Site Index

C. White called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.

Minutes of the March 14, 2005 meeting of the Executive Committee were approved.

White addressed the importance of the Senate committees' annual reports for ensuring the future functioning of those committees.

Mayhew reported for the Chancellor that the Chancellor and his staff are continuing to work on the budget. Various levels of tuition increase are part of that discussion. She reported that Wednesday would be UT day in Nashville. At both the system and campus level, we have new public relations leadership. Activities include UT day in Nashville; the Chancellor and students will be meeting with selected legislators this Wednesday. The entering undergraduate class will probably be between 4000 and 4200. Various snags have arisen with online registration, but they are being resolved and overall student response to the new processes if favorable. The SACS report will be positive with a minor recommendation. The review team noted the QEP was ambitious and did not provide means to measure success. Mayhew singled out Laura Jolly and Stefanie Ohnesorg for special recognition for the work they've done with the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils.

Watson presented a revised resolution addressing components of the Patriot Act that are up for renewal. Whitney noted that the statement about international students was not followed by a "whereas." Watson explained that that component is not up for renewal. Kennedy suggested that the title and section designations be made clearer and Watson agreed to do so. Patterson suggested "welcoming climate" appeared "fluffy" and proposed "would threaten the diverse academic and research endeavors." With these changes the revised resolution will be presented to the Senate.

Murphy indicated that rather than proposing that the Committee be eliminated because the functions identified for it are duplicative, the Committee is proposing that its name, function, and membership be changed in the Senate Bylaws. The students on the Committee would like to engage in direct dialogue with faculty that would be represented by a renaming as the "Student Concerns Committee." Murphy noted that since the Committee last met, she had thought about the Committee composition and how having the Vice Chancellor and Dean of Student Affairs on the Committee was not necessary, as the students already have regular meetings with them. White speaking as a member of the Student Affairs Committee indicated that she and others she had spoken with supported both not having the Vice Chancellor and Dean of Student Affairs on the Committee and the argument that the existing charge of the Committee was met by other units. Jolly asked whether the President's roundtable was basically the same thing. White indicated that it is/was informal. Kennedy questioned whether the committee size (12) was appropriate for the limited number of tasks. Murphy indicated that the number of members reflected the desire to represent different constituencies in a balanced manner. The proposed goal is to foster interaction between faculty and students. White indicated the students originally wanted 10 members and had been convinced to reduce that number to 4. Mayhew noted there are monthly meetings of the administration and student groups. Various other names for the Committee were debated, as were means to have appropriate student representation. Two friendly amendments proposed were calling it the Student-Faculty Governance Committee and adding phrase "representatives of other student groups as appropriate." Rather than having the first reading of the revised motion at the last meeting of this Senate body and a vote on it in the fall, White ruled that the first reading of the resolution would be in September.

Kurth reported the Nominating Committee was pleased that two excellent candidates agreed to have their names on the ballot for the office of President-elect. L. Gross was elected.

The Committee is working on a spousal/partner recruitment and retention plan.

Whitney reported that substantial portion of the proposed Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) were taken from UTšs fiscal policy. (D. Leatherman is going to focus on those problems for the Committee.) Discussion revealed that R. Levy continues as our liaison to the UT system and that any negotiations would need to be with Executive Vice President J. Britt.

White had recruited one person (N. Howell) to serve on the Executive Council of Faculty Senate that acts for the Executive Committee over the summer and needed three volunteers (D. Patterson, J. Watson and L. Jolly).

S. Jordan is willing to serve as Faculty Senate Secretary (election at meeting). As an information item, O. Stephens has agreed to serve as Parliamentarian next year.

W. Dunne explained that A. Mayhew and S. Martin has been working with it this year. The President's view is that our campus needs to have numerical specification of limits to amount of time spent pursuing outside compensated activities. Previously we had 20% of an undesignated amount of time. Now numbers are being proposed. Discussion focus on the changes wrought by having specific numerical amounts, i.e., record keeping of hours and approval. Some concerns were expressed about passages already approved by the Senate and whether the newly proposed hour stipulations would change their impact. Questions were raised about possible uneven enforcement of limits. There was agreement that requiring all 12 month employees take annual leave to engage in outside compensated activities would be inequitable and that allowing 11/9 of the amount for 9 month employees would be appropriate.

Mayhew indicated the Chapter is not on the Board's agenda for its next meeting. C. Mizell informed her that if approved by the Senate it would not have to go to the Board for approval.

Various options were discussed (identifying specific numbers, returning to the 20% standard). White concluded the Senate will probably need to go over the chapter like it did earlier chapters, that is, line by line.

White reminded everyone of the Wednesday fundraiser for the shared governance fund.

The Committee discussed applicants for the position in closed session.

On behalf of the Professional Development Committee, Waller drew everyone's attention to the distributed mentoring guidelines that essentially serve as that committee's report.

C. White called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.

Minutes of the February 21, 2005 meeting of the Executive Committee were approved with the corrected date of February 21.

White reported that she was interviewed immediately before the meeting by a local TV station on the matter of the basketball coach. She hopes she managed to answer diplomatically several "loaded" questions about athletics expenditures.

White next asked how the committee would like to proceed in the matter of selecting a new ombudsperson. S. Kurth and S. Ohnesorg expressed interest in replacing M. Peterson with another female and announcing the upcoming vacancy to the faculty at large. White agreed and said she would distribute her previous letter.

Next, White noted that she had distributed copies of the draft version of "The 2005-10 Master Plan for Tennessee Higher Education." She said that, among other concerns, the document seems to plan on students' entering higher education through the community colleges. L. Crabtree agreed that that approach is a serious concern. He also noted that no additional funding is planned for the expected large increase in upper-division courses at the four-year institutions and that the plan is aimed at preparing workers, not educating citizens. Attempts to influence the document are being made by campus and system-level administrators.

White turned next to the Diversity Plan. Crabtree said that the departments and colleges need to develop their plans in the framework of the overall plan. He noted that the overall plan is available on the Web and said that every faculty member should have a copy. He will talk with the deans about the matter.

Crabtree said there are three really good candidates for the deanship of Arts and Sciences and an offer is out for the deanship in the School of Communication and Information. He also said that everything concerning the budget for next year is in flux because of major uncertainty in Nashville. It was not known when system-level budget hearings would occur. Tuition and fee proposals are being prepared for the Board of Trustees.

McMillan reported that the committee is trying to synthesize what it heard in the budget hearings. In response to a question, Crabtree said that a community college is a good place for some students to begin, but there is difficulty and there is a great cost in transferring from community colleges to four-year schools. It already is the case that some applicants who probably could succeed at UTK are not being admitted as freshmen. Reduced lower-division enrollment makes it more difficult to support upper-division and graduate activities.

White next reminded everyone that it is up to the faculty in a department to decide which department head evaluation form to use. It is very important that faculty use the forms in order to create a database.

Whitney called attention to the preamble to an earlier Acceptable Use Policy (AUP); the preamble was distributed at the meeting, as were several related documents. Included with a handout of comments concerning the proposed AUP was a copy of a memorandum from Thomas Y. Davies in April, 2003; it set out objections to the policy proposed at that time. Whitney also provided acceptable use polices from four other universities (MIT, Stanford, Georgia, Texas). D. Murphy said she likes the approach of the Texas policy and D. Patterson said he likes the privacy approach of the Stanford policy. B. Blass suggested that a committee with equal representation from OIT, students, faculty and administrators should try to create a policy. In response to a question from White, Crabtree said that B. Bible is working hard on security matters these days and Crabtree thinks the proposed AUP is part of that work. He offered to try to help work out a positively and clearly stated policy, but cautioned that OIT is a system office. Patterson urged that the Office of Research be involved in the work and J. Watson suggested that B. Dewey be involved. Whitney said that the campus needs to decide how IT decisions are to be made. Crabtree commented that the president believes the system should provide added value to each campus and is having in an IT consultant to provide advice to him and Crabtree on the organization of IT. White then said again that Bible has been very cooperative.

Whitney asked everyone to read the policies and let her know what is good and what is not good. Crabtree asked that she provide the policies from other universities to Bible.

Howell discussed the Spousal/Partner Recruitment and Retention (SPRR) Policy. The policy is an attempt to help spouses/partners locate employment. It is not expected that the policy would be used often, but with increasing connections between the university and Oak Ridge there is the possibility that it will be needed. Howell suggested again that whoever oversees the policy should be in the chancelloršs office. White noted that the Faculty Senate can approve the policy, but cannot enforce it.

Blass objected to the policy statement that search committees are not to initiate discussion of the policy with potential candidates. He said the policy should not be hidden. McMillan and others noted that the statement is there to protect the candidate and the institution, but suggested that the statement should be rewritten. Crabtree said that if the policy were university policy, then it would be available to applicants on the Web.

It was decided to take the policy to the Faculty Senate to see how high a priority this matter is. The term "policy" may be changed to "guidelines."

Watson called attention to a resolution (available at the meeting) stating opposition to the USA PATRIOT Act and to its proposed renewal. White asked to whom the resolution is directed. Watson replied that the committee simply would like to see it in the minutes of the Faculty Senate. It was noted that there might be legal ramifications to sending the resolution to legislators or certain other individuals. Crabtree suggested taking it to the General Counsel's office. Kurth spoke in favor of doing something and Crabtree then suggested that, if the Faculty Senate approves a resolution, then he would work on the possibility of providing it to others as the sense of the Faculty Senate. Several revisions of the "Therefore" clause of the resolution were offered and accepted as friendly amendments. A request that the acronym "PATRIOT" be spelled out also was accepted. Taking the amended resolution to the full senate was approved.

Kurth noted that S. McMillan and L. Gross have agreed to run for the position of president-elect.

White reminded everyone that B. Snyder will give a tour of the renovated Tennessee Theatre on March 29 at 4:00 p.m.

C. White called the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.

Minutes of the January 10, 2005, meeting of the Executive Committee were approved without change.

White recalled that the Government Relations Committee was abolished last year. She then recalled attention to (State) Senate Bill 1117 (distributed with the agenda) on "student academic freedom" and asked whether the Faculty Senate should take any action concerning the bill. S. Kurth said she thinks everyone should be informed about the existence of the bill that, among other things, forbids introducing "controversial matter into the classroom." D. Patterson suggested sending a resolution to President Petersen to urge him to oppose the bill. B. MacClellan briefly summarized the AAUP position on the matter; it basically asserts that there already are grievance procedures in the academy and intrusion of the state legislature is not needed. D. Kennedy then spoke in support of sending a letter. G. Whitney asked whether the Board of Trustees might help. White responded that she has been mulling that approach. B. Lyons suggested dealing with the faculty representative on the Board. White will contact Susan Vickerstaff, and find out what, if any actions the university is taking concerning the bill.

Lyons reported that B. Bible and D. Scroggins have discussed implementation of the new department head evaluation form on the Web. It appears that it will be April before implementation occurs. Lyons has pushed to have paper copies made available to the various colleges for copying and distribution. Patterson reported that he already has received the other forms. S. Martin noted that some deans have forms they like and want to continue to use. Lyons hopes faculty will like the new form and urge its use.

Lyons next noted that the Manual for Faculty Evaluation has been reviewed in part, but the Faculty Affairs Committee is now reviewing the appendices. Appendix A is under review; it deals with teaching evaluation (self, peer and course). He asked whether peer review of teaching should be required or only listed as a best practice. Martin first said that the Faculty Handbook soon will be on line with a search tool and then said that she is working through proposed changes to the Manual for Faculty Evaluation. She will be discussing changes with the Chancellor's Office and the deans. She also reported that the version of Chapter 7 of the Faculty Handbook passed by the Faculty Senate had been rejected by the system chief academic officers. Lyons said it would be useful for the Executive Committee to have adequate time to review what the General Counsel's Office plans to send to the Board of Trustees; Martin agreed.

Whitney noted that the Acceptable Use Policy (distributed with the agenda and previously distributed electronically) is a new policy. She encouraged everyone to read carefully the section on privacy. She noted there is an assertion of no privacy in paragraph 5. Patterson noted that the next paragraph might provide some protection, but also noted that some faculty have federal contracts that require confidentiality. White asked whether a distinction could be made between communication and stored data. Patterson responded that certain communication also needs to be private. MacLennan asked whether technical staff could be involved. Whitney responded by asking that the draft be distributed to departmental technical staff and expressed her hope that such people and others could be included. Kennedy wondered whether lack of privacy for medical records would violate federal law.

B. Blass said the policy appears to have been created without involving administrators and faculty; he believes it leaves rationality far behind and overreaches in almost every area. Whitney noted that there had been an expectation from OIT that the proposed document would simply be voted on; she let OIT know that the process would not work that way. It was noted that only two faculty are on the committee that generated the document and they were added late.

MacLennan said that he also has problems with paragraph 14 and other parts. Others added that it appears that a user would not be able to manipulate data or increase memory without permission. S. McMillan suggested that the draft policy be distributed to all senators and comments be requested.

Whitney next reported that four software programs are to be tested for voice-over-the-internet activities. The testing process has not been determined. Comments are welcomed.

Howell distributed draft #3 of a Spousal/Partner Faculty Recruitment (SPFR) Policy. The policy has two segments. One concerns recruitment involving salary assistance (salary shared by several units) and the other concerns recruitment with no salary assistance. In the first case departments already must have "developed strategic faculty position needs as part of their long-term planning process." McMillan noted that the policy is directed toward new hires; she asked what happens if an existing faculty member develops a relation, for example, with someone at another institution. White reported that the chancellor had commented that the policy has to start somewhere and new hires seem an appropriate place, but the second segment could be used in a case like the example.

Lyons asked whether the policy should be overseen by someone in the Chancellor's Office; Howell said that is the expectation. Patterson expressed concern about the weaker of a pair of hires at time for tenure or promotion. C. Cox noted that a department needs to have the right of refusal, so that hiring a certain person is not imposed on it. Lyons said the deans really need to be involved, since they usually play an important role in such transactions. S. Ohnesorg asked whether there are plans to deal with situations not covered by the proposed policy. Howell said she was not certain. Kennedy commented that it would make more sense to her to start with the case of someone already here. There was general agreement to proceed with a broader policy covering more situations. Cox then pointed out that very scarce resources would be used for the "second" person.

Fairhurst called attention to a resolution (distributed at the meeting). It calls for not scheduling football games on campus on Monday-Thursday nights, because of its impact on normal operations. Lyons asked about including Friday night. It was agreed to change the resolution to Monday through Friday. It also was agreed to direct the resolution to the director of athletics.

McMillan distributed a memorandum to her from the athletic director. It reports that a new name for the Volunteer Athletic Scholarship Fund is being sought. The fund is used for non-scholarship purposes. Others reported hearing an ad for the fund on television this morning.

Schroedl read a statement requesting the formation of a Historic Preservation Task Force and describing its proposed charges. It also provided supporting information. White reported that President Petersen is supportive, as is Knox Heritage. Schroedl reported that he wrote several letters about historic preservation to the Master Plan Committee, but never received a response. B. Snyder noted that historic preservation has not been a priority with physical planning. Schroedl said that having something listed on the National Registry does not limit what one can do; it does mean historical matters would have to be considered. Establishing a task force was approved without objection.

Mayhew will go to the SEC Academic Consortium meeting on Wednesday. Martin read a list of some topics to be considered at the meeting.

Snyder offered to lead a visit some afternoon. There was considerable interest.

C. White called the meeting to order at 3:33 p.m.

Minutes of the November 1, 2004, meeting were approved with the correction that Stefanie Ohnesorg was present.

White reported that after the last meeting she did have an opportunity to see some data gathered by S. Davis. She noted that the data show trends of decreasing numbers of tenured/tenure-track faculty and increasing numbers of contingent faculty. White next noted that copies of "Shared Governance 101: A Guide to the 2004-2005 UTK Faculty Senate" was distributed in mid-December. Several members reported that they had not received copies. White said she would look into the matter.

White next noted that the following individuals will be initial ombudspersons: Neil Cohen (3 years), Richard Strange (2 years), Marla Peterson (1 year). Crabtree will make a formal announcement later. White reported that three cases already are being handled. She then announced that there will be a shared governance fund-raiser at Preservation Pub with a celebrity bartender, Chancellor Crabtree. Details will be announced later.

White next discussed administrative committee appointments. In April, the Faculty Senate's Nominations and Appointment Committee will recommend faculty to serve on administrative committees.

The next topic was the Living Wage Task Force. White added Elizabeth Gentry's name to the list of members. There has been a request that an earlier living wage study be updated. The task force would handle the work. A motion by S. McMillan that the task force be formed, charged with this task and then disbanded was seconded and approved.

White turned next to the Commission on Women. Departmental data show that salaries for faculty women are now where those for faculty men were ten years ago.

Mayhew reported that spring enrollment does not appear to be decreasing any more than usual. If lottery scholarship continuation depended on only the fall semester GPA, only 38% of the scholarships would not continue. Continuation is based on 24 hours of academic work. Graduate applications are up. There is concern that substantial tuition increases may be needed to cover increases in fixed costs; until budget action is taken in Nashville, no one will know what to expect. The SACS review is progressing, as is work on the Student Success Center (to open August 1). The move out of Glocker has been completed and every class has been assigned a classroom, so far as Mayhew knows. Mayhew also noted that Tom Milligan will be Vice Chancellor for Communications & Marketing and Phil Scheurer will retire later this year, but stay on as a consultant. Finally, the Center for International Studies will report henceforth through Academic Affairs instead of through Student Affairs.

Fairhurst noted that she and White attended a COIA conference in Nashville. A document was produced by the conference. The Faculty Senate of each participating institution has been asked to review and vote on it by February 21. Key points are the way scholarships are awarded, class attendance, the extending of seasons, split seasons, and advising. Tennessee's policies and practices generally looked good, according to White, who noted that COIA is working with the NCAA and several other organizations intimately concerned with college athletics. There was concern at the conference and at this meeting that athletes not be held to a higher standard than other students. B. Lyons said he leans toward asking the Athletics Committee to deal with the document, but suggested that an open forum on the topic be held to educate participants about COIA and to answer questions. The committee then would present its recommendation for a vote at the next meeting of the Faculty Senate. There was general agreement with this approach.

McMillan briefly discussed proposed bylaws changes (distributed at the meeting). Lyons suggested specifying that at the last meeting of the spring semester the committee will vote on the chairperson for the next year. The idea was accepted as a friendly amendment. Taking the amended proposals to the Faculty Senate then was approved unanimously.

McMillan then noted that the schedule of budget hearings was distributed with the agenda and encouraged people to attend. D. Barlow reported that all budget materials will be available on a Website. Deans are asked to provide information on a number of matters often not included previously. In response to a question from McMillan, Mayhew said that evaluations of undergraduate programs were not asked for, as they were for graduate programs, because of the much greater difficulty in getting evaluations of undergraduate programs and the great variation in the goals and purposes of undergraduate programs. She noted that undergraduate education remains a prime concern of the institution. McMillan commented that the document guiding the deans grew out of the academic scorecard. M. Albrecht noted that the document has helped to focus budget discussions.

Lyons briefly discussed a bylaws guideline prepared to help colleges and departments to revise their bylaws to conform with the new Faculty Handbook. Albrecht suggested including a statement urging colleges and departments to include in their bylaws information on how to revise those bylaws. The committee unanimously voted that the guidelines be posted on the Faculty Senate Web page and distributed through the DDH mailing list.

Lyons next discussed a new form for departmental faculty to use in evaluating department heads. The form was tested last spring in a few departments. Participation in evaluating heads is very low in many departments. It is hoped that using an on-line form will help to address that problem. Deans are expected to summarize the responses for the head. All the questions are intended to help heads succeed. Using this particular form would not be required. D. Kennedy suggested revising and moving a question concerning diversity from the category PERSONNEL ISSUES to the category LEADERSHIP. Lyons agreed. In response to a question from McMillan, Lyons said that there is a similar form for evaluating deans. Mayhew said such a form was used last year. C. Cox noted that his departments' forms were color-coded by faculty rank. Mayhew said the chancelloršs office received only tabulations.

Whitney reported that the committee is researching about 75 tools for electronic voice over communication in teaching and research. A small subset will be offered later for consideration. Several music-related tools (e.g., Napster) are being reviewed, too. The computer-refresh program is in progress; faculty will be notified. White noted that February is computer-security month at UT and Brice Bible will speak on security at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

Cox noted that a proposal to change the bylaws to delete this committee was distributed at the meeting. The fact that the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils are now faculty-lead is a key element in the decision. Another proposal to change Section 3.H was provided. In the last paragraph of that proposal, Mayhew suggested deleting everything from "the Council" in line 4 through "goals." in line 7 and from "and" at the end of line 7 through "abroad." in line 8. Her suggestion was accepted as a friendly amendment. Taking these amended proposals to the Faculty Senate was approved unanimously.

White then noted that the duties of the president-elect need to be clarified in the bylaws. She asked for authorization for Kennedy to prepare a proposal for correcting the problems. Approval was given. Both White and Kennedy will work on the proposal.

Kennedy then suggested that "gender equity" be changed to "gender and racial equity" in question 7 under PERSONNEL ISSUES in the department head evaluation form. Lyons agreed.

The meeting adjourned at 5:24 p.m.

C. White called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. She then announced that the chancellor is in China today.

White said there would be more discussion about ombudspersons with the chancellor when he returns. She then noted that many senators do not really understand the institution's organization. A "Faculty Senate Digest" is being prepared to address this situation and the lack of knowledge about shared governance in general. D. Kennedy added that information on how the Faculty Senate works and key concerns of the Faculty Senate also will be included.

White then reported that a report by S. Davis apparently has been sent to the other campuses; White has not received a copy. The report provides more data on administrative and faculty salaries. It seems to provide data in conflict with that in the recent report by G. Bogue, but covers a different time period. One other faculty senate has proceeded with a resolution similar to the one passed on this campus; another has decided not to proceed. A third has not made a decision. White indicated that she does not intend to mention the matter when she addresses the Board of Trustees. There was general agreement with that approach.

Mayhew reported that the quality enhancement plan is being worked on; a draft is expected to be finished by December 1 and then to be discussed. The proposed Student Success Center also is being pushed forward; the plan now is for it to address more than academic success. A web site to serve as a virtual student success center was considered, but now the plan is to use a former fraternity house across the street from Hopecote. It is hoped that the structure will be ready by early 2005. Another major concern is the diversity plan and dealing with a "post-Geier" world. A plan for asking the state to continue Geier-type funding is being prepared. Mayhew also noted that the number of applications for admission in August, 2005, is greater than the number of applications one year ago.

Minutes of the meeting of October 4, 2004, were approved without change.

White said she believes the matter of spousal-hiring should be pushed this year. "Partner accommodation" may be a better term. Budget implications will be critical, as will equity implications. The Manual for Faculty Evaluation and SAIS Evaluations are other concerns. A sliding-scale parking rate has been suggested; budget implications and seeing who would be affected are important aspects of this matter.

B. Snyder noted that it may be difficult to find out how parking fees are used. There was general agreement that the question should be pursued.

Kennedy raised the question of how closely the Faculty Senate priorities agree with the University's priorities. She expressed special concern about the need for faculty involvement in developing a plan to deal with the "post-Geier" world. She also said she believes the institution's handling of the matter of sexual orientation needs to be clarified and monitored.

Fairhurst reported that the committee voted three-to-one to recommend seeking membership. She listed several reservations. It is hoped that through membership UT can influence the direction of COIA. The committee hopes to avoid a faculty-versus-athletics mindset. A recommendation to take the matter of membership to the Faculty Senate was seconded and approved.

Lee reported that finding a way to get students to participate in on-line evaluations is very difficult. More discussions will occur. There was general agreement that the paper evaluations are too valuable to lose.

Lyons noted that Mayhew and S. Martin have supported the version of the handbook approved by the Faculty Senate last year. He thinks faculty will not have sufficient time to study new parts and then vote at the next Faculty Senate meeting. He noted that General Counsel prefers the revised Chapter 7 on Compensated Outside Activity to the current Board of Trustee policy. Other campuses need to have an opportunity to react to it. Martin hopes that the Faculty Senate will be able to consider the new parts sooner rather than later.

White described several options for further consideration of the handbook by the Faculty Senate. She noted that such consideration would not include further editing; any editing should be done before the meeting. There would be only a yes/no vote at the Faculty Senate meeting, although comments could be made. S. McMillan moved that there be a vote on November 15 and that Lyons communicate to the faculty senators how comments can be made. The motion was seconded and approved.

White reported that eliminating the Library Committee will not be considered this year. B. MacLennan noted some activities that currently have "homes" only in the Educational Policy Committee. Others thought the matters would be considered by other committees. MacLennan responded that these other committees would not have educational aspects of the matters as their main focus. B. Blass spoke in favor of having an overarching committee to track the educational enterprise and then to report to the Faculty Senate. O. Stephens then noted that the role of the Educational Policy Committee has been a concern for over twenty-five years. D. Murphy commented that the Student Affairs Committee has a similar problem; it collects data, but then is not certain what to do with the information. M. Albrecht then reported that at another institution where she worked there were only two committees, but subcommittees were created to deal with specific problems and then were disbanded.

White reported that one person has withdrawn and another application has been submitted. At this point the taking of minutes was halted for selection of individuals to recommend to the chancellor for the position of ombudsperson.

The meeting adjourned at 5:24 p.m.

C. White called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. She then took a few minutes to remember Marian Moffett. Lessons from Marion include authenticity and balance. Establishing a Marian Moffett Leadership Award is being discussed and everyone's input is welcome.

White called attention to a list of selection criteria distributed with the agenda. There were no objectives or additions. She intends to circulate nominations before they are considered at the next meeting of the Executive Committee. O. Stephens and B. Snyder then asked to have their names removed from the current list of nominees.

Minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of August 30, 2004, were approved without change.

White distributed copies of an article from the September-October, 2004, issue of Academe. Titled "The Faculty's Role in Reforming College Sports," the article concerns the Coalition on Intercollegiate Athletes (COIA). The organization's "immediate goal is to have faculty senates from coast to coast agree on achievable, enforceable, and meaningful reforms, starting with the academic standards and governance practices most clearly within the purview of the faculty." White raised the question of whether the matter of joining COIA should be added to the agenda of the next Faculty Senate meeting. B. Lyons recalled what happened last year concerning this matter and suggested that the Faculty Senate Athletics Committee should consider the question. He then moved that that committee do so. His motion was seconded and approved without objection.

Crabtree cautioned that everyone should be aware of the Geier Consent Decree and the possibility that related funding might be lost and other difficulties might arise. He then noted that the budget is "marginal" and said he would keep relevant groups informed. He also said that plans for the Student Success Center are moving ahead. In response to a question from D. Patterson, Crabtree said that more minority scholarship offers were accepted than had been anticipated and adequate funding must be found for them. Lyons suggested that this turn of events might be used to influence the governor and legislature. Crabtree responded that access and availability for a wide range of students are broad and serious problems. Lyons then asked about the diversity statement and Crabtree responded that a meeting with legal counsel ended this morning before that topic was discussed.

White noted that copies of the final report of this committee were distributed with the agenda. She then discussed the matter of the sizes of the Faculty Senate and the Executive Committee. She observed that some of the topics of concern identified at the recent retreat do not fit naturally with the current committee structure. She wants the matter of reform to be considered.

Kennedy distributed the proposed calendar. The proposed dates for Faculty Senate and Executive Committee meetings were approved.

White called attention to the "SWOT Analysis of the Faculty Senate" which was created at the recent retreat and was distributed with the agenda. She asked whether the analysis was fair and complete. She also wondered whether the time spent last year in attending budget hearings was a good use of time and energy. S. McMillan said she thought the Budget Committee's activities made the whole process more transparent. B. Blass cautioned that having things go well one year does not mean things will go well another year. On the matter of the impact of the Faculty Senate, S. Kurth observed that there is a perception on campus that the Faculty Senate is weak and, in fact, the faculty is weak; she suggested spending less time on administrative matters. N. Howell suggested providing new senators better training on governance; she said she would like to see senators obtain a better understanding of how the university works. Blass said that to get a clear idea of the Faculty Senate's impact one would have to ask past-presidents what they were able to accomplish and which brick walls they hit. He also cautioned against trying to solve problems through reorganization; instead, the process should be scrutinized.

B. Lee commented that there is a perception on campus that the Faculty Senate is irrelevant. He then noted that he believes that perception is incorrect. He, too, favors doing more with and for new senators. He and Patterson both suggested that better communication with the faculty is needed. Patterson also noted that the perceived issues should be identified and then the organizational structure should be developed. M. Albrecht suggested that more faculty than simply the senators should be involved in Faculty Senate activities; she sees this approach as a way to begin a culture shift. Having such service recognized is a critical aspect. B. Snyder then commented that he believes the Faculty Senate has been effective over the long haul. Lyons then remarked that lots of different categories of people on campus need to be educated about governance and best practices; education is needed as much, if not more, than reorganization. In response to a question from Patterson about trust on campus, White noted that improved communication was a priority identified at the retreat. She believes information sometimes is distributed on a perceived need-to-know basis and many faculty are left in the dark. J. Watson complimented the @Tennessee e-mail distributed fairly often. White responded that that item is good, but only deals with events.

Crabtree then said he believes faculty do the work of the university and it is the job of administrators to facilitate that work. He sees the main question as what do faculty need to know. The intersection of policy and procedure is often troublesome. He noted that many administrators also are faculty members, but often must consider the institution's welfare and are forced to take actions that do hurt some faculty. O. Stephens then briefly discussed his long experience with the Faculty Senate and suggested that when it makes recommendations, it must be sure that they are on the table, not disregarded.

White then called attention to a Focus Group Summary provided by Kennedy, who suggested that it is very important to prioritize goals for the year. Lyons urged members to review the document carefully and to seek out matters their committee(s) should work on. Snyder then returned to an earlier topic by noting that information is power and we should be aware of the "people" or "soft" skills of candidates for administrative positions.

White expressed her concern about the need for a Student Affairs Committee. A. Fairhurst then briefly reviewed the charge of the Athletics Committee. A. Mayhew then discussed the NCAA recertification of the athletics program and said the Athletics Committee has an important role in the process. No sensitive issues have been identified for the Faculty Senate to consider, but faculty should be aware of the matters involved.

McMillan then briefly reviewed the goals of the Budget Committee. Watson presented the matters of current concern to the Library Committee, and L. Jolly discussed activities of the Undergraduate Council. Howell observed that the Faculty Staff Benefits Committees will respond to inquiries and requests, as usual, but also deal with issues such as a spousal-hiring policy and partner benefits. J. Waller then reviewed the proposed activities of the Professional Development Committee; these include holding workshops for faculty mentors of probationary faculty, trying to help faculty obtain more awards and fellowships, and developing a Returning Scholars Seminar Series.

Lyons reported that the Faculty Affairs Committee will work on the Manual for Faculty Evaluation, work on a document to help units bring their bylaws into compliance with the new Faculty Handbook and consider the matter of partner (spousal) hiring. C. Cox reported that the Educational Policy Committee will consider whether it needs to exist. S. Ohnesorg reviewed the goals of the Graduate Council; one item is looking at what material can be made generally available and what must be restricted. White reported for Lee and the Teaching Council. On-line evaluations remain a major concern. Blass then reported for the Research Council. One item is assessment of scholarly activity and research beyond external funding amounts; another is exploring and facilitating interdisciplinary, cross-campus and inter-institution research.

White next reported that there is funding available for a couple of newsletters and other activities.

The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.

C. White called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.

The proposed agenda was approved without change.

Minutes of the meeting of April 19, 2004, were approved unanimously without change.

White asked each person to introduce himself or herself and the committee members did so.

President's Report (C. White) White called attention to a sheet distributed with the agenda, which lists old and new business issues to track and ideas to pursue during the year. Old business includes department head evaluations, Chapter 7 of the Faculty Handbook and revising the manual for faculty evaluation. New business includes selecting ombudspersons, the diversity plan, partner accommodations, chancelloršs brown bag lunches (12:00-1:00, 9/22/04, 10/19/04 and 11/12/04), the Faculty Senate retreat, a strategic plan for defining and strengthening the role of the Faculty Senate and concluding Faculty Senate restructuring. White particularly emphasized the need for better communication. Issues to track include a September 22 meting of Bredesen, Petersen, Wadsworth and Crabtree to discuss the allocation of considerable funding for UTK to spur cultural change and economic growth in Tennessee.

Chancellor's Report (L. Crabtree) Crabtree reported that enrollment is up at all levels with (as of 8/27/04) 4,421 freshmen, an increase of 855 (24%). Enrollment is up 2% overall. The total number of students is 25,233 with an FTE of 22,750. He then turned to the Quality Enhancement Program (QEP). Students rate the institution very low on teaching about other cultures and inter-culture understanding. The QEP has a five-year horizon. Diversifying our population and meeting the needs of various minorities are major goals, as is research enhancement. A plan for budget enhancements will be presented to Governor Bredesen at the meeting September 22, which was noted as an issue to track. Crabtree reported that President Petersen sees his role as bringing in funds and doing what the governor instructs him to do, including building UTK. Crabtree also reported that he and others created a new national list of peer institutions; however, THEC has reacted by saying that it wants a southeastern list and has presented such a list. The matter is still being discussed. Crabtree concluded by saying that UTK needs to think bigger than ever before. He believes that at the end of six years, UTK should be a leading research institution on the verge of becoming an AAU member like Vanderbilt University and the Universities of North Carolina, Virginia and Florida.

B. Snyder noted that the very same interaction with THEC over the list of peer institutions occurred ten years ago. B. Lyons suggested checking whether any of the institutions on the UTK-generated list of peers lists UTK on its list. Crabtree emphasized that now is a critical time and the institution must seize its opportunities that may soon vanish.

White asked how the 24% increase in freshmen is being handled. A. Mayhew said funds were reallocated to permit hiring adjunct faculty. Students were turned away only in elementary biology. She and Crabtree noted that next year is of more concern. Another concern is adequate teaching capacity at the upper-division level two and three years from now.

Status of Faculty Handbook (B. Lyons) Lyons briefly reviewed the history of the most recent revision of the Faculty Handbook. The new Chapter 4 was approved by the Board of Trustees in June. Not all parts of the Faculty Handbook must be approved by the Board. The location of tenure seems to be the only serious point of contention. Only Chapters 3, 5 and 7 are not essentially complete. Mayhew believes the revisions will be complete by November 15.

Review and Redirection Task Force (B. Lyons) White briefly reviewed the history of the task force. She noted that there is concern about procedures of the task force. Lyons then noted that there is a process that the institution can be proud of. He believes more programs were taken on last year than could be dealt with rigorously. At its last meeting spring term the task force recommended a study of a broader reorganization of the Division of Biology, rather than a focus on the Department of Botany, with the expectation that the process would continue into fall term. However, some of the process proceeded more quickly during the summer. L. Gross said he believes the central matter to be considered is the dissolution of a department without faculty participation and oversight.

Mayhew said that continuation of the RRTF beyond spring term was not assured and asserted that everything done or being done is in agreement with Faculty Senate policies. She also said that at the end of spring term the task force had a plan from the head of Ecology and Environmental Biology for integration of courses and faculty of the Department of Botany. There was no such detailed plan for the Department of Health and Safety. In both cases RRTF stepped back and normal processes of the institution took over. Mayhew then said that she believes faculty had ample opportunity to be involved and to comment.

Lyons commented that there were extensive hearings for Health and Safety, but none for Botany. He is concerned that not enough faculty were involved in the Botany case. Mayhew responded that RRTF accepted a detailed plan for dealing with Botany rather than having hearings. Several committee members commented that the Executive Committeešs concern should be whether shared governance agreements were abided by. Gross then read part of the preamble of the report from the Department of Botany, which he believes shows that its faculty never had a chance to present their case. White noted that we cannot go back, but we must be certain that the agreed upon process is honored in the future.

VII. NEW BUSINESS

Faculty Senate Retreat (C. White) White indicated that this matter will be discussed later.

Diversity Plan (L. Crabtree) Crabtree reported that the goals and objectives have not been changed, but more editing of the plan occurred over the weekend. At the request of D. Kennedy, Crabtree reviewed the history of the policy draft. Various governance groups now will have an opportunity to comment. Later the document will be distributed to departments for comment. Crabtree offered to provide the latest draft and the appendices to the committee. If a campus-wide diversity committee is established soon enough, it will handle finalization of the policy.

Several committee members asked questions and made comments. In particular, Kennedy noted the need for consequences (versus accountability), climate surveys, a diversity component in orientation, safety planning, funding for research and scholarship on diversity, and measures for retaining lottery scholarship holders who lose their scholarships. Crabtree responded that 40% of the lottery holders are expected to lose their lottery scholarships.

B. Blass noted that the document does not identify the faculty and staff as primary stakeholders. He suggested diversity training for both groups. Crabtree noted that the revised draft does address points Blass made. B. Lee commented that he would like to see an appendix of definitions of words and phrases that are used throughout the document, but not clearly explained. D. Patterson expressed concern that the document may simply count our differences and he spoke in favor of emphasizing things that transcend our differences. White encouraged Crabtree to go directly to the faculty with this matter. Kennedy then reemphasized the need for clear goals and consequences if goals are not met.

Procedure for Selection of Faculty Ombudspersons (C. White and D. Patterson) White said she hoped the committee could identify a few criteria for ombudspersons. Patterson briefly described the job of ombudspersons and then suggested these persons should have good listening skills, knowledge of the rules and policies, and good communications skills. Crabtree noted that these people should have respect from all sides. Lyons noted that some names already have been suggested and some of those suggested are associate professors; he said he believes that ombudspersons should be professors. Lyons then moved that Patterson prepare a description and White and Crabtree be responsible for reviewing it. The motion was seconded and approved.

The meeting adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

---

Senate Directory    Officers    Committees    Members

Governing Documents    Senate Bylaws    Faculty Handbook    Tenure Policy

Search Reports

Calendar Archives

Resources Senate Home

---

To offer suggestions or comments about this web site, please click here.