern about the president being an ex-officio member of the Executive Committee. C. White said she would like to check the history of including the president and would like to know what other faculty senate's do about the matter. Combs suggested that the president always can be invited to attend when that person's presence is needed. Gross suggested being precise about whose presence is wanted on the Executive Committee. Gross moved that "University President and" be deleted. Harmon seconded and the motion was approved unanimously. Gross then moved that "Knoxville chancellor and Knoxville chief budget office" be added to the list members. Graber noted that use of "chancellor" or "chief academic officer" should be consistent throughout the Faculty Handbook. The motion by Gross was defeated.

G. Whitney moved that the redundant term "educational technology" be deleted from the fourth line from the end of the second paragraph in the material for the Information Technology Committee. Harmon seconded and the proposal was approved unanimously. Whitney also suggested that there might be a problem with asking too few people on the I. T. Committee to be liaisons with too many committees.

Graber moved that that "Chairperson of the Information Technology Committee," be stricken from the proposed description of the Educational Policy Committee membership. The motion was seconded and then approved. White next proposed deleting three consecutive sentences from the description of the I. T. Committee. They begin with "One of ..." and end with "... Research Council." The motion was seconded and then approved.

D. Kennedy then asked about the six-year terms of the 18 faculty members of the Appeals Committee. Lyons noted that the description is in the approved Faculty Handbook. Kennedy moved changing "six-year" to "three-year." Gross seconded her motion, which was approved. Lyons noted that if this change is approved by the Senate, he will work to see that the proposed handbook is modified to reflect this length of term for committee members.

Budget Committee (L. Gross)

Gross reported that approval to attend some of the central administration budget hearings has been received. The committee will meet with the chancellor next week to report its recommendations. Lyons noted that earnings from endowments have declined and the campus will have to reduce its budget by another $1.3 million.

Athletics Committee (T. Diacon)

Diacon reported that the committee is a subcommittee of the NCAA Ten-Year Certification Report Committee. The committee has been charged with collecting a considerable amount of detailed data. Faculty and staff are to have an opportunity to review and comment on the final report which will be on the NCAA Web site. He said a link will be provided for the Faculty Senate Web site when the report is ready for faculty input. In response to a question from W. Morgan, Diacon said that a committee chaired by D. Murphy is handling the academic report.

Lyons asked for advice on what to do next about the presidential search. Gross suggested asking how each candidate would distribute state funds among the campuses. White suggested that the two faculty on the Search Committee must be recognized as speaking for faculty on all the campuses. Diacon suggested that Neel's statement should be provided to all candidates. White also talked about the need for the president to deal with system matters and for the chancellor of the Knoxville campus to be identified as the chief executive of that campus. Graber moved that Neel's statement be posted on Blackboard and faculty be encouraged to read it and to formulate questions for candidates. The motion was seconded. Kennedy suggested "boiling down" Neel's key points and posting only those on Blackboard. Graber and the seconder accepted the change as a friendly amendment. The amended motion was approved. White and Lyons then agreed to work on a motion to be included with the next Faculty Senate meeting agenda; it will concern the relationship between the next UT president and the campus system.

The meeting adjourned at 5:24 p.m.

B. Lyons called meeting to order at 3:34 p.m.

The agenda was approved without change.

Minutes of the meeting of March 22, 2004, were approved unanimously without change.

Lyons reported that he has been in regular contact with the General Counsel's Office and with the Chancellor on the matter of the Faculty Handbook. He has not received any real response. He then noted that M. Moffett was honored at the Chancellor's Banquet for her work on the handbook.

Lyons next expressed concern that the resolution on non-discrimination would not be acted on this year. He also said he felt the recent resolution on the relation between the campus and the system is having some effect. He concluded by expressing his thanks to the committee for their effective work this year.

Crabtree expressed his thanks to the Executive Committee and especially to Lyons for their work this year. He said he had sent the drafts of the Faculty Handbook in February and again last week to the General Counsel's Office and indicated to that office that he and the Faculty Senate Executive Council would be available if needed. Regarding the non-discrimination policy, he indicated that he believes the change will be adopted, perhaps with a statement that it has no effect on state or federal law.

Crabtree next recalled that a full-page ad on diversity in an issue of The Daily Beacon last week said that a diversity plan would be created. He has begun the process and hopes a draft plan can be ready by August. The draft will be shared with the Faculty Senate Executive Council during the summer. Units also will be asked to create diversity plans. The vice chancellors will own the plan and, with the chancellor, will be held responsible for it.

Next, Crabtree said that he is trying to hold off some system-related expenditures for at least a year. There will have to be a tuition increase to continue to function. Since each 1% increase in tuition nets about $900,000, a double-digit increase will be necessary; he thinks 12% is likely. He then cited equal and larger tuition increases in neighboring states. He said he expects over 4,000 freshmen, but how many more than 4,000 is unclear. Strong Hall will be kept open and Melrose Hall may be retained. THEC will not declare a penalty if the class exceeds 4,100.

Finally, Crabtree provided a brief summary of the review and redirection efforts. Urban and Regional Planning will not admit a new class, but is looking to be part of the Political Science Department. A new class will be recruited later as the curriculum revisions proceed. He also briefly discussed Education Administration, Health and Safety and Botany. In response to a question from L. Gross, Crabtree said that the policy and procedures for dealing with faculty of dissolved units are being followed.

Lyons noted that reports were distributed with the agenda. T. Diacon had nothing to add to the Athletics Committee report. Gross, for the Budget Committee, reported that the Volunteer Athletic Scholarship Fund of the men's athletics program is used mostly for salaries of coaches. Attempts to have the fund's name changed have not received any response. B. Dewey reported that she has had donors tell her that recent changes to what is required to retain season football tickets will force them to lower or eliminate their non-athletic contributions. Gross then briefly reviewed the contents of the Budget Committee's report.

N. Howell briefly reviewed the report from the Development and Alumni Relations Committee. Crabtree emphasized the important role of faculty in capital campaigns. C. Cox then summarized the report of the Educational Policy Committee. Major issues were SACS Accreditation and Program Review and Redirection.

Lyons noted that he had submitted a brief report for the Executive Committee. M. Harmon then reviewed the report of the Government Relations Committee. C. Craig reported on the activities of the Faculty Affairs Committee. Crabtree congratulated the committee on its statesmanship.

B. Ownley said the report from the Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee would be provided soon. She noted that benefits will be available to faculty on professional leave, if they follow the rules. She cautioned that such leaves are limited by state law to two years. Crabtree commented that the law should be changed. Ownley then listed some other matters, which still need to be resolved.

C. Feigerle reviewed some key issues considered by the Graduate Council during the year. He noted that faculty, rather than administrators, now handle administration of the Council. Lyons reported for the Faculty Handbook Task Force and summarized its report. G. Whitney then reported briefly for the Information Technology Advisory Committee. Ownley said many of her colleagues are interested in internet courses provided by one in-state university that can be taken at another in-state university without admission, tuition and registration hassles.

Next, J. Waller summarized the report of the International Education Committee. He will provide Lyons with a list of important activities that should be taken up by the Professional Development and Educational Policy Committees next year. W. Morgan then summarized the report of the Library Committee. Registration or UTID may be required to use some library resources or facilities.

Lyons noted that a report from the Nominating Committee was provided. D. Bassett then briefly reviewed the report from the Professional Development Committee. Next, E. Sutherland reviewed the main activities of the Research Council for the year. Complying with OMB was a major issue, as were IRIS and the desk-top-refresh issue. B. Lee summarized the report of the Teaching Council. He thanked Crabtree for sponsoring ads in The Daily Beacon to solicit nominations for the Chancellor's Excellence in Teaching and Advising Awards. Finally, L. Jolly reviewed the year's activities of the Undergraduate Council.

White hopes the retreat can be the first meting of all the Faculty Senate committees. She also would like to include discussion of the caucus committees. Including the Board of Trustees is another priority. White thanked Crabtree for the $20,500 he has committed to the Faculty Senate budget for 2004-2005. There was general support for White's ideas.

In compliance with the Senate bylaws, Lyons explained the need for four volunteers to serve on the Executive Council to represent the faculty during the summer. D. Kennedy, Gross, Howell and Craig volunteered. Dewey also volunteered. The council then was approved.

Lyons indicated that S. Jordan has expressed his willingness to serve again. The committee voted to nominate him.

The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.