September 22, 2003
October 20, 2003
November 17, 2003
January 9, 2004
February 2, 2004
March 1, 2004
April 5, 2004
May 3, 2004
Establishment of Quorum (S. Jordan)Jordan confirmed that it appeared a quorum was present.President's Report (B. Lyons)Lyons noted that the agenda now comes with holes for a three-ring binder. He then sought a second for adding a matter under New Business. There was a second and adding the call for the Executive Committee to handle selection of a faculty member to serve on the Presidential Search Advisory Council and nomination of two faculty members for the Presidential Search Committee was approved.Chancellor's Report (L. Crabtree)
Lyons next asked C. White to read a resolution honoring and thanking M. Combs for serving as Faculty Senate President last year. The resolution was seconded and approved unanimously. A framed copy was presented to Combs, who thanked the senate. The resolution is as follows:Lyons next asked the Faculty Senate officers to stand and thanked them in advance for their work. He then called attention to applications for membership in AAUP, which were available at the meeting.
The University of TennesseeWHEREAS, Professor F. Michael Combs is a highly respected colleague, teacher, and musician; and
WHEREAS, he has served with distinction as President of the Faculty Senate during the 2002-2003 academic year; and
WHEREAS, through his leadership of the Senate, he has enhanced relationships between the Senate and the other parts of the University community, never failing to act in a true spirit of collegiality and good will; and
WHEREAS, he has provided direction to the Senate Executive Committee and contributed to the accomplishments of the various committees of the Senate; and
WHEREAS, he has effectively served the Senate and the faculty well in the role of a diplomatic spokesperson; and
WHEREAS, he has worked tirelessly to advance the welfare of faculty, staff, and students of the University.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the University of Tennessee Faculty Senate expresses its sincere appreciation to
Professor F. Michael Combsfor his outstanding leadership and devoted service to the Senate and the University of Tennessee; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be presented to F. Michael Combs and that the Resolution be made a part of the minutes of the Senate meeting held on September 22, 2003.
G. Samuel Jordan
Lyons turned next to his scorecard for the Faculty Senate. The scorecard includes items concerning faculty membership on presidential search committees, faculty professional development leaves, general education requirements, reforming the Faculty Handbook, effective committee work, and the living wage campaign. Lyons awarded one, two or three flaming torches to each effort. He then presented his membership check for United Campus Workers to S. Hicks, president of UCW.Crabtree reported that this year seems to be a good year for the students. He also said the new professional leave plan will be implemented soon and that forms are being created for requesting professional development leaves.
Crabtree next discussed the Knoxville campus. In particular, he said that the campus does an excellent job with its core mission. He noted that the academic quality of the freshmen class is the best ever and that national rankings of the institution remain high. He also pointed out that the Howard H. Baker, Jr. Center has its first symposium tomorrow; it concerns the topic of embedded journalists and the Iraq war. Crabtree commented further that the University of Tennessee has a black eye now, so it cannot be inappropriately humble about its positive features. He then said it is important to improve the appearance of the campus. Potential students who choose not to come often cite the dirtiness and urban nature of the campus. He noted that food and drink are being taken into the new classrooms and said that faculty must lead by example in this matter.
In addition to the 9% budget cut from last year, Crabtree reported that the lower enrollment caused the campus a further $6 million reduction. He said enrollment will be increased and noted that the lottery scholarships will definitely help enrollment.
Crabtree then noted that the Faculty Senate is an example of indirect democracy. He said that it is the Senate's duty to oversee the entire university. He also asked that the Senate focus on key issues, which he identified as the presidential search, handbook revision, general education reform and, possibly, program review and redirection. He noted that whether this year is the correct one for the last issue has not been decided.
M. Moffett suggested fixing sidewalks and other surfaces on campus, so that they do not retain water. M. Rogge said she is impressed with the recycling and trolley systems. L. Gross asked whether Crabtree could share anything about reorganization of the campus administration. Crabtree said he has proposed creation of a number of vice-chancellor positions. He noted that research, information technology and human resources are not under budgetary control of the chancellor and he needs to be responsible for the relevant portions of those activities. The research campus needs to be self-governing.
Minutes of the April 28, 2003, Faculty Senate meeting were approved without change.
Moffett reported that the revised drafts are now available on the web. Now is the time to make comments, so that word-smithing will not be necessary during a Faculty Senate meeting.IT Advisory Task Force (G. Whitney)
Whitney said the task force consists of about 30 faculty and administrators and will have its first meeting September 27 from 3:00 to 5:00 p.m. in the Board Room in Andy Holt Tower. She noted that items 10 and 12 in the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) were inserted by The Office of General Counsel. The task force will discuss these and other matters, including the use of Social Security Numbers on campus. L. Gross urged deletion of the part of item 12 which allows inspection of a variety of electronic information if the "user has voluntarily made information accessible to the public such as a Web page."
Jolly reminded everyone that there will be an open forum on the general education proposal this Wednesday, 3:30-5:00 p.m., in the Shiloh Room. Requiring an additional writing course is a major change. Requiring an oral communication course is another major change. The web site for the proposal includes a section for frequently asked questions, such as how one gets a course included in a particular list of acceptable courses for meeting a particular requirement.NEW BUSINESS
Jolly emphasized that the policy will be a dynamic one. Gross noted that most students actually will take two four-hour laboratory courses, so that the stated number of 42 hours should be 44 hours. Jolly responded that the word "approximately" is being used. M. Anderson noted that logic courses are no longer listed under Quantitative Reasoning. Jolly responded that anyone interested in adding such courses can apply to have them added. In response to another comment, Jolly said that 100- and 200-level courses and courses without prerequisites are the types of courses expected to be proposed for inclusion.
G. Graber proposed a resolution that the process for the general education proposal from now forward be open with all meetings and other activities widely announced. The resolution passed unanimously. W. Morgan then asked whether the proposal's impact on class enrollments has been studied. Jolly said it had and those applying to have courses included are asked how they would handle enrollments above a certain level. A. Mayhew then noted that there will be virtually no change in enrollment.
Lyons noted that the resolution (distributed at the meeting) should begin with "Be it resolved that the ... ." The resolution calls for the Executive Committee to meet Monday, September 29, to select one faculty member to serve on the Presidential Search Advisory Council and to nominate two faculty members for the Presidential Search Committee. The motion to approve was seconded. Gross asked how the Executive Committee (on which he serves) would make its decisions. Lyons said he would post on the web by Friday afternoon information on the candidates. The Senate list-serve can be used to make comments about the candidates. The question was moved and the resolution was approved unanimously.
M. Harmon then read the following resolution from the Government Relations Committee:Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate supports efforts to obtain an on-campus early voting location for the Spring, 2004, primaries and county elections.There was no discussion and the resolution was approved with one negative vote.
Establishment of Quorum (S. Jordan)MINUTESJordan confirmed that it appeared a quorum was present.President's Report (B. Lyons)Lyons said he would like to take up a resolution on sexual orientation at UTK under New Business and move New Business to immediately after Minutes.Chancellor's Report (A. Mayhew for L. Crabtree)
Lyons then reported that contributions to the Campus Chest Campaign are running behind schedule this year and encouraged everyone to participate. He then turned to the Faculty Senate Scorecard and reported that P. Höyng will serve on the Presidential Search Advisory Council and G. Sayler will serve on the Search Committee. He therefore awarded an additional torch to the presidential search item. He also awarded additional torches to the topics of professional leave, general education policy, and faculty handbook revision, and effective committee work. He did not award an additional torch to the living wage effort.
Lyons then noted that a handout, titled Program Review and Redirection, was available at the meeting and he said A. Mayhew will discuss it further. He then noted that a SACS review will occur relatively soon and expressed his hope that faculty would be involved in a significant way.Mayhew reported that Crabtree attended a meeting in Atlanta last week on greater academic cooperation among the SEC universities and was quite enthused about the matter. She then reported that the faculty professional development policy is posted on the chancellor's web site. Departments must identify eligible faculty by November 3, and forward the names of those recommended by December 1. Mayhew then turned to the document on program review and redirection. The governor's recent request that all state units tell how they would deal with a 5% cut for fiscal year 2005 makes the review process even more important than it already was. A final list of programs for full consideration will be announced by mid-November. She stressed that the process would involve the appropriate senate committees and would comply with the Faculty Handbook. The chancellor's recommendations will be given to the Board of Trustees at its June, 2004, meeting. Mayhew emphasized that programs will be reviewed, so that a program might be ended, but the department in which the program resides continue.
Mayhew then responded to a question from L. Gross by saying that the reorganization of the campus and the system still has not been worked out. She then answered another question from Gross by saying that she does not know how many professional leaves will be awarded next year, but that departments and colleges will provide the majority of the funding. In response to a question from J. Rehder, she said that the new program is based on the course-banking programs used by some departments and colleges. Regarding the review and redirection process, she said that one should not be concerned by the inclusion of research centers and institutes in the definition of programs; only a non-performing center or institute will be challenged.
Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of September 22, 2003, were approved with the deletion of Teresa Berry from the list of absent senators, since she no longer is a senator.NEW BUSINESS
Draft Resolution on Sexual Orientation at UTK (E. Sutherland)REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Sutherland read the resolution, copies of which were available at the meeting. It "encourages Chancellor Crabtree to work toward inclusion of "sexual orientation" in the University's non-discrimination policy, and to take other steps as warranted toward ensuring compliance with this amended policy." W. Hart reported that two-thirds of his department does not support the resolution. Others spoke in favor of the resolution. It was reported that the Colleges of Law, Social Work and Nursing have been challenged by their accrediting agencies over the lack of "sexual orientation" in the non-discrimination policy. The resolution was approved.
Faculty Handbook Revision Task Force (K. Greenberg and W. Dunne for M. Moffett)REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEEES
Greenberg briefly reviewed Chapter One. She noted that suggestions for changes should be made soon, so that a revised draft can be proposed for the second reading at the next Faculty Senate meeting. Greenberg reported that concern has been expressed about the lack of detail concerning faculty responsibility in item 2 on page 6 of Chapter One. There was consensus that the committee should reconsider this matter and be more specific.
Greenberg then turned to the question of which constituencies should be involved in and be included in votes concerning the selection of heads. There was considerable support for leaving decisions about such matters to colleges and departments. Greenberg next asked about feelings concerning terms for department heads. Some favored terms and others did not want limits for heads.
Dunne then briefly described Chapter Two. No one expressed concern about having only the three categories of teaching, research and service for faculty responsibility. M. Harmon expressed regret that a listing of rights in lines 30, 31, and 32 on page 1 of Chapter Two was deleted. It was recommended that the list be retained, but words indicating that the list is not all-inclusive be added. M. Combs spoke in favor of including in "service" activities that are not directly related to one's professional expertise. B. Glenn spoke against including such matters, since this section defines faculty responsibilities. A straw poll then indicated support for the current wording concerning what constitutes service. Gross spoke against retaining line 1, page 3 of Chapter Two which says that faculty members should participate in university governance.
Undergraduate Council (L. Jolly)The meeting adjourned at 5:12 p.m.
Jolly briefly reviewed the General Education Proposal. She noted that lists of courses in the proposal are preliminary and the proposal calls for ongoing review of more courses to be included. Gross expressed concern about the second sentence under II. Communicating Orally, which says, "The well-educated should be able to speak...." Jolly suggested that a footnote could address those who cannot speak. J. Malia said she feels a footnote is not sufficient and that the sentence should be rewritten. It was taken as a friendly amendment that the revised sentence would allow for those who are emotionally or physically unable to speak and that the clause in quotes a few lines above would be deleted. J. Heminway suggested that signing should be included and recommended that there be a legal review of the wording. In response to a question about the anticipated degree of flexibility in accepting substitutions for the lists in the various categories, Jolly said there would be a university-wide substitution committee to deal with such questions. L. Gay asked about differences between college lists and university-level lists of courses. D. Cox responded that all requirements must be met, but one course could be used to meet both a college and a university requirement. G. Graber moved to table the motion until more complete lists of courses are available. There was a second. Graber then said that he and others do not feel the process for adding courses used during the summer or the process used so far this fall has worked sufficiently well and expressed a desire to have more complete lists before voting. M. Albrecht spoke against tabling, since the lists will always be changing. Others also expressed concern about tabling the motion. In response to a negative comment about having a central group deciding about substitutions, Jolly said that two advising centers had requested a central decision body. Graber's motion then was voted down. Gross then asked whether the Undergraduate Catalog would contain information on how a student should attempt to obtain a waiver concerning the requirements. Jolly said it would. The General Education Proposal then was approved.
Undergraduate and Graduate Council Minutes
Minutes of the Graduate Council meeting of April 24, 2003, and of the Undergraduate Council meeting of April 29, 2003, were approved.
Establishment of Quorum (S. Jordan)MINUTESJordan confirmed that it appeared a quorum was present.President's Report (B. Lyons)Lyons reported that he had assigned an additional one or two torches to each item on the Senate Scorecard, except for the living-wage item. He then reported that Charles Feigerle is replacing M. Keyhani as chair of the Graduate Council. Lyons next reported that the nondiscrimination resolution is being supported by the chancellor and the president. He next noted that the Executive Committee will meet 9:00 a.m.-noon, December 15 in Arena Dining CD and the Senate will meet Friday, January 9, 2004, 2:00-4:00 p.m. in the Shiloh Room of the UC. He then reported on the policy that food and drink (other than water) are prohibited from lecture rooms. He said he supports the policy, but will be urging the administration to end the outsourcing of janitorial services. Lyons then discussed two resolutions to be considered later: one concerning banning the sale of tobacco products on campus and the other concerning the Review and Redirection Process. He noted that the chancellor supports a resolution from the Review and Redirection Task Force (distributed at the meeting). Lyons expressed appreciation to L. Gross and other faculty on the task force who are asking tough questions.President-Elect's Report (C. White)White reported that 432 faculty completed a survey on the Web about the Faculty Senate Newsletter and related matters. She then briefly reviewed the results of the survey. The Newsletter was not a primary source of information for almost all of the faculty who participated in the survey. White said she believes the caucuses can be an effective way of communicating. She proposed using the delivery system best suited to each type of item. In particular, she proposed using a printed "Issues Alert" only for disseminating policies and other critical information. Some other information could be sent electronically to a select few and then those individuals could print and distribute copies to faculty in their areas. She encouraged Senators to print the November issue of the Newsletter from the Web and distribute copies of it.
Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of October 20, 2003, were approved without change.REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Faculty Handbook Task Force (M. Moffett)REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEESMoffett called attention to a handout distributed at the meeting. It provides a rewording for Chapter 1, page 5, lines 16-18, which reads as follows:"While all departmental constituencies have input into the discussion, only the tenure-track and tenured faculty members conduct a confidential vote for their choice, unless non-tenure-track faculty are otherwise permitted by departmental bylaws to vote in department head selections."L. Essif asked how the task force decided to make the addition to l. 6, p. 5 of Chapter 1, which says that for head searches the dean selects all departmental representatives on the committee. Moffett responded in part that there are university rules from the Office of Equity and Diversity that govern such committees.
B. Glenn asked whether the list of academic officers in the list that starts on l. 26, p. 8, Chapter 1 is exhaustive. Moffett said it consists of the usual administrators, but B. Ownley noted that the Vice-President for Agriculture should be included and Moffett suggested changing "Chancellor" to "Chief Academic Officers and their staffs" in l. 27. With this change, Chapters 1 and 2 were then approved.
Moffett turned next to Chapter 3. G. Schroedl noted that the lettering in item 5 of p. 2, Chapter 3, needs to be corrected. S. Hamilton expressed concern about the change from "have" to "achieve and maintain" in items 3 and 5 on ll. 22, 23, p. 3, Chapter 3, where it is stated what associate professors are expected to do. It was decided to use "to have achieved and to maintain." Concern also was expressed about the use of "to be accomplished teachers" in l. 11, p. 3, Chapter 3; suggested changes here or elsewhere should be sent to the task force.
Essif asked whether the wording in the first paragraph of Section 3.9, might not include a reference to faculty bylaws. Moffett said such a reference would be worked into the paragraph. White then asked when faculty might make a recommendation to the board that tenure should reside in the institution. Moffett countered that it is not clear that tenure should reside in the institution and noted that tenure guarantees academic freedom, not employment. She then encouraged Senators to email any additional concerns.
Teaching Council (B. Lee)NEW BUSINESSLee summarized the memorandum from the Council that was distributed with the agenda. A major concern with moving the student evaluation system from paper to on-line is that participation is likely to drop from 80% to about 30%. Many students view the current system as ineffective and irrelevant. Faculty seem to have somewhat similar attitudes. Faculty and student interests seem to have little overlap, although both groups believe there is value in student evaluations. B. Dunne cautioned that there are components to evaluating faculty teaching other than student evaluations and the Council should not try to have student evaluation be all things. M. Harmon asserted that there is a correlation between course evaluations and grade inflation. Graber noted that the current system from the University of Washington was adopted in part because with it there was not a correlation between evaluations and expected grades.
Bylaws Revision for the Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee (B. Ownley)The meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m.Lyons noted that we are having only a first reading today. There was no discussion.Resolution Banning Tobacco Sales on Campus (M. Harmon)Because there had already been extensive attention to the issue on the Senate Listserver, Lyons asked whether anyone's opinion would be changed by further discussion. No one responded. Lyons then asked Harmon to read the resolution and Harmon did so. The resolution was seconded. B. Thayer-Bacon asked why the resolution was before the Senate, as it had not been approved by the Executive Committee. B. Lyons indicated that any Senator has the right to bring a motion for consideration by the Senate. Lyons called the question. The resolution failed 30 to 28.Resolution on Review and Redirection Process (W. Morgan)Morgan read the resolution (distributed with agenda). The motion was seconded by Glenn. Moffett moved to separate the two "resolved" statements. Her motion was seconded. The motion to separate was approved by a voice vote. Gross then questioned how this body can determine criteria to guide the process of program review. M. Anderson then spoke in favor. Morgan added that it seems to him that it is the Senate's responsibility to determine those criteria. Lyons then suggested ways that criteria could be determined by the Faculty Senate for the January 9th meeting. Morgan accepted a friendly amendment to change "determined" to "approved." B. Thayer-Bacon and Lee then noted that "determined" is more in line with shared governance. Lyons said he thought the task force would be receptive to suggestions about the criteria for this body. Glenn then noted that the first "whereas" clause uses "determining" and argued that the first part of the resolution should use "determined." Morgan agreed and the original version of the first part of the resolution was then approved by a voice vote.
Morgan next spoke in support of the second part of the resolution. He said that in the past the administration has suggested what it intends to do about faculty in any program eliminated and this part of the resolution is intended to say that it is the Senate's expectation that the administration will do those things. Morgan agreed to change "faculty positions" to "faculty members." Dunne then noted that "eliminated" might be changed and Harmon suggested "released from employment" as a replacement. Morgan agreed. Gross said that the two faculty on the task force voted in favor of this part of the resolution and all others voted against. He also said that some administrators have said that faculty and their lines will be moved, so that there are mixed messages. In response to a comment, White pointed out that some of the criteria came from APEC, which did have faculty representation. Moffett noted that the alternative to the current process is opportunistic cutting of positions, for example those freed up by deaths or retirements. Glenn then noted that the University of Maryland made deep cuts without ending employment of faculty. The motion then was approved by a voice vote.
White confirmed that it appeared a quorum was present.President's Report (B. Lyons)
Lyons reported that since this was a specially called meeting, and to devote maximum time to the agenda, there would not be a President's report or a Chancellor's report.MINUTES
Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of November 17, 2003, were approved without change.REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Moffett called attention to the handout that noted the key changes to Chapter 3 since the first reading of that chapter at the November 17 meeting, which reads:NEW BUSINESSFOR ACTIONIn discussing Chapter 3, Moffett noted that the current handbook and board policy locates tenure in the departments rather than in the university. S. Kurth noted that use of the term "emeritus" in the handbook is masculine and requested that it be changed to be inclusive. Moffett accepted the suggestion.
Chapter 3: Appointment, Evaluation, Promotion, & Tenure for Tenure Track Faculty
This chapter applies specifically to faculty holding tenure-track appointments and concerns policies related to appointment, evaluation, tenure, and promotion. Key changes since the first reading on November 17th are:
As stated in the current handbook and consistent with board policy, this chapter locates tenure in an academic program (3.11.1) and not the university at large.
- tenure track faculty who have family care giving responsibilities may apply to extend the tenure clock (added to page 1, line 12)
- the process by which new faculty search committees are formed requires the Department Head to form the committee in consultation with the faculty at a meeting of the faculty (insert A, page 1, line 32),
Chapter 4: Appointment, Evaluation, & Review for Non-Tenure Track Faculty
This new chapter concerns the appointment, promotion and review of all non-tenure-track faculty. It incorporates uniform titles for various appointments approved by the Faculty Senate two years ago. This chapter states that non-tenure-track faculty have academic freedom and the same rights of appeal for tenure stream faculty outlined in Chapter 5. For the past few decades most universities have increasingly relied on non-tenure-track faculty as state support for higher education has diminished. While this chapter will not change this trend, it does affirm a basic set of rights for these faculty members.
Chapter 5: Faculty Rights of Appeal
This Chapter has evolved since the Faculty Senate Retreat and input on the Blackboard site. Instead of proposing a single Ombudsperson, we are now proposing three Ombudspersons on three-year staggered terms (5.2). This will serve to distinguish the dual roles of the office; (1) as a consultant and (2) a mediator when necessary. This chapter also proposes establishment of a Faculty Senate Appeals Committee that will take over part of the responsibility now held by the Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee (5.4). The Appeals Committee would have the authority to bring systemic violations of the handbook to the Faculty Senate (page 4, lines 5-15). In comparison with the current handbook, this chapter makes significant changes to the special appeals section that we feel greatly clarify this section of the appeals process (5.5). It also includes keeps the current policy on Appeals of Termination of Tenured faculty for Adequate Cause (5.6).
Chapter 6: Benefits and Leaves of Absence
This chapter is pulled from Section 3 of the current UTK Faculty Handbook and Chapter 7 from the UTIA handbook. This chapter will have numerous links to Human Resources documents. Through input from the Blackboard site, as well as others the chapter has been revised to:
Chapter 7 on Outside Consultation still needs more work, and will come to us for a first reading on February 2nd.
- describe the Family Care Policy as it applies to faculty on academic year appointments who take a leave without pay to care for a family member (6.41)
- affirm the semester banking system (6.44)
- integrate the new professional leave policy into the handbook (6.45)
- describe fringe benefits for faculty on leave (6.47)
- clarify the policy for outside compensation for faculty on leave (6.48).
Alternate Senator Charles Maland noted that in a large department it would be difficult to call a faculty meeting to form a search committee. Papke made a motion to remove "at a meeting" from the wording. Burman seconded it. Schroedl and Coddington spoke against the motion stating that too much email in lieu of meetings was not good. By a voice vote the motion was not approved.
Hughes moved to change location of tenure from the department to the university, particularly since this is an issue with program review and redirection. J. Malia seconded it. Moffett noted that tenure protects academic freedom rather than job security and noted that the handbook provides other protections when programs are eliminated. B. Antar spoke in favor of the motion stating that this is a serious and practical problem for faculty at UTSI. Sachan asked if we are hired by the university, why aren't we tenured by the university? Albrecht replied that the offer letter comes from the department and that tenure is determined primarily by colleagues at the department level. Hughes argued that final tenure is granted at the university level. C. Craig asked why tenure was changed in 1978 from being located in the university to the department. No one knew the answer. Lyons reminded the Senate that while we have unprecedented input into the handbook, ultimately the decision would be made by the General Counsel's office and the Trustees. The question was called and the amendment to change the location of tenure from the department to the university was carried.
Burman asked that the wording on p. 7, lines 16 and 17 be changed from "a fair and honest assessment of the performance of the faculty member by appropriate colleagues and the department head" be changed to "... by the department head and where appropriate, by colleagues. Moffett accepted the change. Lyons called for the approval of the amended Chapter 3. The chapter was approved by the Senate.
Moffett continued with the first reading of Chapters 4 and called attention to the handout that noted the key issues. A. Chesney told the Senate that the Task Force on Non-Tenured Faculty is still active and is looking at Delaware study and UT's ratio of non-tenure to tenured faculty. Schroedl asked for clarification of and consistent use of titles in the chapter.
Moffett continued with the first reading of Chapter 5 and called attention to the handout that noted the key issues, noting this chapter has substantive changes to the current handbook. It was noted that some parts of this chapter are state law and cannot be amended. Morgan asked what level of confidentiality there would be in the appeals processes, and Harmon noted that anything in "fixed form" would be subject to open records laws. It was suggested that mediation should be mandatory, but Kurth argued that you couldn't mandate mediation. Glenn asked why an Ombudsperson is needed since we already have a Faculty Affairs committee. Alternate Senator D. Raj Raman spoke in favor of the existence of an Ombudsperson, asserting that she/he would have a higher public profile. D. Bassett expressed concerned about the four channels of appeal and asked which would have the greatest authority. Moffett said they all ultimately end up the same place, which is to go through administrative channels. D. Kennedy noted that not all problems would go all the way through the channels.
Chapter 6 was presented for a first reading. There were some very small edits for the sake of clarification, but no major concerns.
Lyons presented the Review and Redirection Criteria for approval. He noted one change made at the Executive Committee meeting on December 15th. The document was approved unanimously.The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
*Alternate Senator: Ed Perfect for Rick WilliamsB. Lyons called the meeting to order at 3:30 p.m.
Jordan confirmed that it appeared a quorum was present.President's Report (B. Lyons)
To save time, Lyons distributed copies of his comments. The statement included an update on the Senate Scorecard, with additional flaming torches for the (2) the Professional Leave Policy, (2) the New General Education Policy, (1) Faculty Handbook and (2) Committee Work. He expressed concern that any cost of living raises will not cover increases in insurance premiums for the lowest paid staff. He also indicated he is working to help implement the Faculty Senate resolution on non-discrimination. He announced that he has established an ad-hoc committee comprised of Clif Woods, Bob Glenn, Susan Martin, Norma Cook, Al Womac and himself to create an improved evaluation form for Department Heads. With the new handbook changes regarding five-year terms for department heads, he stressed the need for an improved evaluation system. The new form would be designed to (1) foster broad participation by faculty, staff and students; (2) provide confidentiality of responses; and (3) allow for some open-ended comments. The committee will compile a report for the Council of Deans and the Senate Executive Committee in March. He also encouraged participation in the upcoming Faculty Senate elections and he indicated that the Executive Committee will be reviewing the committee structure to propose possible changes for Senate action later this year. Finally, he encouraged approval of the proposed Faculty Senate Shared Governance Fund.Chancellor's Report (L. Crabtree)
Lyons also noted that Fred Venditti, Faculty Senate President in 1984-85, had died the previous week. He cited some of Professor Venditti's accomplishments before a moment of silence was observed to honor his life.
Crabtree reported that 1,359 additional applications have been received from potential freshmen and transfer students in comparison to the number at this time last year. He added that graduate applications are up 14.55%. He also said that the preliminary signs concerning next year's budget are positive and that professional leave applications are being processed. In response to a question about the predicted high rate at which incoming freshmen may not be able to retain their lottery scholarships, Crabtree said that A. Mayhew is dealing with that concern and that having an advisor for each student is an important part of the plans.MINUTES
Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of January 9, 2004, were approved without change.REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Moffett noted that minor changes have been made in Chapter 5 (p.2, ll. 4-5, p.3, ll. 9-14 and 18-31) and in Chapter 6 (p.2, ll. 31-32, p.5, ll. 1-4, and p.6, ll. 5-7). There were no questions or comments.REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEES
Chapter 4 was approved with no changes and no nay votes.
Moffett then briefly discussed some concerns of N. Cook about several parts of Chapter 5.
C. Craig noted that Cook had noticed that the proposed chapter does not mention that a faculty member making a complaint may be accompanied by an advisor. Moffett said the omission is intentional and, in part, is meant to begin a grievance process without lawyers involved for either side. Chapter 5 was approved as presented with no nay votes.
Moffett then turned to Chapter 6. Gross noted that p.1, ll. 25-27, should be a sentence and, the words "by providing" in l. 26 could be deleted to correct the problem. The suggestion was accepted. After a short discussion the senators approved Chapter 6 with no nay votes.
Lyons next led a discussion of Chapter 7. He described the history of the fourth draft being presented for first reading and noted that "outside compensated services" are now "outside compensated activities." Determining the nature and extent of such activities is left to the faculty member and the department or unit head to negotiate. All such discussions are to be in the context of the faculty member's obligations to the institution. Faculty can appeal decisions of a department head.
Gross noted that "compensated outside services" still appears in this draft. Gross also suggested having in Policy Provision 2 a link to the appropriate part of the UT Fiscal Policy to make clearer what kinds of uses of university facilities, equipment, etc. are allowed.
After a short discussion it was agreed that Policy Provision 2 should contain an explicit statement that faculty on 9-month appointments do not have to report on outside compensated activities undertaken during the summer. Gross encouraged everyone to think about the matter of faculty having to negotiate with the heads without some sort of guidelines in the Faculty Handbook.
Pierce asked for nominations for president-elect. Supporting comments should be included with nominations of others.Benefits Committee (B. Lyons for B. Ownley)
Lyons called attention to the proposed bylaws revision (distributed with the agenda for the last meeting and at today's meeting) concerning the chairperson of the Benefits Committee. The proposal passed with no objections.NEW BUSINESS
White described the history of the fund, which is a "gift fund." It is not intended to replace the small amount of support from the institution. Crabtree donated $500 and Lyons and White each contributed $250. She noted that others have contributed and she asked that all senators consider making contributions. The fund currently is over $2,000. The statement of provisions for administering the fund was altered by replacing "purposed that furthers" in the last bullet item with "proposed activities that further." The amended document then was approved with no nay votes. It was pointed out that contributions may be made through payroll deductions.The meeting adjourned at 4:15 p.m.
Jordan confirmed that it appeared a quorum was present.President's Report (B. Lyons)
Lyons noted that the scorecard is getting more torches. The living wage item still has only one torch, and he encouraged faculty to attend the United Campus Workers rally on March 2. He then discussed the presidential search and noted that brochures about the search are available at the meeting. He next reported that he continues to work with students and others to obtain implementation of a diversity policy and to "push" the resolution on the matter approved by the Faculty Senate on October 20, 2003.MINUTES
Lyons then discussed the progress on the revision of the Faculty Handbook. He especially noted the role of the Faculty Senate in the process, which is why Chapter 8 has been added. Action on this chapter, as well as Chapter 7 will take place at our April 5th meeting. Next, Lyons noted that discussion of proposed changes to the structure of the Faculty Senate will be discussed today. Lyons reported that the Shared Governance Fund now exceeds $3,000. Donors to the fund have included Chancellor Loren Crabtree; Academic Deans Stuart Riggsby, Joan Creasia, Barbara Dewey; Former Senate Presidents Kathy Greenberg, Marla Peterson, Glenn Graber, Tom Hood, Bill Blass, Marian Moffett, and Mike Combs; and Faculty Senators Candace White, Chris Craig, David Bassett, Nancy Howell and Steven Blackwell. He stated that a payroll deduction form is being developed and will be posted shortly on the Senate web site.
Lyons also called attention to the salary survey recently provided by the Budget Committee. He noted the need for salary improvements in various departments and for lower paid employees. In particular, he noted that raises based on percentage increases do not provide the raises needed by low-paid employees.
Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of February 2, 2004, were approved without change.REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Moffett briefly reviewed the draft of Chapter 8. There was a suggestion to reconsider the titles of section 8.2 to read: "Revision of Titles and Non-Substantive Revisions". No other changes were suggested.REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEES
Graber reported that a slate of candidates will be available soon for election prior to the next meeting.Proposed Faculty Senate Committee Restructuring (C. White)
White noted that the proposal includes two new committees: the Appeals Committee and the Information Technology Committee. The former is required by the revised Faculty Handbook and the latter, in the form of the ad hoc Information Technology Advisory Committee, has been very busy working on matters that will continue to be of concern.Lyons invited Senators to raise issues of concern as "new business." No concerns were voiced.
White also reported that the proposal calls for eliminating three existing standing committees: International Education, Development and Alumni Relations, and Government Relations. She explained the reasons each of these committees no longer is needed. She also called attention to the chart describing the proposed actions for Faculty Senate committees, which was distributed with the agenda.
L. Gross expressed concern about the variety of ways that appointments are made to different committees. White conjectured that the differences might be due to history or to the nature of the committees' activities. Lyons noted that the Faculty Senate approves appointments to most committees each May for the following year. Gross expressed his preference that all appointments be approved by the Faculty Senate.
M. Beck noted that someone from the Research Council should be on the Information Technology Committee. There was general agreement with his comment. Gross asked whether ex officio members of committees are non-voting members. Graber reported that ex officio members are voting members unless the bylaws state explicitly that such members of a committee are non-voting members. Gross said he suspects some ex officio members might be given some number of votes, which they could delegate to others if they wished. M. Anderson then spoke in favor of granting voting rights to ex officio members to make them genuine members of the committees and to support shared governance. There was general support for her comments.
Regarding the charge of the Educational Policy Committee, C. Craig asked, on behalf of the AAUP chapter, when faculty will take over the redirection and review process. White asked whether the Faculty Senate has the authority to look at individual programs. Lyons noted the curriculum responsibilities of the Faculty Senate and expressed the view that redirection and review fit in that context. Gross asked whether the Educational Policy Committee will be overburdened with this additional responsibility. S. Kurth said she thought the steady-state level of such processes would be manageable. Gross said he favors placing such authority in the committee so that the chancellor would look there when reviews are believed to be needed.
W. Morgan expressed some concern about the proposal to reduce the number of at-large faculty members on the Executive Committee from four to two. Lyons agreed that future presidents would have less flexibility to balance the committee, but said he doesn't think the reduction will be a real problem.
M. Combs noted his concerns about deleting the Government Relations Committee. He reported on some interactions with legislators that seemed to be beneficial. He urged that the momentum of those activities not be lost. M. Harmon, current chairperson of the committee, said he supports deleting the committee but hopes contacts with legislators will continue.
Jordan confirmed that a quorum was present.President's Report (B. Lyons)
Lyons noted that today marks the completion of the review of the Faculty Handbook. He noted that milestone by awarding another torch to this project on his scorecard. He also awarded another torch to the presidential search effort. Lyons encouraged everyone to seek and to report information about the candidates for presidency.MINUTES
Lyons also noted the Life of the Mind program for freshmen. A large number of faculty need to be involved in this program. A sign-up sheet will be circulated during the meeting. Lyons then reported that almost all elections for senators have been completed. He next reviewed some of the day's agenda items.
Lyons also reported that Chancellor Crabtree is in New Orleans for the women's basketball championship game. He did provide a written report from the Chancellor, which was distributed at the meeting. In the Chancellor's message, he thanked the Faculty Senate for their work on the Faculty Handbook. He also noted three tasks before the University: completion of the Presidential search; conclusion of searches for the Deans of the Colleges of Education, Health and Human Sciences, as well as Communications and Information; and the challenge of preparing a budget for next year within the limits of state funding and tuition rates.
Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of March 1, 2004, were approved without change.REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Moffett noted that the title to section 8.2 should be "Revision of Titles and Nonsubstantive Revisions." She then turned to Chapter Seven. L. Gross stated that he might not support the current version. He cited concerns about the lack of guidance for departments and heads and his concern that the writing of books is covered by the rules on outside compensated activities. Moffett responded that book-writing is not covered by Chapter Seven. Gross and others stated that their reading of it includes book-writing. Lyons noted that a faculty member whose department head decides that certain activities are not to be included as part of the faculty member's annual effort may appeal that decision. B. Dunne said that the real question is whether one is performing one's UT duties. D. Bassett moved that "Publication and/or editing of research/scholarship/creative activity and" be inserted at the beginning of the sentence that starts on line 3 of p.2. The motion was seconded and approved without objection.REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEES
Bassett then objected to some of the imprecision in Chapter 7. C. White responded that the huge variety of activities pursued by faculty on this campus forces the use of imprecise language. Moffett emphasized that faculty must be performing their university duties in a satisfactory manner. M. Beck spoke in favor of flexible language. Lyons then said he would like to proceed to a vote on Chapter 7 as amended at the meeting. Chapter 7 was approved with a few negative votes.
Moffett next said that, except for the change to the tile of section 8.2, Chapter 8 is as presented previously. It was approved with no negative votes. Lyons then thanked Moffett and the task force for their work.
Graber introduced the two candidates for president-elect. D. Kennedy noted that she had distributed electronically a short biography and statement on challenges. She reviewed a few of those points in her statement. F. Weber said that he, too, had made available a biographical sketch and brief statement. He then said that he thinks the faculty should review all policies in the context of newer ways of communicating. He also said he believes there is a need for a committee to look at problems of all citizens of the institution, not to fix the problems, but to determine what can be done and what the costs would be.Proposed Faculty Senate Committee Restructuring (C. White)
Lyons noted that the ballot box is available at the meeting for those who wished to vote and that April 8th is the final date for ballots to be submitted to Sharonne Winston.
White noted that the proposals previously have been considered and amended and expressed her hope that word-smithing might be limited. The item on the formation of an Appeals Committee was approved without change. The statement for the Faculty Affairs Committee was changed by the deletion of the first "shall consist" in the first sentence. The item for this committee then was approved without objection.NEW BUSINESS
White turned next to the material for the Information Technology Committee. G. Schroedl asked why the chairperson is to be elected. White responded that the idea is to be certain an informed person chairs the committee. The material for this committee then was approved without change.
Deletion of the Instruction with Technology Subcommittee was approved next. Then the material for the Student Affairs Committee was approved with the understanding that the appropriate new name for the Undergraduate Academic Council would be used. Deletion of the Development and Alumni Relations Committee was approved without objection. Deletion of the Government Relations Committee was considered next. D. Kahn spoke against deletion on the grounds that this committee can spread the word about research across the state. Moffett asked whether the committee ever had done so. White then said she is sympathetic to Kahn's point, but thinks there are other ways to communicate. The deletion of this committee then was approved with a few negative votes.
Deletion of International Education Committee, changes to the membership and charges of the Educational Policy Committee and changes to the Professional Development Committee's charge were considered and approved together.
Finally, changes to the membership of the Executive Committee were considered. A motion by P. Pierce to delete "(or the designees)" was seconded and approved without objection. In response to a question about why "University President and" was deleted by the Executive Committee, Gross said that the words had been added when former President Gilley was in office and handling more duties than previous presidents and White noted that the president is not on faculty senate executive committees of other UT campuses.
Lyons read the resolution (distributed with the agenda). K. Hughes asked whether the discussion might be split into two parts: one concerning moving the president to Nashville and one concerning moving certain duties of the president to the chancellor of the Knoxville campus. It was decided to consider the second part first. Lyons said he intended for all the "Whereas" clauses to accompany each part. Schroedl suggested adding campus facilities to the responsibilities of the chancellor. Addition of "facilities" after "campus budgets" was moved, seconded and approved. M. Anderson suggested rewording the second "whereas" clause to include "flagship institution." Lyons suggested that the "whereas" clauses could be adjusted later. The second part on the duties of the chancellor then was approved.The meeting adjourned at 5:02 p.m.
Lyons then moved to the first part. White spoke in favor. She noted that the UT System is often compared to the single flagship institution in other states. She then read part of an editorial by Warren Neel, which appeared in The Tennessean. She also noted that former President Shumaker believed the president of the system should be located in Nashville. She also read a message from the faculty senate president at Martin who offered to take a similar resolution to the faculty senate there, if this resolution passes. M. Combs pointed out that it is the president's office, not simply one person, that would move. B. Dunne then noted that a move to Nashville would cause a number of offices and their functions to move. Gross responded that the functions belong in Knoxville as responsibilities of the chancellor. Moffett reported that two of her colleagues believe the president should remain on this campus. Pierce expressed her belief that the Faculty Senate should not try to deal with this matter. M. Papke offered similar opinions. The first part then was defeated with a few positive votes.
Lyons next turned to the full resolution. Anderson moved that the second "Whereas" clause be changed to "Whereas the University of Tennessee, Knoxville campus has a unique responsibility for academic excellence as the flagship campus in the system." The motion was seconded and approved. A motion to add "and infrastructure" after "programs" in the third "Whereas" clause was made, seconded and approved. G. Graber then proposed adding "and infrastructure" after "facilities" in the second resolved statement. The motion was seconded and approved.
Establishment of Quorum (S. Jordan)MINUTESJordan confirmed that a quorum was present.President's Report (B. Lyons)Lyons thanked those who signed up to lead discussion sessions for the Life of the Mind program. He then reviewed some of the year's activities including the presidential search. He reported that the governor had sent him a letter noting the resolution, which the Faculty Senate recently approved; it addressed the appropriate role of the president of the institution and the relation between the system and the Knoxville campus.Chancellor's Report (L. Crabtree)
Lyons also spoke about the professional development leave policy and the approval of a new general education policy. He noted that the university has not yet responded to the Faculty Senate's resolution on non-discrimination. The Faculty Senate Shared-Governance Fund and the Review and Redirection Process also were singled out, as was the work of the Faculty Senate committees.
Lyons then expressed concern about the lack of faculty participation in the SACS review process in some units. He encouraged faculty senators to take an active role this week, before faculty became involved in summer activities. He also discussed the living-wage effort and the matter of across-the-board raises. He encouraged equal-dollar raises, rather than equal-percentage raises. During his report, he added flaming torches to the Faculty Senate Scorecard with the final totals: Presidential Search 10, Professional Leave Policy 10, General Education Policy 10, Faculty Handbook 10, Committee Work 8, Living Wage 1. For the future, Lyons encouraged the faculty to be involved in implementing the new environmental policy and in the development of a new diversity plan. He also expressed his confidence in C. White and D. Kennedy and the future senate leadership.Crabtree thanked M. Moffett for her efforts in the revision of the Faculty Handbook. He stated that he expected that the Faculty Handbook would be approved by the UT Board of Trustees in June and that the new non-discrimination proposal will be implemented. He next reported that budget-planning is proceeding. He also expressed his pleasure with the appointment of J. Petersen as the new president. He said he believes the open nature of the search process may have had a negative influence on the discussion of candidates. Crabtree also noted that graduation ceremonies will be held Friday night and Saturday. He expressed hope that faculty would attend the session at 8:30 Saturday morning and the college sessions. He ended with a statement in support of shared governance. He said he believes a lot of progress in this area was made this year.
Minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting of April 5, 2004, were approved without change.REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES
Nomination of 2004-2005 Faculty Senate Secretary (C. White)Lyons invited senators to join him at the Riverside Tavern following the meeting.White reported that the Executive Committee has nominated S. Jordan. The nomination was seconded and approved.Approval of Summer Executive Council (B. Lyons)Lyons reported that the Executive Committee nominated D. Kennedy, L. Gross, N. Howell, C. Craig and B. Dewey to serve on the Executive Council, along with the senate officers, for the summer. The nominations were seconded and approved.Nominations and Appointments (C. White)White reported that a list of committee memberships for next year was available at the meeting. The nominations were seconded and approved.Final Reports of Senate Committees (B. Lyons)Lyons noted that the final reports were distributed with the agenda. W. Morgan said that the report of the Library Committee had been changed for the draft posted on the Senate website to include a recent meeting. The reports then were accepted.Special Recognition of Senators, Senate Leaders and Presidential Search Representatives (B. Lyons)Lyons reported that he would be sending thank-you letters to Faculty Senators and committee chairs. He then announced who would be rotating off the Faculty Senate and acknowledged them and the committee chairs. He also acknowledged the officers of the Faculty Senate. In particular, he presented a resolution honoring the year's parliamentarian, M. Papke. The resolution reads as follows:The resolution was approved. A framed copy of the resolution was presented to Papke. Finally, Lyons acknowledged P. Höyng, G. Sayler and K. Greenberg for their work on the presidential search. He noted that an attempt would be made to have Höyng reimbursed for his cell-phone bills related to the search.
The University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleWHEREAS, Mary E. Papke, Ph.D., is a highly respected colleague, teacher, and researcher; and
WHEREAS, she has served with distinction as Parliamentarian of the Faculty Senate from 2003-2004; and
WHEREAS, she has demonstrated a thorough knowledge of the rules of order and the traditions of the Faculty Senate; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the University of Tennessee, Knoxville Faculty Senate expresses its sincere appreciation to
Mary E. Papkefor her outstanding and devoted service to the Faculty Senate and the University of Tennessee; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this Resolution be presented to Dr. Papke and that the Resolution be made a part of the minutes of the Faculty Senate meeting held on May 3, 2004.
G. Samuel Jordan
White then presented Lyons with a plaque honoring him with ten flaming torches for his role as president this year.