Site Index

New Senators were introduced by Marian Moffett and welcomed to the Senate.

Fred Venditti was presented a plaque in recognition of his past service as President of the Faculty Senate.

Jack Reese's comments to the Senate included an enumeration of changes made at UTK over the last three years which have resulted from faculty and administration efforts to strengthen the programs on campus. These include enrollment reductions, a selective admissions policy, stiffer high school requirements for admission, a recruitment program, the shift from quarters to a semester calendar, improvements in funding, and the reorganization of the campus administration. A goal for the coming year is achieving full formula funding, which has never happened in the past. Construction of the Library is exactly on schedule, and an endowment campaign will be announced soon to assure the excellence of the Library's contents.

Doug Dickey expressed a desire to have a closer relationship between the athletic and academic communities. A major goal, in addition to winning, is to see that each athlete graduates. He pointed out that many organizations contribute to the overall program, including the Athletics Committee of the Senate. The importance of the public relations aspect of the athletics program to the University was emphasized.

Acting on requests from several new Senators, Marian Moffett asked that all present refrain from smoking during Senate meetings.

Debby Schriver and students, Ellen Ballew, John Bobo, Chip Reid, and Beverly Silverstein, presented the multi-media orientation program which is shown to incoming students and their parents. It gives a brief history of the University as well as illustrating campus opportunities available to current UT students.

The motion was made by Fred Tompkins to approve the 15 July 1985 Minutes, with one minor point regarding the Technological and Adult Education course number 5160 entitled Internship in Technological and Adult Education needing still to be resolved. The minutes were approved with this understanding.

Marian Moffett reviewed the 23 September 1985 meeting minutes which were accepted as written.

Lee Humphreys presented some overview of the transition and referred to the publication "TRANSITION" for summary of general procedures to be followed. He announced two upcoming open meetings for all faculty, the first on October 14 at 3:15 P.M. in the Crest Room on "General Education" and the second, "The Major," on October 22 at 3:15 P.M. in the Shiloh Room. He reviewed the time schedule for the change, which places emphasis this fall on curriculum revision in each department. To be developed is an advising system to assist students who will move through the transition. Questions and concerns should be addressed to the Transition Office. Barbara Mead, Karen Levy, and Paul Pinckney questioned the compactness time schedule required this fall. The response was that this was necessary to get the basic curriculum set up in time to have the results settled soon enough to allow proper advising of students.

Bernard Silverstein read a list of changes in committee appointments:

Educational Policy Committee: Naomi Meara replacing Carl Murphy Executive Committee: add Jeffrey Kovac

Faculty/Staff Benefits Committee: Clyde Hoffman replacing Penny Tschantz -- add: Gail Clay, Ray Gaddis, and Frank F. Bell

Marian Moffett announced the following changes to the Membership List 1986-88:

Business Administration -- Joyce Russell proxying for Anne Mayhew Law -- Neil Cohen replacing James Gobert Liberal Arts -- Robert Perrin replacing Michael Betz Nursing -- Theresa Sharp replacing Ginger Evans ROTC -- Arthur Ahl fills the 1986 slot

To keep the Senate informed about material on promotion and tenure approved last spring, Ralph Norman presented those sections of the Faculty Handbook which were slightly modified by the UT system administration. The changes were as follows: in Section 7, the addition of the word "voluntarily"; in Section 11, the addition of "If it appears to the Head that retention is not in doubt, the Head will confirm this finding in writing to the Dean, and no formal faculty meeting or vote is necessary. If it appears to the Head that retention is in doubt, the probationary faculty member will be notified and allowed sufficient time to present relevant material. After review of this material, a formal retention vote of tenured faculty will be taken. The result of the vote will be included in the Head's written recommendation to the Dean as to retention or non-retention."; in Section 12, the addition of "with the University, the probationary period will be extended accordingly. When a probationary faculty member is granted a leave of absence, the probationary period will also be extended accordingly."; and in Section 14, the statement "The Dean may serve as non-voting chair of the committee." Henry Fribourg pointed out that the Senate could not take action on these changes, since the revised versions have already been approved by the Board of Trustees at its September meeting.

The next meeting of the Faculty Senate is 4 November and will mainly concern the Educational Policy Committee and curriculum matters.

Marian Moffett reminded the Senate of the request that no one smoke during the meeting, and then she introduced the, new Parliamentarian, Top Food. The January 20 Faculty Senate meeting has been rescheduled to January 27 in observance of the Martin Luther King Holiday. There will be a Faculty Senate meeting on December 2. Long-range planning and budgeting will be presented by Homer Fisher and a discussion of the University Core will be led by the Semester Transition Committee.

Senators were requested to submit amendments or motions in writing to the Faculty Senate Secretary.

The minutes of the 7 October, 1985 Faculty Senate meeting were approved as written.

John Sebert presented the Senate the committee's comments as in the committee's memorandum dated October 18.

Ralph Norman passed out information concerning the Curriculum Subcommittee of the Semester Transition Committee, its procedures, guidelines, and members. Norman emphasized the Board of Trustees' concern, that no undue hardship be put on students caught in the transition period, as the primary reason for what seems to be a tight schedule in which to make curricular decisions. By Fall 1987, a new catalog of semester courses must be available so that students can be well advised through the calendar change. The Board's second concern was that the University review all curricula with the goal of strengthening general education in the undergraduate programs. The general education guidelines proposed here include not only certain numbers of hours, but also suggested content in the areas of English (2 courses), Mathematics (2 courses), Humanities/Art (4 courses), History (2 courses), Social Sciences (2 courses), Natural Science (2 courses), and University (2-4 courses). Each department and or college will report back to the committee their proposals as to meeting these guidelines.

Norman emphasized that we are doing two things simultaneously--changing to a semester calendar and defining what the baccalaureate should mean. The recommendations before the Senate are not iron-fisted, but rather should be seen as guidelines that will encourage discussion to establish what is best for the University and each college/department. Gary Dicer then presented briefly a proposal from the College of Business which replaces the 12 hours of University Studies with a less specific choice of courses.

The floor was opened for discussion. Sid Jumper questioned what action the Senate was to take regarding these general education guidelines. Marian Moffett answered that these were part of the Undergraduate Council minutes which were to be approved by the Senate. Gary Dicer's response was that these are guidelines and that each college will need to justify what they propose instead. Ken Walker asked about the percentage of the curriculum (proposed 56 hours) devoted to general education, which would in some cases limit the electives a student may choose. Norman's was that this was to encourage dialogue; the committee intends to be flexible.

Fribourg questioned why the burden of proof was on the colleges. John Sebert's response was that someone had to set up a model to initiate discussion. Jeff Kovac questioned the concept of "minimum" as imposing others' views on what is important. Norman's response was again that this was a starting point for dialogue and that, for example, competency might be more important in some areas than are credit hours. Nancy Lauckner questioned whether or not this will indeed at some point become cast in stone. Norman's response was that it is hoped that we would find commonality. Henry Frandsen questioned the heavy weighting of the suggested general education requirement toward Humanities/Arts.

Henry Fribourg proposed an amendment to reduce the hours in each general education area to 3 hours minimum but to keep the total general education requirement at 56 hours. Ed Clark was seconder. Considerable discussion followed, and the amendment failed.

A motion was made by Bernard Silverstein that each college, in consultation with its academic units, be allowed to submit its own proposed minimum general education curricula for the baccalaureate, based on the model guidelines provided by the Curriculum Subcommittee of the Semester Transition Committee. An affirmative vote of the Senate would reflect the concept of flexibility in the actual hours and content areas incorporated by each college and by each department within it. The motion passed.

John Sebert commented on changes in the correspondence course program as shown in the Undergraduate Council 15 October minutes. Paul Pickney questioned the College of Business's changes in transfer policies on pages 6404 and 6407. Henry Fribourg questioned the large number of hours given to Asian Studies courses listed on page 6415. Norman's response was that this had been sent back to the department, and that the Undergraduate Council was satisfied with the department's response.

The minutes of the of the 15 October Undergraduate Council meeting were approved.

John Sebert then presented the Undergraduate Council minutes of 18 July There was discussion of the guidelines for honors classifications. Bernard Silverstein moved that the Executive Committee's suggested levels replace those of the Undergraduate Council. Lorayne Lester was the seconder. The amendment passed, thus establishing the following categories for honors:

Cum laude -- 3.50 to 3.64 inclusive
Magna cum laude -- 3.65 to 3.79 inclusive
Summa cum laude -- 3.80 to 4.00 inclusive

The Graduate Council minutes of 17 October were presented by Linda Painter to include corrections and clarifications as passed out to the Senate and the acceptance of the Education 5160 course questioned in the 17 October minutes. The Graduate Council minutes of 17 October were then approved.

The Senate's attention was called to the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of 21 October which, in the interest of time, were deferred until the next Senate meeting on 2 December, 1985.

I. Student Body Composition

A. Hold total enrollment size relatively constant and effect some increase in graduate enrollment. (Suggested enrollment ranges -- undergraduate: 19,000 to 20,000; graduate: 5,500 to 6,500; total headcount: 25,000 to 26,000.)

B. Expand the geographical base from which UTK attracts both undergraduate and graduate students and increase modestly out-of- state undergraduate enrollment.

C. Place greater emphasis upon recruitment of outstanding undergraduate students, including. transfer students, and maintain emphasis upon selective recruitment of graduate students.

D. Enhance overall scholarship strategies to attract and to retain excellent undergraduate students.

E. Modify or eliminate admissions policies and procedures which unnecessarily restrict the enrollment of qualified students.

F. Communicate to community colleges UTK concerns about ensuring a creditable general education experience for transfer students generally comparable to that afforded students entering UTK as freshmen.

G. Institute a program to provide faculty development opportunities for faculty of four-year and community colleges in the region.

H. Continue the dropout follow-up plan to gather information to assist in reducing the rate of attrition and give attention and assistance to potential dropouts before they actually leave the institution.

I. Facilitate enrollment of nontraditional students in both credit and noncredit programs with emphasis upon supporting instructional and staff development needs of business and industry. (Office of Undergraduate Admissions, Division of Continuing Education, Office of the Provost)

II. Academic Program

A. Support Centers of Excellence and continue to determine selected programs of excellence, through leadership provided by the Office of the Provost.

B. Determine the following: 1) programs to be improved in quality and funding; 2) programs to be limited in size, scope, and/or funding; and 3) programs to be reduced in size, scope, and/or levels of funding; and 4) programs to be eliminated or combined with other programs.

C. Add new programs only as they are: 1) clearly supportive of the mission of the institution; 2) more properly offered by UTK than by other institutions within the broad geographic area served by UTK; and 3) properly funded.

D. Establish a University Scholars Program.

E. Facilitate expansion of interdisciplinary programs, as appropriate.

F. Expand international dimensions of programs and international contacts.

G. Establish and maintain appropriate faculty/staff ratios for academic programs.

H. Place high priority upon ensuring that all. programs offered by UTK are funded at levels which support reasonable quality.

III. Faculty

A. Maintain the size of instructional faculty at approximately the current level, subject to variation caused by new programs, external demands, program expansion or contraction, and workloads.

B. Aggressively pursue adequate compensation of faculty.

IV. Teaching

A. Emphasize and reward excellence in teaching at both the graduate-and undergraduate levels.

B. Include information from the several student outcomes measures--testing in general education and in the major field; surveys of students, alumni/ae, and other groups the University seeks to serve--in determining instructional effectiveness.

V. Research

A. Increase research quality and productivity.

B. Expand institutional support (staffing, operating funds, equipment funds, and incentive funding) for research.

C. Assess the effectiveness of the UTK research organization.

D. Establish priorities for renovation of outdated research facilities.

E. Communicate the benefits and results of research, the general public, policymakers, and the research community. (Office of the Provost, Office of the Vice Provost for Research, Office of University Communications)

VI. Affirmative Action

A. Increase the enrollment of minority students. (Suggested 1990 percentage of enrollment -- Undergraduate: 6%; Graduate: 5.5%)

B. Increase the representation of minority employees. (Suggested 1990 percentages by category -- Faculty: 3.8%; Staff Exempt: 6.5%; Staff Non-Exempt: 13.5%)

C. Increase the representation of women among faculty and staff exempt employees. (Suggested 1990 percentage -- Faculty: 32.8%; Staff Exempt: 44.4%)

VII. Library

A. Enhance library services and library resources to reach levels required by the institutional mission.

VIII. Telecommunications

A. Computing/telecommunications programs are established to facilitate the instructional, research, and support programs of the institution. Access to computing capabilities should, therefore, be afforded, as needed, to all segments of the University.

IX. Economic Development

A. Increase efforts to contribute to economic growth and development.

X. Resource Allocation

A. Secure an adequate resource base to carry out the approved institutional mission. (Chancellor and Chancellor's staff)

B. Continue to assess the external environment to ascertain and communicate information about social, economic, demographic, legal, and political trends as well as information reflecting the needs of those the University seeks to serve. (Office of Institutional Research, Office of University Communications)

C. Continue the academic program review process and more closely articulate recommendations with the planning and budgeting process. (Office of the Provost)

D. Ascertain and implement appropriate balances of funds for operating, equipment, and staffing for each program. (Office of the Provost and Chancellor's staff)

E. Improve the framework for determining relative institutional priorities for allocating (and reallocating) resources to colleges and departments including administrative units.

F. Develop cost estimates for achieving institutional goals within specified time frames in accord with established priorities. (office of the Executive Vice Chancellor for Business, Planning, and Finance)

Marian Moffett moved acceptance of the minutes of 4 November with the following changes to be noted: Page 3, line 2, change "liberal arts" to "Humanities/Arts"; and on Page 3, second paragraph, Silverstein's motion be changed in the next-to-the-last sentence to read, "by each college and by each department within it." instead of simply "by each college." With these changes, the minutes were approved.

The minutes of the 21 October and 18 November meetings or the Executive Committee were presented by Moffett.

Lee Humphreys expressed the desire to make available a larger number of general courses, such as those in the University Studies Program, and introduced Ralph Norman to comment further. Norman briefly reviewed the background of the program and announced that a special University Studies Program Committee will look into ways to increase cooperation among departments to allow more such courses.

The question was raised as to whether a foreign language was part of the core requirement. Humphrey's response was no. Bernie Silverstein questioned the loading that "common core" courses would put on various departments. Humphreys acknowledged that this was an immense problem that would have to be considered. Don Williams asked about the history of the University Studies Program. Elizabeth Jones responded that such courses have existed about seven years, and she distributed a model of such a course. Williams then asked what type of students took this course, and Jones and Ralph Norman indicated that students in all disciplines have taken University Studies courses, but those at the senior level tend to be from technical areas. At the freshman level most of the students are from liberal arts.

Several persons who had taught University Studies courses spoke in support of them. It was pointed out by Humphreys that there is a seven percent improvement in retention of freshmen who take University Studies. John Morrow and Bernard Silverstein both questioned the number of hours of University Core courses proposed in the General Education Guidelines, and Humphreys, reply was that the initially proposed hours may not be able to be staffed and funded. Humphreys indicated that no detailed study of the additional loading had been done because it was still uncertain as to how much demand there would be for University Core courses. Kovac and others expressed concern about the inability of the faculty to accept this additional load. Humphreys' response was to ask departments to see if they could incorporate appropriate courses as a regular part of their course offerings.

Tom Hood questioned whether this could, be realized in practice by departments. Benita Howell and several others indicated a need for numerical information on the loading caused by such courses. The general feeling seemed to be that the additional. loading caused by University Studies cannot be handled with our current faculty resources. Paul Pinckney spoke in favor of considering alternatives, such as seminars, instead of University Studies. Kovac and Pinckney both pointed out the need for a student to know at least one professor well. Dave Dungan suggested that departments consider proposing courser, which would also be suitable for students, both within and outside their departments. The concept was supported by John Sebert and Humphreys. Silverstein questioned whether we have the information available to do this now. Lee Dodds questioned how the University Studies fits into the total "core". Moffett's response that University Studies was not the core but just a possible part of the core. Additional comments and questions followed.

Edward Clark requested that a copy of the letter sent by the Executive Committee to the House Ways and Means Committee be included in the next mailing to the Senators. Moffett indicated this will be done.

Moffett announced that the 27 January meeting will be in the Tennessee Auditorium in the University Center since the Shiloh Room will not be available.

Jacking Lawing from the Undergraduate Academic Council presented plans for the Academic Exposition which will be February 24-26 in Rooms 225-227 of the University Center. Faculty were encouraged to contact that office if they have questions about or suggestions for the Exposition.

Jack Reese reviewed the requirements and announced the stipend associated with the Hesler Award for Outstanding Teaching. He then presented the award to Dr. David Tandy, who thanked the Scarabean Society for this recognition.

In the absence of Homer Fisher who was unable to attend due to illness, Jack Reese presented the Governor's recommendations of a 9.3% increase in the state education spending to bring spending up to Full Formula Funding. UTK would receive approximately $278,000 to enhance desegregation and approximately $2,200,000 in equipment funds. Also included would be approximately $5,000,000 for chairs of excellence (UT System-wide) and an average 5% increase in faculty salaries. Fee increases are to be approximately 18% at UTK. In addition, an annual $900,000 was requested by Tennessee Higher Education Commission, which would be distributed on a matching-fund basis with no set distribution recommended. The Budget and Executive Committees of the Faculty Senate will receive details regarding these recommendations.

It was announced that a reception for Dr. Tandy would be held in the Executive Dining Room at the conclusion of the Senate meeting currently in progress.

The Minutes of the 2 December 1985 Senate meeting were approved.

Marian Moffett commented on the minutes of the 6 January 1986 Executive Committee meeting. She especially emphasized in her remarks that faculty with issues they wish to bring to the presidential counselors for presentation to the administration are encouraged to do so. The counselors are Nancy Goslee, Marian Moffett, Joseph Perona, John Sebert and Bernard Silverstein.

Henry Fribourg presented four resolutions from the Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee:

(1) Resolution I -- congratulates the State Insurance Committee for improved premiums. Passed with recommendation that copies of the resolution be sent to appropriate members of the committee.

(2) Resolution II -- encouraging the State Insurance Committee to improve health coverage to apply to all illnesses, regardless of type. Passed with the recommendation that copies of resolution be sent to the Insurance Committee.

Copies of these two resolutions were included in the Senate mailing for the 27 January 1986 meeting.

(3) Resolution III -- regarding the bill H.R. 3838, which would adversely affect retirement benefits for UTK employees. Passed with recommendation that copies be sent to Senators Gore and Sasser and any others who might be influential in preventing damage to faculty retirement.

(4) Resolution IV -- dealing with the benefits for retired employees -- was withdrawn on the recommendation of the UT Retirees Association, which recommended that a committee of the Legislature be set up to study this matter.

Ken Walker reported that the Legislative Committee was in the process of inviting the Speaker of the House, Ned Ray McWherter, to the campus soon to discuss matters of mutual concern to UTK and the State Legislature.

The Senate will meet 10 March to consider curriculum matters. A reply from Senator Sasser in response to the Senate resolution has been received and noted.

Members mistakenly listed as absent on 27 January were: Betty Ruth Carruth, Charles Faires, Tom Hood, John Muldowny, and Bernie Silverstein.

The minutes of the 27 January 1986 meeting were approved as distributed with the addition of the words "of the Legislature" after the word "committee" in the next to the last line of page 2.

John Sebert presented the report of the Educational Policy Committee, which made recommendations for changing the membership of the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils. In summary, these recommendations were as follows:

1. Eligibility of elected and voting members of both Councils would be determined by the same requirements governing eligibility of faculty to serve on the Faculty Senate. Graduate Council members must "regularly teach graduate courses or supervise graduate study."

2. There will be no appointed members of either Council, but chairs of the Councils are free to appoint non-Council members to Council committees, as is the case now with the Senate.

3. College administrative officers with primary responsibility for curricular matters may serve as ex-officio members of either Council, as may the Director of Libraries and the Dean of Continuing Education (or their designates). Ex-officio members do not vote.

4. Apportionment formulas were restated for clarity, but no substantive change from present practice was made. In the Graduate Council, the restated formula would insure that each unit engaged in graduate study would be assured of one seat on the Council.

5. Council members will be elected in the spring, and the term of office will coincide with the academic year cycle.

6. Council members are encouraged to report regularly to their units and to solicit comments from their constituents regarding the activities of the Councils.

7. Implementation of these recommendations is proposed for the 1987-88 academic year, with the new membership requirements to be phased in over a three-year period.

After discussion, the Senate approved these proposals.

Dean Minkel presented the 21 November 1985 Minutes of the Graduate Council. He noted the new Ph.D. program in Computer Science has been approved, and discussion turned to the proposal for a Ph.D. in Modern Foreign Languages. Henry Fribourg moved that on page 3, part D. that the indicated 2+ and 1+ be amended to 3+ and 2+ for demonstrated proficiency. The motion was seconded by Fred Thompkins. Yulan Washburn explained how the FSI tests are conducted, and pointed out that a typical good undergraduate student would receive about a 2+ after approximately 400 hours of training. Minkel suggested that this be referred back to the department for confirmation. Nancy Lauckner pointed out that since the Ph.D. students will be tested in more than one language, then perhaps the 2+ and 1+ were adequate. Don Cox questioned whether numbers should be assigned. The motion was withdrawn with the understanding that this question of scores would be referred back to the department. With that understanding, the remainder of the proposed program passed.

Minkel then brought up the question of no graduate credit being given for semester courses at the 300 level. Ken Walker expressed concern for students taking courses outside their major area where a 300 level course would not be remedial. It was asked whether special cases would be considered, and Minkel indicated that during the transition these special cases would be considered very carefully. The concept was approved.

The Graduate Council Minutes of 21 November 1985 were then approved as distributed.

Lorayne Lester, chair of the Senate Ad hoc Committee on Salary Allocation presented their report. After thanking the committee, Lester pointed out that on the statement on page 5 noting that percentages are rounded to the nearest 1/10 of 1% was not correct.

Major findings of the study include the following:

(1) Both deans and department heads concur that the principal authority for salary decisions ought to be concentrated at the department level.

(2) The relative weight of evaluation criteria is recognized as a problem at the dean's level, but not necessarily seen as a problem at the department head's level.

(3) Department heads observe that the salary allocation process is the most important part of the whole budget procedure at the University, but the time allotted to it grows shorter and more hectic every year. Public announcements of the average increases to be awarded at the University, which in actuality are reduced at every administrative level before they get down to the departments, create serious problems for the department head.

The Committee agrees that these differences and variations do not necessarily imply that there is anything wrong with the salary allocation process at UTK. They do feel, however, that the present study does little to reassure the faculty about the fairness of the process nor does it provide much hard information about how the process functions. And, as one member phrased it, we still perceive a gap between what heads actually do and what the faculty members in their departments think they do. For these reasons, the Committee recommended that the Salary Allocation Study be extended into a third phase to determine whether faculty members' understanding of the process is in fact consistent with current practice. In the interim, the Committee further recommended that faculty be better informed of the administrative priorities at each level of the allocation process, so that faculty members can understand the discrepancies between the Legislature's funding announcements, those from the central or campus administration, and the actual amount of money which department heads eventually receive for distribution to the faculty.

Homer Fisher was appreciative of the input given to the administration by the concerns expressed within this report and indicated that these inputs would be considered. He particularly indicated the problem caused by public announcements of the size of the salary pool without sufficient communication as to its details.

It was moved and passed that this study be advanced to phase three as recommended by the committee.

Ken Walker asked that Athletics Committee of the Senate be informed of the progress in dealing with the recent problem of perks for athletes. Marian Moffett was asked to look into this matter. Paul Pinckney moved that the Senate Faculty request that at least the Senate Athletics Committee chair be included on the Investigating Team. Ken Walker seconded the motion. The motion passed.

There was a request that the Senate be given a report soon on the status of the arena. William Lauer indicated that this will be done.

Phil Scheurer referred to published minutes of the 3 March 1986 Executive Committee as an accurate representation of the investigating committee's activities. Senators are referred to those minutes. With regard to the recent drug abuse inquiry, he added that disciplinary action by the University concerning this is being withheld until the legal aspects are cleared. Since the 3 March meeting, Scheurer has contacted major news organizations across the state, enlisting their assistance in inviting anyone who wished to contact the committee to do so. As of the 10 March, no one had contacted the investigating committee as a result of the media releases. No discrepancy between Athletic Department reports and the committee's findings have thus far been found. Scheurer indicated that the dates published for information to be brought to the committee were not to be limiting, for the committee is open at anytime to information. Kenneth Walker asked who was funding the study and was told that both the Athletic Department and central administration bear this expense through the salaries of persons on the committee. Scheurer indicated that the question of immunity for current athletes has not been resolved. Paul Pinckney expressed concern about the mixture of athletics and central administration in this matter. Scheurer emphasized again that no academic improprieties have been reported.

The minutes of the 17 February meeting were approved with the change on page 3, that it was minutes of the 21 November Graduate Council meeting and not the 31 January 1986 meeting which were approved.

Marian Moffett reviewed the 3 March meeting minutes, which were distributed at the 10 March 1986 meeting. Discussion was directed toward the Semester Calendar proposals. Jeff Kovac questioned whether 3 days was a sufficient study period and whether 120 minutes was sufficient time for final examinations. He suggested 150-minute final examinations. Moffett pointed out that provision was to be made for unit examinations, a practice not available with the current alternatives period. Paul Pinckney pointed out the need to enforce the requirement of a final examination during the examination period, not prior to it. Moffett indicated that a committee would be established to study this and recommend a policy. It was noted that due to Monday Holidays, the total number of meetings for a Monday class is less than for any other day. Diane Garrett reported various possibilities that were considered and pointed out that the 14 week calendar is closer in contact minutes per year to the quarter system than is the 15 week calendar. Ralph Norman indicated that Monday only classes may be extended in time length to compensate for having fewer meetings. Don Cox asked if the Summer term classes were also to be extended in duration, and the indication was that this was the intent. Don Williams questioned whether a two-hour class could fit into the 75-minute time slots, and the response was that they would not need to meet the full period. Henry Fribourg moved that the Senate approve the fifteen-week semester and was seconded by William Grecco. It was pointed out that the Bylaws indicate that the Senate formulates academic policy, but that approval is up to the Chancellor and the Board of Trustees. Norman indicated that there is sufficient support of both calendars and that, under either proposal, consistency will be emphasized with respect to contact minutes per semester and improved conduct of examinations. Howell and Kovac supported an increase in the length of the examination period. Kovac suggested that the 14 week calendar with added time for exams might be a possibility. Moffett proposed that perhaps no action be taken today on this issue. Fribourg withdrew his motion with the understanding that this matter would be taken up at the next Senate meeting. He questioned the justification of Good Friday over other religious holidays, and Paludan indicated that this was a legal holiday in Tennessee.

In the Minutes of the Executive Committee, Clark questioned the statement that GTAs were primarily to support graduate work, not to provide service for undergraduate programs. The reply was that the purpose of graduate assistantships was to allow students to attend graduate school.

John Sebert presented the memorandum of 25 February from this committee. Ralph Norman presented the minutes of the Undergraduate Council of 31 January 15 February. He emphasized in the two items from the minutes:

(1) Both the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils have approved various changes of names or degrees from the College of Human Ecology, making the degree names consistent with the recently approved change in the College.

(2) The Undergraduate Council (at pages 6484-87) approved revisions in the regulations with respect to advanced placement credit to provide, inter alia, that advanced placement credit may no longer be made contingent upon subsequent performance in courses at UTK. Departments retain the right to determine whether to award AP credit, what score to require for granting such credit , and whether the free response section of the examination is to be reviewed prior to the award of AP credit.

Also mentioned was the uniformity of terminology under the semester system. In response to Hood's concern, it was pointed out that "options" would not be included on diplomas. Kovac moved that the Undergraduate Council minutes be approved, and it was seconded by Don Williams.

Frank McCormick spoke in opposition to the change in degree names from Home Economics to Human Ecology. Noting that Human Ecology programs do not require any Ecology courses, he requested that action on this matter be postponed. Nancy Belck responded by indicating that leading universities have or are in the process of changing their programs from Home Economics to Human Ecology. Hood indicated that discussions to resolve differences between ecology and the College of Human Ecology are continuing and asked that this change be approved in good faith. The Undergraduate Council minutes were approved by a vote of 35 to 15.

C. W. Minkel presented the Minutes of the Graduate Council. He spoke to the matter of GTA's being assigned to full responsibility of teaching a course, indicating that the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools is still considering guidelines for this situation.

Minkel then moved on to the minutes of the 31 January Graduate Council. He addressed the particular issue of the name change from Home Economics to Human Ecology. After a one-month study, the Graduate Council curriculum committee recommended the change, and it was passed unanimously by the Graduate Council. He moved that the Graduate Council minutes be approved and the motion passed.

Marian Moffett presented the changes first distributed at the 17 February Senate meeting for Bylaws changes for the Undergraduate Council and Graduate Council. The changes were accepted as published.

Henry Fribourg asked that senators continue to write U.S. Senators Gore, Packwood (Chairman), and Sasser, as well as Representative Duncan, about their concerns for changes in the tax laws which could affect retirement benefits.

The next Faculty Senate meeting is scheduled for 14 April, 1986.

Marian Moffett noted that the following units have not yet reported the election of new Senators: Biomedical Sciences, Engineering, Human Ecology, Social Work, Space Institute, Veterinary Medicine, and Administrative Members.

Kay Reed reported briefly on the statement by Dean Minkel concerning the SACS 18-hour requirement for GTAs, attached to today's agenda.

Yulan Washburn presented a revision in the proposed Ph.D. program in modern foreign languages for those sections concerning the Foreign Service Institute tests, removing the mention of specific scores. The revised version was accepted.

Moffett presented the minutes of the 10 March 1986 meeting which were approved with the following corrections: Page 1, improprieties misspelled; page 3, McCormick misspelled; page 4, Packwood misspelled. The minutes of the 31 March 1986 Executive Committee were approved.

Resolutions concerning the actions of the White Patriot Party were presented by Kathleen Emmett and Bernard Silverstein with the following changes: Resolution 1 -- next to last paragraph ends with "brotherhood, harmony, and equality for all races." Resolution 2 -- next to last paragraph ends with "minimizing the coverage of the group's activities; and" Everett moved and Kovac seconded an amendment to reword this as "by showing professionalism and restraint in coverage of the group's activities; and" and to change the wording of the last sentence "that coverage show professionalism and restraint."

With these amendments, Silverstein moved acceptance of Resolution 2, which includes acceptance of Resolution 1. The motion passed.

Fred Thompkins placed the names of John Morrow and Alex Van Hook for president-elect of the Senate. No further nominations were made from the floor.

Mike Gordon presented a report on the activities of the Senate Athletics Committee. First, it appears that the agreement reached out of court some time ago to have full financial disclosure is being fulfilled. Safety concerns have been checked by the committee with the help of William Grecco a civil engineer and William Laver, an architectural engineer. There was only a mild concern in the financing including eight million dollars from Tennessee State School Bonds which might require a loan to cover. It was emphasized that this would be a loan.

Gordon expressed his appreciation of the administration's open access to requested information.

Henry Fribourg presented the following resolution:

The Faculty and Staff Benefits Committee recommends that the UTK Faculty Senate adopt the following resolution:

Whereas Operation Health Check is a very valuable preventive health maintenance program which has been made available to UTK faculty and staff on an annual basis since 1983, and

Whereas Operation Health Check has been made available to UTK faculty and staff as an institutional service project of the administration, faculty and students of the UTK College of Nursing, and

Whereas the Chancellor's Office, the Department of Food Services, and the Personnel Department have assisted the College of Nursing with Operation Health Check,

Be It Resolved that the UTK Faculty Senate commend and thank the administration, faculty and students of the College of Nursing for their service as the primary sponsors of UTK's Operation Health Check, and

Be It Further Resolved that the UTK Faculty Senate commend and thank the Chancellor's Office, the Department of Food Services and the Personnel Department for their support of Operation Health Check."

It was approved.

To open the discussion, Jeff Kovac moved that we adopt a semester calendar with 14 weeks of instruction, a 4 or 5 day study period, and a 5 or 6 day examination period with 180 minute examinations allowing to certain colleges such as Law and Veterinary Medicine to make minor deviations. Reese asked that perhaps a vote on several possibilities be taken. Silverstein moved an amendment that the issues of periods of instruction, study days, and examination be considered separately. Fribourg pointed out that the dictionary defines a semester traditionally as being eighteen weeks long. Bovill asked the Semester Transition Committee what other institutions were doing and the reply was that they are fairly equally divided between 14 and 15 week terms. Fribourg asked whether the Fall beginning date could be moved back to end the first semester earlier. The reply was yes, but consideration must be given to the summer term which must accommodate the needs of public school teachers as well as the needs of co-op students. Pinckney pointed out that in the proposed 15 week calendar (see Transition issue number 7 dated 4 April, 1986) has no days between the last day of exams and commencement. Russ Rowlett proposed that we should first decide the total number of weeks in a semester, then consider how it is to be divided. Vernon Reich supported this. Lynn Cunningham asked if the problem of fewer Monday classes had been considered; Humphreys' reply was that it has been considered, but no solution has come forth.

Kovac agreed to have his motion broken into parts. The Senate voted to support a semester having a total length of sixteen weeks, including instruction, study, and examination days. A proposal to have 180 minute exams failed. A proposal to support 120 minute exams passed, but there was also some support for 150 minute exams. On the matter of the length of the instructional period, a show of hands indicated 27 people supporting 14 weeks, 36 supporting 14 1/2 weeks, and 29 in favor of 15 weeks. Reese thanked the Senate for its consensus.