Site Index

Committees

One of the goals of the Athletic Committee this year was to keep the faculty informed about issues of importance related to athletics. This was done through reports presented to the Faculty Senate by Todd Diacon, Faculty Athletic Representative, Ruth Darling, Assistant Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Director of The Thornton Center, and Gregory Reed, Chair of the NCAA Certification Self-study. The committee also sponsored an open faculty forum to discuss renovations of Neyland Stadium. A panel composed of Phil Scheurer, Mike Hamilton, Linda Davidson and Todd Diacon responded to faculty questions. The committee initiated a discussion relative to the Faculty Senate joining the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics, an organization whose main priority is to reform intercollegiate athletics at Divison I-A universities. The Faculty Senate voted to join COIA. As a member school, we were asked to evaluate the document "Academic Integrity in Intercollegiate Athletics: Principles, Rules and Best Practices. An open forum was held for all faculty to discuss this document to determine if the document should be endorsed by the University of Tennessee. The final decision was to endorse the document The committee also put forward a resolution about weekday football games. The resolution stated that the athletic director of the University of Tennessee, Knoxville will not schedule home football games on Monday through Friday while school is in session.

Two major changes to the structure and function of the committee were made this year. Two more faculty members were added (for a total of 10) and the role of the committee was expanded to include the planning function.

In addition to these changes, the committee focused primarily on goals set at the start of the academic year. The primary goals are reported below in bold face and committee accomplishments are shown as sub-sets of each goal.

1. Oversight/Input (for these items, the primary goal is to make sure that the committee is appropriately engaged in budget-related meetings and processes so that it can fulfill its mission of incorporating faculty input and expertise into budgeting)
   

   a. Prior to the budget hearings, the committee gave feedback, through the Vice Chancellor for Budget and Finance, for ways to enhance the budget process.
   
   b. Committee members attended budget hearings, observed and asked questions as appropriate.
   
   c. Following the hearings, the committee prepared a summary document that was sent to Chancellor Crabtree. He also met with the committee on 28 March 2005 to discuss that document. The committee gave input on both budget priorities and budget hearing processes.
   
   d. Committee members also attended budget hearings for the UT System entities that report to the President.
   
   e. The committee chair met regularly with the Chancellor's Executive Planning and Budget Committee and reported back to the Faculty Senate Budget and Planning Committee on priorities and actions.

2. Issues Tracking/Management (for all of these items the goal is to track how issues of importance to the Faculty Senate are guiding budget decision making)
   

   a. Got a commitment from the Athletics Director that the name of the VASF will be changed by January 2006.
   
   b. Kurth coordinated with the Commission on Women to address gender salary equity.
   
   c. Gross represented the faculty on a committee that worked toward revising IRIS templates for R accounts.

3. Data Collection (the primary goal of these items is to fulfill the aim of keeping the faculty informed of budget matters)
   

   a. Conducted annual faculty salary survey and made the data available through the Senate packet as well as the Web site b. Budget hearing documents were available online including reports and schedules prepared by deans and others as well as Budget and Planning Committee reports.

The Education Policy committee considered their role in the faculty senate. Its historical roles of providing faculty oversight and review of policy and curriculum changes approved by the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils has been made largely unnecessary since these Councils have recently become faculty-lead councils. No unique role for the committee was indentified, so the committee recommended bylaws changes to abolish itself. Those bylaws changes were approved.

In addition to setting the agendas for Senate meetings, the Executive Committee considered and/or acted upon the following items this year.

1. Selection procedures and criteria for ombudspersons were created and implemented, resulting in the selection of the first three faculty ombudspersons, selected to serve staggered three-year terms, and the selection of a replacement for the Marla Peterson (one-year term.) Neil Cohen is serving a three-year term and Richard Strange will serve for two years.
   
   
2. The Faculty Senate Retreat was planned and held on Sept. 24, 2004. Information from the retreat was discussed throughout the year, and issues from the retreat became senate action item.
   
   
3. The decision was made to publish Shared Governance 101, a publication to explain the structure and current work of the Faculty Senate.
   
   
4. The Faculty Handbook was approved and implemented, with the exception of Chapter 7. The Manual for Faculty Evaluation is in final stages of updating to comply with the revised handbook.
   
   
5. The Diversity Plan, QEP, and THEC Master Plan were discussed, and feedback from the Executive Committee was given to the Chancellor.
   
   
6. By-laws changes were discussed, approved, and sent forward to the full senate. They included changes to the Budget and Student Affairs committees, changes to the term and duties of the President-Elect, elimination of the Educational Policy Committee that resulted in changes to the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils.
   
   
7. Two tasks forces were established--the Living Wage Task Force and the Historic Preservation Task Force.
   
   
8. A fund raiser to benefit the Shared Governance Fund was planned.
   
   
9. Committee agendas and actions were discussed throughout the year. These items can be found in the final reports of the committees.
   
   

1. Bill Dunne and Beauvais Lyons represented the committee in discussions with the Office of the Chancellor and the General Counsel's Office in working to finalize the Faculty Handbook and prepare the document for final Faculty Senate approval on November 15, 2004 and for web implementation in February 2005.
   
   
2. Beauvais Lyons and Bill Dunne represented the committee in discussions with the Office of the Chancellor and the General Counsel's Office about Chapter 7 (Compensated Outside Activities) and a proposed revision of Board of Trustees policy to allow Chapter 7 (approved by the Faculty Senate in April 2004) to be implemented.
   
   
3. Bill Dunne, Peter Hoyng and Beauvais Lyons developed a guide to assist department bylaws conform to the new handbook. This guide was posted on the Faculty Senate website, was sent to the Faculty Senate listserver, and was presented at the February Senate meeting.
   
   
4. Beauvais Lyons completed work begun last year to develop a new evaluation form for Department Heads. While not implemented on the web, a paper version of the form was used by many colleges this Spring. It is hoped that an on-line version can be implemented for next year.
   
   
5. Last year a sub-committee of Faculty Affairs reviewed the Manual for Faculty Evaluation. A report was created that was sent to the Office of the Chancellor. This year Bill Dunne and Bart Rohrbach represented the committee in discussions with Susan Martin regarding revisions to the Manual for Faculty Evaluation. This work is ongoing and is expected to continue into the summer.
   
   
6. The committee reviewed Appendix A, B and C to the Manual for Faculty Evaluation. The first draft of Appendix A was done by Bart Rohrbach with input from the Teaching Council. Revision to Appendix B was developed by Joanne Hall of the Research Council, with final input from the Research Council and the Faculty Affairs Committee. Muammer Cetingok developed a first draft of Appendix C with final review by the committee. These drafts are being forwarded to Susan Martin as they are completed.
   
   
7. On March 29th Beauvais Lyons gave a presentation about the new handbook to the Chancellor's Outreach Council. Their input is helping to inform some of the work on the Manual for Faculty Evaluation.
   
   
8. Beauvais Lyons has agreed to serve as the committee chair for next year. It is expected that work next year will focus on the Manual for Faculty Evaluation and assisting departments with handbook compliance in their bylaws. Another area of concern will be implementing the Heads Evaluation Process on-line and encouraging colleges to implement five-year reviews of heads.

1. Request by retiree to persuade legislature to "loosen restrictions on our TIAA-CREF monies" so that retirees drawing TIAA but wanting to withdraw CREF funds for other investment may do so. This issue continues to be problematic because action was taken in recent years to change the percentage to the current 50%. No action.
   
   
2. UTIA Advisory Council question regarding fairness of salary offset for Federal retirees re-hired at UT (UT Policy #120) Issue of parity and double jeopardy. This is a situation that impacts very few people No action.
   
   
3. Graduate assistant insurance subsidy (from Graduate Student Association) Students must be on UT payroll to receive; also general level of insurance for graduate student employees Point of information only. No action.
   
   
4. Issue from retireeãproblems with insurance premium auto draft deduction This appeared to be a timing issue requiring coordination between the state and UT. Action will be taken by HR to improve communication with retirees regarding this potential problem.
   
   
5. Partner benefits-the University has included sexual orientation as part of the protected status in the new faculty handbook. The UT Senate would like this committee to continue reviewing the process of adding domestic partnership benefits. Currently 360 colleges and universities nationwide offer some form of domestic partnership benefits (source: AAUP).
   The committee reviewed an approach used by the University of Wisconsin listing benefits and which were or were not available to domestic partners. The committee will pursue developing a similar chart next year. It was also suggested that those benefits under the control of UT may be offered to partners with a change of UT policy, as opposed to state law or policy.
   
   
6. Spousal Hiring Policy
   The committee drafted Spousal Partner Recruitment and Retention Guidelines, discussed at the April Senate meeting and previously at the February and March Executive Committee meetings. The committee chair has since met with OED to further discuss the guidelines. A new draft will be available in April, based on these discussions. The committee anticipates requesting a vote of the full Senate at the May 2 meeting.
   
   
7. Possibility of co-sponsoring informational meetings on benefits (co-sponsors may include UT Retirement Services, UT Human Resources, UT Exempt Staff Committee, UT Federal Credit Union, etc.)
   There is interest among committee members to encourage these meetings.
   
   
8. Carry-over leave issue with grants (policy for paying leave before transferring)
   It is the understanding of the committee that an ad hoc committee is currently looking at a solution to this problem. The committee supports action that alsol safeguards long-term employees from being required to use leave time that later may impact their retirement calculations. An escrow benefits fund with individual grants approach was also discussed.
   
   

This section is intended to describe best practices for evaluating faculty members. These goals and practices are promoted by the Research Council and should be considered as recommendations.

One of the three basic missions of the University is research, which is the foundation and key to all learning that occurs at the University. Research may simply be understood as learning at the most advanced, creative, and systematic edges of knowledge where discovery and imagination constantly recast the relation between the known and the unknown. This appendix follows the formulation of the Faculty Handbook for research as research, scholarship and creative activity, so as to recognize the broad diversity of faculty contributions to this institutional mission. While the research of discovery is a major contributor to this mission, outreach through the research of application and integration are central contributions of some colleges and departments. Interdisciplinary collaboration in research, scholarship, and creative activity also contribute to the mission, and should be strongly encouraged where appropriate.

Research, scholarship, and creative activity should not be measured only in terms of quantity but also in terms of quality. In each discipline, certain outlets and venues for research, scholarship, and creative achievements are considered to be more prestigious and to demonstrate greater merit than others. Publication, presentation, exhibition, or performance through these settings should be recognized as demonstrating a high standard of merit. Because standards of merit vary greatly, primary assessment of quality measures should be made within a discipline, or across contributing disciplines, where appropriate. While the appropriate mix of research, scholarship, and creative input activities and outcomes may be specific to a given discipline, some general dimensions of research, scholarship, and creative achievement can be identified:

Faculty members must engage in input activities to achieve research, scholarship and creative achievement outcomes by which they will be judged. These input activities may include:

1. Selecting realistic yet challenging research, scholarship and creative achievement topics;
   
2. Using appropriate methods and techniques in meeting objectives;
   
3. Optimizing research, scholarship and creative achievement outcomes relative to inputs, such as time, personnel, materials, facilities and equipment;
4. Internalizing responsibility for research, scholarship and creative achievement program effectiveness;
5. Expending personal effort in the research, scholarship and creative achievement effort;
6. Investing in professional growth and development;
7. Providing leadership in research, scholarship and creative achievement efforts;
8. Adhering to high standards of professional conduct in research, scholarship and creative achievement;
9. Integrating short-term and long-term goals into a comprehensive research, scholarship and creative achievement strategy;
10. Conducting on-going projects to a timely conclusion;
11. Committing appropriate efforts to seeking external funds;
12. Securing appropriate external funds;
13. Providing effective oversight to externally funded activities;
14. Committing appropriate efforts to joint research, scholarship and creative achievement activities.

Faculty members are evaluated in research, scholarship and creative achievement by their outcomes, which may include consideration of the following questions:

1. Are research, scholarship and creative achievement outcomes provided to collaborators in a timely manner?
2. Is the research, scholarship and creative achievement innovative; alternatively, does it integrate knowledge in furthering application and utility?
3. Does the research, scholarship and creative achievement demonstrate merit?
4. Are the research, scholarship and creative achievement outcomes commensurate with research responsibilities and available sources?
5. Does the research, scholarship and creative achievement contribute to the mission of the department, college and University?
6. Does the research, scholarship and creative achievement contribute to relevant and significant constituencies, and to the goals of the discipline at large?
7. Does the research, scholarship and creative achievement contribute to betterment of the people of Tennessee, and where appropriate, to the needs of national and international communities?
8. Are the research, scholarship and creative achievement outcomes communicated effectively to appropriate audiences through appropriate vehicles (journals, presentations, performances, etc.) in a timely manner?
9. Are the research, scholarship and creative activity outcomes protected as university property and used, when appropriate, to advance institutional entrepreneurial goals?
10. Do research, scholarship and creative activities appropriately involve students, providing mentorship in the processes of knowledge development and application?

1. To continue work on the development of a document that addresses privacy issues within the context of our current Acceptable Use Policy (this is currently stalled in the General Counselšs office)
   
   This project was abandoned with the proposal of a new Acceptable Use Policy from OIT. This new Policy has been reviewed by this Committee, the Senate Executive Committee, and the Senate at large. The proposal was censured by the Senate. A small group consisting of Rob Ridenour, Faye Muly, Barbara Dewey and myself has been appointed to resolve issues. We are to report back to the Knoxville Area IT Steering Committee by May 4 of this year.
   
   
2. To work with the Innovative Technologies Center to identify Voice Over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technologies for meetings and teaching and learning environments
   
   This project is well underway. There will be a Summer Institute in June sponsored by the ITC to offer experiences to anyone interested in the four finalists (Centra, Elluminate, Horizon Wimba, Macromedia Breeze, in alphabetical order). These will be virtual sessions enabling participants to experience the student environment. Comments from all participants will be collected and analyzed.
   
   
3. To participate in an evaluation of the Napster/SONY trial for music services for dormitory students
   
   This project is well underway. Our second music vendor is due in this week, and others are scheduled. We have a good set of questions to ask vendors, and to ask participants in the demonstrations. This project is scheduled into the Fall.
   
   
4. To work with the Research Council to review issues and communication protocols regarding the Faculty Refresh Program
   
   I believe that the Faculty Refresh Program is stable and will continue into the future.
   
   

The Faculty Senate Library Committee examined its existence this year by determining that it signifies a direct link to Faculty Senate because the UT libraries represent a hub to all our academic work. One of the key objectives this year included, "work on issues related to intellectual freedom regarding scholarly pursuits and scholarly content (Patriot's Act and implications of privacy threats)." In following up on an initial visit by a UT School of Information Sciences scholar on legislative issues, the committee spent the year studying and drafting a Resolution standing against the USA Patriot Act. This Resolution will be offered to the Faculty Senate at the May, 2005 meeting for a vote.

The Nominating Committee explored the level of support available for the Faculty Senate President, as potential candidates for the position generally have many academic obligations. The Committee met to create a list of possible candidates. Two very well-qualified individuals, Lou Gross and Sally McMillan, agreed to have their names placed on the ballot for the position of President-elect.

The Teaching Council addressed two major issues. The first, during the fall semester concerned conversion from the paper-based SAIS procedure to an on-line version. After a great deal of time and effort the Teaching Council was informed, that this conversion was not going forward. The second matter addressed was the awards given to outstanding faculty and advisors (Chancellor's Excellence in Teaching and Advising Awards). The outcome of the process was as follows:
Chancellor's Excellence in Teaching Award: in the category of tenured faculty they are:

1. Dwight Aarons, J.D., Associate Professor of Law
2. Luis Cano, Assistant Professor, Modern Foreign Languages & Literatures
3. Michael Handelsman, Ph.D., Professor, Modern Foreign Languages & Literatures
4. Jeffrey Kovac, Ph.D., Professor, Chemistry

In the category of non-tenure faculty:

1. Stephane Natan, Lecturer, Modern Foreign Languages & Literatures
2. Geoffrey Steadman, Ph.D., Instructor/Lecturer, Classics

Chancellor's Excellence in Advising Award:

1. John Bohstedt, Ph.D., Associate Professor, History
2. Timothy Hiles, Ph.D., Associate Professor, School of Art
3. Aaron Todd, Assistant Director, Arts and Sciences Advising Services

The Undergraduate Council is charged by the Faculty Senate to concern itself with standards for admission, retention, and graduation; with curricular matters in the undergraduate programs; with the development of interdisciplinary programs; with the approval of new programs and any other matters of educational policy pertaining to undergraduate programs. In addition, the Council will examine study abroad policies applicable to undergraduate students and serve as a liaison between faculty and campus offices that coordinate services designed to reach international education goals. It will monitor policies for screening applicants for various awards and monitor policies regarding receiving credit from programs abroad. The Undergraduate Council has five standing committees including: academic policy, advising, appeals, curriculum, and general education. In addition to its on-going work, the Undergraduate Council focused on the following objectives during 2004-2005 (activities and outcomes in italics):

1. Continue implementation of the General Education curriculum
   Collaborated with the Advising Committee to facilitate the transition to a new General Education curriculum
   Implemented a General Education petition process
   Developed operating guidelines for the General Education committee and its subcommittees
   
   
2. Support efforts to develop and implement the Quality Enhancement Plan related to International and Intercultural Awareness
   Conducted an overview and discussion session for the UG Council membership
   Two UG Council members served on the QEP task force
   
   
3. Increase communication with faculty regarding the role and functioning of the Undergraduate Council
   Developed a synopsis of the University curriculum process for the "Guide for New Faculty"
   Updated UG Council website materials regularly and communicated with faculty via @tennessee
   
   
4. Collaborate as appropriate with other Faculty Senate committees and University committees to support Undergraduate Education
   UG Council members participated on the Council for the Freshman Experience, Student Success Center Task Force and Advisory Board, and the QEP International and Intercultural Awareness Initiative Task Force
   
   

Curricular and policy actions are noted in the Undergraduate Council minutes posted on the university website at http://web.utk.edu/~ugcouncl/.