|
MINUTES prepared by Lou Gross Approved at Oct. 14, 2002 meeting
Members Present: Davies, Dewey, Greenberg, Gross (Chair), Reed,
Reidy
Members Absent: Davis, Hedrick, Lyons (on leave), Mulkey, Scheurer
I. CALL TO ORDER, 3:40pm
II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
Agenda was approved as distributed previously, with the modification
that a presentation of additional information on the UT System budget
situation this year would be delayed to a future meeting as Sylvia
Davis
was not available to lead full discussion at this meeting.
III. The minutes of the August 26, 2002 Committee meeting were
approved
with corrections of two minor grammatical errors.
IV. Reports.
1. A brief report on discussions regarding faculty hourly wage
calculations
with Alan Chesney and Clif Woods was given by Gross. It seems this
is
mostly a matter for the Senate Faculty/Staff Benefits Committee
to take up,
if they wish, with Alan Chesney. The mani concern is that there
be no loss
of benesfits associated with a formal policy that codifies hourly
wage
calculations. The main reason for this policy seems to be to remove
any
ambiguity that has arisen by having different units calculate hourly
rates
in different ways.
2. As a representative of the Committee, Gross will be attending
the
Campus Executive Planning and Budget Committee meetings.
3. The F&A Task Force was discussed and Greg Reed agreed to
serve as the
Committee representative on this.
V. Old Business
1. We began a discussion of ideas on any modifications of current
procedures on campus related to financial matters that would help
faculty
excel. It was pointed out that a Committee has been appointed with
Dean Michael Blackwell as Chair to work on streamlining a variety
of
budgetary and financial matters. Problems discussed include requiring
too many signatures up the chain, problems with the personnel implementation
within IRIS, requirements of too much re-entering of data within
IRIS
(people keeping shadow books to make up for out-of-date bookkeeping
in
IRIS), and it not being clear why faculty offer letters go out through
HR rather than from Department Heads. The Committee was charged
to bring
a list of problems they and their colleagues are aware of to the
next
meeting. Gross will find out who is on the Streamlining Committee.
2. As part of a discussion of improving the budget planning process
for the
next year, the Committee focused initially on Auxiliaries. We felt
it would
be appropriate to have a standard way of assigning costs (utilities,
space utilized, other indirect costs) and benefits (funds provided
through
mandatory or non-mandatory transfers to the general operating budget,
funds generated and benefiting other university operations such
as student
scholarships) to Auxiliary enterprises. Such an assessment would
be
appropriate for considering further privatization, as has already
happened
with food services and custodial services. It was also requested
that
a determination be made of what happens to Auxiliary funds
generated.
VI. New Business
1. An extensive discussion of the new Summer School policy statement
was
held. Major points of concern were that the policy was set without
following the policy in place for providing faculty input, and that
faculty
are expected to perform a variety of duties in the summer for which
they
are not compensated. It was not clear how the salary cap in the
new policy
was arrived at. We concurred with a suggestion of Anne Mayhew that
a
Task Force be formed to look at the entire summer school picture,
taking account of the data provided that indicates that considerable
revenue (over $4M) is generated from summer school tuition above
tyhe amount paid for instruction. The Task Force should include
faculty and Department Heads from units with major summer school
enrollments. At the same time, it was felt that the new policy be
scratched temporarily (at least in part) until several aspects such
as the cap on compensation are discussed further. Gross was charged
with sending a note to Provost Crabtree to voice our concerns.
2. There then followed discussion of a request from the Provost
for
input on policies for deciding allocation of funds to new faculty
lines,
salary increases, or other options. It was argued that a one-size-fits-all
approach (say with $80K and $100K lines) is not appropriate. Different
units need different things, and it is appropriate to encourage
decentralization of decsionmaking about resource allocation. Some
descion-making about the allocation of new funds to new lines, raises,
and operating budgets should be made at the Department level.
VII. GOOD OF THE ORDER
none
VIII. ADJOURNMENT 5:03PM
back to top
If you have any questions concerning the UT Faculty Senate, or would
like more information, send an email to mcombs@utk.edu.
To offer suggestions or comments about this web site,
please email the webmaster.
|
people