Site Index

Greenberg and Hodges reported that everyone asked to be on the Advisory Council for the presidential search has accepted. Hodges noted that there is to be a Web site for the search. Greenberg noted that two individuals on the Executive Council's list, but not on the administration's list, are on the Council.

Greenberg reported next that faculty searches are being approved after careful consideration. A 2.5% pay raise is expected. A committee will study where cuts might be made.

Greenberg is trying to schedule Special Topics meetings. L. Crabtree hopes to attend most of them. He also wants to hold Faculty/Administrator Dialogues at 3:00 p.m. before each Faculty Senate meeting. These events will be open to all faculty and will be held in the Shiloh Room.

The Senate retreat will be September 22-23, 2001, at Fairfield Glade. The Executive Committee should be there by 4:00 p.m. on the 22nd.

Greenberg asked for volunteers for the planning committee. Birdwell, Lyons, and Höyng said they would serve.

Next, Greenberg reported that G. Wheeler and G. Schneider would like to meet with the Executive Council between August 16 and September 3. She will try to schedule a meeting.

Greenberg said committee chairs need to sign up for the meetings to discuss committee objectives for the year. She circulated a sign-up sheet.

Greenberg distributed a list of recommendations concerning the search and began a discussion of them. Item 1 called for an energetic national search. All agreed. B. Lyons expressed concern about the problem of being able to discuss candidates before a list of finalists is created. M. Miller suggested depending upon the Advisory Council, since many candidates do not wish to have their applications made public. T. Galligan spoke in favor of making public the names of candidates before the finalists are named. Miller believes the Board of Trustees is unlikely to agree. Last time the Advisory Council knew only the finalists. T. Hood said that wide discussion is desirable, but suggested that if a set of criteria could be developed through wide discussion and if any head-hunting firm would agree to use those criteria and to show that it has, then the faculty would have done well. K. Sowers suggested that a subset of the Advisory Council might be involved in the screening process. B. Howell suggested that statements by candidates on a small number of important matters could be provided without names attached; various groups then could comment on those statements. M. Combs made several comments and, in particular, noted that three head-hunting firms would be interviewed this Friday and encouraged members of the Executive Council to participate. Greenberg reported that E. Fly believes the governor does want a very open search. T. Hood asked whether the Board has committed to use a head-hunting firm and whether such a firm might be directed to provide names to the Advisory Council first. Miller noted that last time the head-hunting firm simply provided a list of those candidates who met the specified requirements.

Miller next commented that last time the Advisory Council influenced the job description and the announcement which was distributed. He also commented that the Board was more open to faculty input than many think. B. Lyons asked whether the job description should be changed to reflect the current president-provost arrangement.

Birdwell said he does not see the faculty role as restricted to criteria; it should extend to procedures. He suggested that academicians here or elsewhere should evaluate candidates' records. Hood agreed that someone must monitor the head-hunting firm and suggested the Advisory Council or a subcommittee of it as a monitor. Any head-hunting firm should describe its quality-control procedures to guarantee that all nominations are pursued and none is allowed to slip between the cracks. Birdwell also suggested that offices could be set up on or near the various campuses for a limited number of designated faculty to review copies of all application materials while those documents remain under control of the head-hunting firm.

J. Gehlhar expressed support for Howell's idea of anonymous comments from the candidates and asked how the mechanics could be handled. Miller then noted that the Advisory Council must obtain adequate staff support.

Greenberg then proceeded with the remainder of the recommendations. It was agreed that the Advisory Council must be centrally involved in (not "in charge of") the screening process and should write the job description and announcement. Item 4 was seen as introductory material. It was agreed that the Executive Committee (rather than the entire Faculty Senate) should meet with the finalists. The idea that no person without faculty endorsement should be appointed was viewed as something that should be included in item 4. Item 7 was viewed as appropriate, but there was concern about the appropriateness of item 8 and it is to be pursued in another way. A ninth recommendation was read by Greenberg. It concerned educating everyone in the state about the process and involving many faculty. Sowers noted that rushing candidates through campus visits may be counter-productive. Greenberg wondered whether faculty could be forewarned that candidates will visit at certain times, but without any candidate being named until almost time for the visit. Lyons suggested that someone on the Advisory Council should be involved in site visits.

The Council next turned to the UTK Faculty Senate statement adopted October 19, 1998. It was decided that the material concerning "the most common procedure" under Search Procedures is not relevant until after this search. Under Selection Criteria the topics academic excellence, UT's being a land-grant institution and electronically enhanced education were added. Greenberg and Hodges will compose the new letter and seek comments.

Minutes of the July 18th and August 1, 2001, meetings of the Executive Council were approved.

Greenberg called attention to an e-mail from Linda Weaver in the handouts. It notes that the 2.5% across the board salary raise is mandated by the Appropriations Bill.

Greenberg welcomed Crabtree and gave him an opportunity to speak. He said that he very much believes in shared governance. He then said that an $8 ­ 9 million budget set-aside for the Knoxville campus is expected to be announced today by Warren Neal, Commissioner of Finance. He noted that Greenberg will serve on a committee to look at these budget matters. He also said that he would like to have budget numbers available to everyone on campus. He expressed sympathy toward the living wage concern.

Crabtree next spoke about setting an agenda for the University this year. He believes doing so is imperative, particularly when a presidential search is in progress. In response to a question from Greenberg, he said that he believes a set-aside on the order of $8-9 million can be found without reducing the academic programs. He believes that faculty must set academic priorities. B. Lyons noted that outsourcing services can save the University money, but cost the State more money and reduce the level of services. Crabtree responded that he understands and that outsourcing is not being considered. In response to another question he said that the recent publicity about undergraduate education does not mean any backing off on research.

Crabtree next said that the retreat should work on an agenda for the institution. He cannot guarantee that all ideas can be pursued. Possibilities he mentioned include sabbaticals, course-banking, improving the honors program, budget management and proper allocation of funds, campus organization, influencing the presidential search, and taking advantage of opportunities at Oak Ridge. Mary Papke commented that there is a tremendous need to educate the public about what UT does. Crabtree responded that President Fly has started a long-term program for improving UT's image and is hoping that some influential friends of UT will try to talk with legislators about the institution before the next legislative session. Lyons suggested using the Jumbotron at football games to present the University in a positive way.

Hodges said that a Website for the search should be available in a few days. Also, a time-line for the search is being developed and the Advisory Council is planning to meet in person with a representative of the headhunting firm for the search. Papke noted that extensive faculty participation in the search should help efforts to influence the search. Getting access to all faculty through e-mail would be an important step. There was a brief discussion of strategy for doing so. Greenberg noted that George Wheeler and others want to have a faculty forum on the search and asked about having a forum on Faculty Senate activities and topics of current interest. M. Combs noted that he will interview Crabtree for the Faculty Senate Newsletter and invited written questions for him to ask.

Greenberg noted that the retreat in now scheduled for the UT Conference Center on September 22 and 23rd. She called attention to the handout listing seven possible focus areas. The list probably is too long. There should be an emphasis on an agenda for this year. Greenberg asked for suggestions to be sent to the planning committee. Lyons said that having input about the top three or four topics would be most helpful. D. Birdwell pointed out that Crabtree's list contained some topics not on the handout.

Greenberg said that the Arts and Sciences Convocation is August 27th when the Executive Committee is to meet. It was decided that the Executive Committee will try to meet at 130 that day.

Greenberg said that the Faculty Senate has been offered Room 203 in the University Center and asked for an appropriate name. There was general agreement that "Faculty Senate" is appropriate. There was concern about security for any records kept in the room. F. Weber suggested using a card-reader for access. S. Wallace suggested scheduling the room through the University Center as a way to control usage. P. Höyng suggested "Faculty Senate Meeting Room" as a more appropriate name. There was general agreement.

Greenberg noted that an overview and a schedule for these meetings were distributed in her handout. These meetings provide an opportunity to share faculty views and to dialogue with appropriate administrators about issues, possibly resulting in action plans. Sometimes current hot topics may replace previously scheduled topics. Committee chairs may suggest topics and which committee members should attend. Lyons suggested looking at Faculty Senate resolutions from recent years and seeing what has been done in response; such a search probably will yield good topics. Greenberg noted that the Senate Website is a good resource.

Greenberg briefly reviewed the general plans. M. Combs suggested talking about communication among faculty and between faculty and administrators. Höyng thought the topic would come under topic 5, Future vision for the Faculty Senate. B. Robinson suggested broadening the communication to include others groups than faculty and administrators. Papke and M. Peterson suggested listing sub-topics for each topic. There was a general discussion topics to emphasize and topics to deal with in another setting. M. Moffett suggested having a short list of broad topics with subtopics, some of which would be highlighted as more critical. Supporting Crabtree's interests also should be a key in determining the topics. In response to a question, Greenberg said that the product of the retreat should be actual plans for achieving goals. Facilitators and others should keep the discussions looking forward, and not allow them to become "gripe sessions."

Lyons reviewed the Retreat Planning Committee's outline for the Faculty Senate Retreat. Faculty members who are listed as facilitators for focus groups have committed to serve in that capacity, however, administrators listed, as facilitators have not yet been contacted. The list of key participants under each focus group is to insure informed discussion within the group for that focus area. Greenberg clarified that this is an interactive retreat, not a series of presentations to be given by key participants. Thus, key participants will not be designated in the retreat materials.

Lyons asked for members of the Executive Committee to volunteer to be recorders for each of the focus groups. The following people volunteered:

Fred Weber: Undergraduate Issues
Tom Hood: Research/Graduate Issues
David Patterson: Faculty Issues
Karen Sowers: University Issues

Several suggestions were made for additions under the topic of Undergraduate Issues. Yoder suggested that issues around admissions and recruiting procedures be added, Spicuzza suggested looking at retention of students, and Hood suggested adding standards for student performance.

Under the area of Research/Graduate Issues, Weber suggested the addition of admissions of foreign students, Hood suggested the relationship between Research Centers and other elements of the University, and many people agreed that graduate student salaries should be a subtopic. Birdwell suggested adding Sylvia Davis and Arlene Garrison to the list of key participants and Lyons suggested dividing Ray Hamilton and Sylvia Davis among the focus groups. Lyons also stated that he would contact Peter Alfonso regarding a possible representative from his office. Crabtree suggested adding Dwayne McCay to the list of key participants.

Suggestions for additions to the list of Faculty Issues key participants included: Hood recommended Frank Leuthold, Glenn recommended Milton Kline, Combs recommended Bill Fox. David Patterson and Ron Yoder were also suggested as people to include. Miller stated the need to have a discussion on the problem of UT being a "multi-site" campus and suggested that Loren Crabtree talk about the need for presenting a unified voice. Lyons said that he will discuss this with Clif Woods and asked Miller for suggestions on dealing with that issue. Crabtree suggested involving Bob Levy in the matter. Peterson commented that the multi-site issue is likely to come up in all focus areas. Weber suggested that this focus group also look at the impact on contingent faculty, including professional development and faculty salaries. Crabtree suggested adding the topic of post-tenure review.

Greenberg mentioned the articles in the May/June 2001 issue of Academe on shared governance, "in it together" as a theme for the retreat.

Lyons suggested the addition of Bill Fox to the University Issues focus group. Moffett wanted to add the subtopic of University structure, based on what Crabtree discussed at the last Executive Committee meeting. Crabtree suggested adding Tom Ballard to the list of key participants.

Lyons reviewed the Planning Committee's timetable, noting that the basic schedule has been determined and they are now waiting on confirmation of the keynote speaker. In response to suggestions of possible speakers, Papke recommended Mary Brigand and Hood recommended James Richardson from University of Nevada. Combs asked whether any state representatives were invited and Patterson suggested that representatives might take discussions at the retreat out of context. It was generally agreed that members of the State Legislature would not be invited. Greenberg suggested inviting Linda Weaver for purposes of internal public relations. Moffett suggested that John Clark might be better in that capacity and others agreed. Miller suggested adding Clark as a key participant in the University Issues focus group.

Lyons explained that focus group information would be sent to all participants once attendance has been confirmed. He asked that all committee chairs send him any relevant reports that should be included in literature about the focus groups. Papke suggested that any reports or other relevant material should be condensed to one-page summaries so that people are able to read them all in a timely manner. Greenberg added a reminder that committee charges for the year are due to her as soon as possible in order for them to be ready for the retreat.

Greenberg asked for volunteers to take part in the Senate Orientation meeting. The parliamentarian will be giving a presentation and Parliamentary Procedure pamphlets will be handed out.

Greenberg reminded everyone that agenda items for the September 17th meeting need to be to Sharonne Winston by Sept. 6th. She recommended that committees planning on proposing full senate action on any items during the fall semester might want to be present at the first meeting.

Combs commented that he would put a summary of Grady Bogue's Report on the Undergraduate Experience in the Faculty Senate Newsletter. Pierce suggested that the Bogue report be included under the focus group on Undergraduate Issues and that Bogue should be invited to participate.

Crabtree mentioned that he would be discussing the agenda for this year at the Pre-Senate Open Conversation with the Provost, which begins at 3:00 on Sept. 17th. Greenberg emphasized that this is an open conversation, not a lecture-type interaction.

Greenberg reported that she would be sending a request to Deans and Department Heads regarding Executive Committee meeting times in the hope that there will be no confusion in the future. Greenberg also announced that there is a decorating meeting on Tuesday, August 28, at 10:30 to discuss decorating the Faculty Senate Conference Room in the UC.

Greenberg called for suggestions as to what she should report on at the Academic Affairs Planning Meeting on Wednesday, August 29th. Lyons suggested reiterating the work that has come out of the Senate in recent years, along with supplying a list of URLs. Papke suggested looking over resolutions to report on the underlying concerns. Patterson suggested Faculty Handbook issues (this was agreed upon by many). Peterson suggested the issue of putting policies in place for Distance Education. Hood emphasized the need for continuity in order to make sure that accomplishments from past years are not lost. Greenberg asked that each committee chair put together a short list of important items from her/his committee and email these to her ASAP.

Greenberg suggested that one use of the special topics meetings could be to address past Senate resolutions. She asked that committee chairs look at special topics meeting dates and request to present one or more resolutions. This should help with continuity. Birdwell expressed a concern that the University's search engine may create the possibility that information is being lost from the Senate website. Glenn commented that all website information is saved on his hard drive.

The Senate Open Forum meeting is scheduled for September 7, 2001. The executive committee agreed that 12:00 noon would be an appropriate starting time and that it will be a "brown bag" meeting. Glenn, Combs, Peterson, Patterson, and Lyons all said they could be present for the meeting. Greenberg will try to reserve the Shiloh Room.

Loren Crabtree and Eli Fly have both mentioned to Greenberg the need for work to be done on the faculty handbook. Moffett asked if there is a need for one handbook that represents all campuses, and suggested that this would necessitate a great deal of consultation with the other campuses. Papke suggested that each campus have its own section of the handbook, with major policies applying to all campuses and tying the handbook together. Peterson commented that this issue is important to the Faculty Senate because Memphis has a separate Senate all its own. Combs and Hood both expressed the need for information about which administrators are responsible for working on the handbook and whether or not it is being put on hold until a new President is hired. Glenn clarified that Katie High had originally set up a task force to look at the issues surrounding an update of the handbook, but it never took action. Greenberg expressed the hope that the Senate could recommend members to such a task force if one is set up in the future. Papke suggested Bob Glenn and Greenberg seconded the recommendation. Papke suggested that Glenn and appropriate committee chairs go through the handbook to identify issues that need to be changed. Moffett suggested that Trustees should let faculty know which sections are to be redone, as the Trustees give the final approval of the handbook. It was agreed upon by all that the handbook should be printed and not available only online.

Hood asked whether new faculty appointments were receiving copies of the handbook at their orientation. Greenberg added that there is a need for the Faculty Senate and AAUP to be represented at this orientation. Faye Julian and Linda Painter were identified as those responsible for planning the new faculty orientation.

Lyons reported that Ray Hamilton forwarded him the figures associated with employee salaries and raises, and that if all UT employees received an equal raise, the amount would be $810.00.

Hodges reported that the Presidential Search Advisory Council would have a videoconference August 29th. The position description will also be completed this week. The Search Committee will meet September 1st and Hodges felt that the consultant that was hired seemed open to working with faculty members.

The minutes from the August 15, 2001 meeting of the Executive Council were approved.

Greenberg explained the need for nominations of faculty to serve on some committees being set up by the Task Force for Reallocation. Many of the committees concern reorganization and consolidation. The effort is not intended to eliminate faculty positions, but rather to free up funds for more faculty positions. Identifying current strengths is another aspect of the effort. The Provost's Office will decide which faculty will serve on the committees. The "plan for planning" is to be complete by October 15. A report on changes to be implemented will be provided to the state by January 1, 2002.

T. Hood noted that faculty involved in recent departmental reviews might be "natural" nominees to serve on committees. M. Miller noted that if faculty from outside an area have to try to discuss topics with administrators from the area, then the faculty will have a distinct disadvantage. P. Höyng said that merging two units does not guarantee effectiveness. B. Robinson reported that the provost informed the School of Information Sciences that it would not continue to stand alone. In response to a question from D. Birdwell, Greenberg said that the Space Institute and the Memphis campus will have their own review committees.

Greenberg reported that associate deans are being viewed by the administration as faculty members on the committees. Birdwell suggested that each program considered by a committee be allowed to suggest faculty members. Greenberg said her suggestion of that approach has been rejected. Höyng commented that the focuses of the committees really should be topics for discussion at the Faculty Senate retreat.

Birdwell moved that the Executive Committee recommend that all the faculty members on the committees should be tenured faculty. M. Peterson seconded the motion. J. Trahern said he would emphasize having the faculty members not be administrators. Miller proposed to amend the resolution to allow only tenured faculty who are not appointed to administrative positions above the level of department head. The amendment was accepted by Birdwell and Peterson and then the amended resolution was approved.

Höyng moved that the Executive Committee inform the administration that

The Faculty Senate Executive Committee (FSEC) wants to express its concerns regarding the all too sudden request by the UT administration to provide names of faculty members for their eleven Task Forces on Reallocation. The Senate Executive Committee believes that this request without prior consultation and or discussion goes against the spirit of shared governance, which is also the theme of the first Faculty Senate Retreat. Thus, the Senate Executive Committee would have liked to see this important issue brought up and discussed at the Faculty Senate Retreat.

Höyng's motion was passed.

The process of identifying nominees was begun next.

For the first committee Miller nominated M. Berry of Computer Science and M. Moffett. For the second committee Moffett nominated B. Lyons and Hood nominated Alan Wallace. Moffett also nominated J. Simek. F. Weber nominated J. Collier. For the third committee R. Yoder nominated S. Oliver, Birdwell nominated J. White and Peterson nominated K. Davis. For the fourth committee F. Weber nominated R. Parsons, Hood nominated S. Kurth and C. Glisson, Greenberg nominated D. Patterson. For the fifth committee Höyng nominated C. Nakuma, Moffett nominated M. Robinson and Yoder nominated M. Mullen. For the sixth committee Hood nominated D. Dungan and S. Sorenson, Miller nominated G. Graber, Gehlhar nominated M. Pigliucci, Hood nominated G. Burkhart, R. Yoder nominated R. Raman and Moffett nominated M. Littman. For the seventh committee C. Hodges nominated V. Liulevicius, Weber nominated J. Trahern, Peterson nominated S. Huck, Birdwell nominated Wm. Wade, Hodges nominated M. Papke, Moffett nominated O. Welch, and B. Glenn nominated N. Cook. For the eighth committee Höyng nominated A. Dunn, Moffett nominated T. Hood and Miller nominated B. Glenn. For the ninth committee Weber nominated W. Hines, Hood nominated N. Greenberg and Moffett nominated S. Benner. For the tenth committee Greenberg nominated M. Moffett and R. Yoder, Höyng nominated T. Broadhead, Moffett nominated T. Hood and Greenberg nominated M. Woodside. For the eleventh committee Moffett nominated L. Phillips and Yoder nominated D. Yoder.

B. Glenn moved that Greenberg communicate to the administration the Committee's feelings that this procedure is not good management or genuine shared governance. The motion had many seconds and was approved unanimously.

Minutes of the August 27, 2001, and September 13, 2001, meetings of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee were approved without change.

Retreat Feedback: Greenberg reported that she has had some positive feedback, but there are no numbers from the survey at this time. A report is planned.

Shared-Governance Survey: Greenberg said that the survey used previously by a small number of faculty and administrators is ready to go on the Web for a broader group to use. M. Moffett questioned whether it is useful to survey more people. B. Lyons thought it would be most useful to involve those who have been involved in the Faculty Senate. B. Glenn spoke in favor of carefully reviewing the survey and getting permission from its creator to use it more generally. B. Robinson agreed.

Reallocation Update: Greenberg asked Provost Crabtree to comment about the possibility of a forum. He noted that the $1.6 million set-aside is now an impoundment and reported that the amount may go to about $8 million. In the latter case, funds not yet spent will have to be held. Crabtree hopes that reallocation funds will be lumped together and then redirected. After October 15 there will be an effort to have discussions with various groups about the reallocation schematic he hopes to develop by the 15th. T. Galligan said his task force is working on options or scenarios. Crabtree noted that some task forces may issue only one directive and that the charges of several task forces overlap. Crabtree indicated that he would create a reallocation update for general distribution. Robinson noted the importance of communicating facts before rumors develop and spread.

Archiving Senate Documents in Library: Greenberg asked for and received approval to pursue the idea of archiving Senate documents in the library.

Open Conversation October 15th, 2:30-3:30: Greenberg would like to have a truly open forum on tax reform with Senator Rochelle. She would like to have an overflow crowd of students, staff and faculty. Lyons urged that copies of T. Ballard's handouts at the retreat be distributed at the forum. T. Hood noted that personal invitations are most effective in getting people to attend.

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-California) has announced she will introduce soon legislation which will have a drastic impact on the flow of foreign students to U.S. educational institutions. Gehlhar noted that there are many countries eager to take the students now coming to the U.S. He said that individuals and groups concerned about these proposals should contact their senators soon. Moffett and S. DiMaria noted that most of the proposed requirements are doable, but expressed concern about the proposal for burdensome new INS admission procedures and the proposal for a six-month moratorium on foreign student visas. D. Birdwell agreed that the committee should respond and should emphasize those two proposals. A motion that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the Provost's Office send a joint letter to Senator Feinstein and to Tennessee's Senators was approved. Robinson suggested that the letter begin with the benefits to the U.S. of having foreign students.

Greenberg asked that everyone read this agenda item and that committee chairs submit materials for the next Faculty Senate meeting by this Wednesday.

Greenberg discussed several handouts concerning action plans proposed at the retreat. Action plans to be worked on will be selected and progress reports will be made to the Faculty Senate. Greenberg noted that two groups already are working on the UT/Batelle Relationship and on the Honors Program. It was decided that the Honors Program focus should be scrapped, but the group should send its report to the reallocating task force on the Honors Program. The Research Council is trying to generate discussion between ORIT, the faculty and certain individuals at Oak Ridge. Crabtree noted that the State also is a player along with UT, Batelle and Oak Ridge. Birdwell noted that there are other players as well. There was general agreement to remove UT/Batelle as a focus area and to rely upon the Research Council.

Greenberg next noted that she had added "Instruction with Technology Policies" as an Action Plan Focus. M. Peterson commented that her existing committee already is working on the matter. It was agreed to keep this focus, but to have Peterson's committee deal with it. P. Höyng suggested assigning the various focus areas to existing committees. Greenberg said that that is her intent with the groups and individuals she listed as responsible for each focus. Action plans are designed to facilitate involvement of other appropriate entities and to highlight the new process being established. Peterson, Birdwell and Lyons asked that their committees and council be added to the Contingent Faculty focus area. Birdwell suggested moving "carry over" from External Funding Policies & Procedures to Research Infrastructure F & A Distribution and noted that D. McKay said he would correct the other matter under External Funding Policies & Procedures; thus, that focus may be deleted. Birdwell also suggested adding "Technical Advisory Committee on High Performance Computing" as the first responsible group for High Performance Computing. Galligan recalled N. Cook's suggestion to change the focus area titled "Diversity" to "Diversity and Equity." Crabtree suggested that the various groups should focus on policies. Greenberg noted that the Task Force on Process for Shared Governance must be concerned with implementation of procedures and operations as well as policy. Crabtree agreed.

M. Papke suggested that the materials the committee has worked with today be updated and posted on the Web as works in progress. Birdwell suggested first getting comments from the Faculty Senators. P. Pierce suggested having a preamble for those who did not attend the retreat. Höyng suggested having a Web page that provides minimal information on what is happening with links to other pages for greater detail. Robinson suggested that ad hoc committees provide information soon and tell faculty how they can make comments and suggestions.

Greenberg reported on a recent meeting of Faculty Senate officers for all state funded universities. At the meeting, a task force was formed to plan a Tennessee Universities Faculty Senates Association. Information on how senates function was shared. She noted that most of the attendees thought their groups would also support the voting commitment on the Knoxville website. The group decided to meet twice a year. A second meeting will be scheduled for early spring semester. Greenberg next reported that there soon will be an announcement about faculty involvement in the reallocation process. Finally she noted that information on committee charges and progress reports was distributed at the meeting.

Reynolds distributed copies of a letter and a report submitted to Chancellor Snyder in March, 1999. The report concerns religious diversity. There has been no response to the report from Snyder or his successors. Reynolds reviewed some of the recommendations in the report and expressed his hope that the Executive Committee might obtain an official response to it. It was decided to use the report as a basis for a special topics meeting and to have a report by Reynolds at the next Faculty Senate meeting where the full Senate would be asked to vote on a general endorsement of the report.

Combs distributed copies of the Faculty Senate membership and asked that each person nominate two persons in each category. The ballots were collected.

Greenberg reported that the idea of the forum is to have members of the Knox County delegation hold a conversation with several faculty members in the UC ballroom from 5:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. on November 27, 2001. The audience will be able to submit questions or comments. The request to co-sponsor was approved.

Hodges reported that the search committee met in Nashville this morning. A description of qualifications for the presidency was well received and will be made public. A schedule and plans for the selection process were presented and also will be announced. Plans for the transition also were discussed. It is hoped that a selection can be made about March 1, 2002. Eighty to one hundred applications are anticipated. Compared to the last search, faculty is definitely involved in the screening process. B. Lyons expressed hope that the finalists would have to answer a common set of questions related to faculty concerns and that their answers would be posted on the web before their campus visits. K. Greenberg recommended reading the job specifications that will be posted on the Selection of a President website, and soon developing questions that will provide information not included in this list.

Task Force on Shared Governance (M. Miller)

Miller noted that he provided a written report and agreed to make an oral report at the next Faculty Senate meeting.

Task Force on Faculty Handbook (M. Moffett)

Moffett reported that the task force has not yet met, but that preliminary preparations are being made. Combs noted that Hilltopics reproduces parts of the Faculty Handbook and urged that the task force make sure Hilltopics is updated.

Budget Committee (B. Lyons)

Lyons provided a written report and briefly reviewed it. Making the budget more transparent is a major goal of the committee. He also noted that he had distributed a possible resolution on pay schedules only for reading, not for action. There may be a resolution for action later, but discussions on the matter are continuing in an effort to work collaboratively with administrative offices.

Faculty Affairs Committee (D. Patterson)

Patterson reported that a survey of those who have undergone cumulative review is being prepared and the committee is interacting with the Task Force on Contingent Employment. He also briefly reviewed other items in the committee's list of charges.

Instruction with Technology Subcommittee (M. Peterson)

Peterson reported a letter has been sent to the Provost's Office and the Office of Information Technology and could be distributed with the agenda for the next Faculty Senate meeting. The committee is consulting with CARS about its antiquated system for scheduling classes.

Research Council (D. Birdwell)

Birdwell noted that he has provided a fairly large packet of information, some of which he quickly reviewed. He noted that the Council has had two lively meetings. Lack of faculty input into certain major decisions continues to be a primary concern. He hopes the Council will recommend establishing a Strategic Planning Group on Computing and Networking.

International Education Committee (J. Gehlhar)

Gehlhar noted that he provided a list of duties at the meeting. There was a brief discussion of legislative and other moves in Washington, DC, concerning international students. Committee members were uncertain about the status of this legislation.

Athletics Committee (P. Pierce)

Pierce noted that the committee has suggested using an "open conversation" before a Senate meeting to invite several coaches to discuss the academic/athletics balance.

Library Committee (B. Robinson)

Robinson reported that the committee has discussed the cost increases for journals, automated library systems and the library budget. A serious problem is the current budget, which still is not entirely known. Birdwell cautioned that federal agencies are talking about cutting library support on the grounds that digitization should be saving money.

Greenberg reported that T. Galligan did a marvelous job chairing the Forum with the Knox County Delegation to the General Assembly. Six legislators participated. No definite plan for dealing with funding was presented. M. Moffett suggested that a court case might be necessary to force the State to fund higher education. F. Weber responded that the existing court directives for state funding of activities deal with activities named in the constitution, which does not mention higher education. Greenberg noted that the higher education community needs to educate the public better than it previously has. B. Robinson said that supporters of higher education that are not part of higher education need to do the educating and lobbying. S. DiMaria said he believes the legislators know higher education needs funding, but cannot agree how to do so.

Greenberg next reported that B. Glenn has decided to end his service as Webmaster (she proposed having a reception for him to thank him for all the service he has done). She proposed asking that a permanent staff member be assigned as Webmaster. Weber recommended still having someone associated with the Faculty Senate as Webmaster to direct the work of such a staff member. M. Peterson suggested using Blackboard and suggested Greenberg contact J. Little. B. Lyons suggested asking Glenn to describe exactly what he is doing now, to estimate the time required and to suggest what should be done.

Greenberg noted that this topic needs to be considered with the next agenda topic, Strategic Planning, including the questions of what can be accomplished in the Senate this spring, implications of the new process regarding a time line for these accomplishments, and tentative Special Topics meetings. It was suggested that the December 17, 2001, meeting on Faculty's Role in Development be delayed until more faculty are likely to participate.

The committee then reviewed the reports of the Action Plan Task Forces. Lyons recalled the question of L. Gross about exactly which activities and areas shared governance concerns. Peterson agreed and noted that committees on instruction and technology are appointed regularly without half of the members being faculty, as recommended by a policy approved by the Faculty Senate.

For the Task Force on Handbook Revisions, Moffett reported that a meeting is scheduled with the Provost and a representative of the Office of Legal Counsel; she hopes to get answers to some fundamental questions about who is covered by the Faculty Handbook under the new organizational structure; that is, exactly who are we? P. Höyng suggested that the answers may have to wait for a new president. In response to a question from T. Hood, Moffett said she believes the handbook should include faculty at Knoxville and the agricultural people. She and Greenberg both favored moving ahead. Peterson suggested that there might be a broadly applicable handbook core with special supplements for the various groups. Hood suggested starting to write common section with other campuses, if there is support for the idea. Moffett suggested that administrators from the various campuses should discuss the matter first.

Lyons reported on the topic of budgetary transparency. He is working with the Faculty Senate Budget Committee and Sylvia Davis. He encouraged members of the Executive Committee to attend budget hearings, so that the faculty will have a presence. He would like to have a faculty member formally involved in the decision-making that occurs after the hearings. J. Trahern noted that non-academic vice-presidents will object that faculty have no right to influence decisions about their area's funding levels. Galligan suggested obtaining access to the budget materials of the colleges. Lyons responded that the Budget Committee does get them.

Robinson noted that library funding is an on-going concern and there is no special need to discuss it now. He noted that Crabtree is very knowledgeable about libraries and the dean is very good at using the resources available. However, the financial situation is not improving.

B. Howell reported that the Professional Leave Task Force should have a document for the Faculty Senate early next year.

Galligan reported for Tax Reform/Funding that the committee will be done when there is tax reform and funding.

Greenberg reported that a chair is needed for the Outreach and Communication group. Lyons asked whether anyone has pursued the idea of using Jumbotron to promote higher education. Trahern said that a presentation about J. Dongarra's work was made at a crucial point in one football game this fall. Galligan reported that at least three administrators are gathering information about how the various colleges are benefiting the state. Robinson suggested having the outreach and communication efforts handled by the Legislative Committee. Galligan said he would try to find out what information has been collected.

Lyons read some data about trends in the production of student credit hours by various groups of teachers. Weber noted that the data is very muddy. Hood expressed his hope that the group on Contingent Faculty will speak with some contingent faculty about how they are hired, assigned courses, evaluated, and rewarded. He would like also to have a report on why department heads hire contingent faculty.

Mike Combs reported that another issue of the newsletter is in the mail.

Greenberg asked for corrections to the minutes of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee meeting of December 3, 2001. No one had a correction and the minutes were approved without change.

Greenberg reported that the Senate will be involved in the budget process this spring. The "flow chart" will be used this term and everyone should keep it readily available. At Greenberg's request, A. Mayhew reported that she understands that there will be a 3.5% raise pool for merit raises. Cumulative Review raises will be deducted from the pool. In response to a question from B. Lyons, Mayhew said she understands that one aspect in forming the pool and in getting approval of the Board of Trustees was the fact that salaries of some segments of the faculty are quite far out of line with national averages in their areas.

After a brief discussion it was decided to hold the semester's Faculty Senate meetings in the Law School. Greenberg noted that tomorrow night she and T. Galligan will make a presentation to the League of Women Voters on the need for better funding of higher education. She next proposed that there be a rule for Faculty Senate meetings that there be no "word-smithing" on proposals before the Senate; there would be an opportunity to table matters that need more work. T. Hood noted that Greenberg can rule whether a suggestion is a matter of substance and then faculty senators may object to her ruling. Lyons and Weber noted the value of not voting on matters on the first reading. Both observed that there are time-sensitive matters that must be considered promptly. M. Combs suggested that the shared governance group and the Bylaws Committee should consider the matter. Greenberg noted that using the "flow-chart process" should help this matter.

Galligan briefly described the plans for and purposes of the rally. It is desired to have the Faculty Senate endorse co-sponsor the rally, which is not intended to push a particular reform. It is intended to push state legislators to deal with the problem. Rallies are to be held in other Tennessee communities. A motion to endorse/co-sponsor was approved.

Birdwell briefly described an e-mail on the SAP/IRIS situation; copies of the e-mail were distributed at the meeting. Bi-weekly salary checks and limitations on transfers of funds between accounts were the primary topics. Birdwell noted that he is aware of eight to ten issues that really need to be addressed. There was general agreement that financial officers are making policies without understanding the problems of those who have to deal with the policies. Lyons noted that the shift of everyone to bi-weekly salary checks has been postponed indefinitely and that the Research Council has identified many problems with the SAP/IRIS situation. Weber reiterated his observation that few "end-users," both faculty and staff, have been included in the decision-making process. Birdwell noted that a web site of the Strategic Planning group will be used to collect descriptions of problems with SAP/IRIS. Hood forcefully criticized the incredible delays in billing of contracts.

Galligan noted that one candidate has asked about coming on campus to speak to faculty. One possibility is to invite all candidates to speak before Faculty Senate meetings. S. DiMaria asked about hosting a debate. Galligan noted that it does not need to be an either-or matter. D. Patterson suggested inviting candidates this term and holding a forum or debate later. M. Moffett suggested that the students are in a better position to invite candidates and the Faculty Senate could offer them support. J. Trahern said he does not see why we need to spend funds on candidates. Birdwell spoke in favor of a debate format in the fall sponsored by the students. Lyons urged the Executive Committee to use the times before Faculty Senate meetings to discuss university issues that arose in the retreat. It was agreed to try to work through the students on the matter of visits by gubernatorial candidates. Birdwell suggested involving the state's public television stations, which he believed would be interested in broadcasting a debate.

Mayhew briefly reviewed the history of the "titles mess." Use of certain titles has been inconsistent across campus. Mayhew summarized a draft report distributed at the meeting. She expressed the feeling that a final decision on titles should be made soon and noted that the question of benefits is separate from the question of titles. She also said that the proposed titles would bring the institution's practices into agreement with those at most major research institutions. Birdwell suggested having various committees review the document before sending it to the Faculty Senate. S. Wallace expressed concern about taking the report to the Faculty Senate; he expressed particular concern about its impact on contingent faculty and the lack of time for the Executive Committee to digest its content. After considerable discussion, it was proposed by Lyons that the report be included in the materials for the February 4, 2002, Faculty Senate meeting, for a first reading, the report be examined by the Faculty Affairs Committee, and the report be considered at the March meeting. Wallace suggested having several more committees consider the report. Lyons accepted the suggestion and then his amended proposal was accepted by the committee.

Greenberg suggested having E. Fly as a speaker before one of the Faculty Senate meetings and called attention to the incomplete list of Special Topics Meetings distributed at today's meeting. She urged everyone to suggest more topics.

Howell noted that there is a suggestion to end item D.4. with the word "salary" in the second line. There was agreement to do so. In response to a question from S. Jordan, Howell said that the possibility of being paid by one's host institution for teaching one or two courses per term is allowed under "other compensationŠto support the approved professional leave" in item D.1. Lyons suggested including wording to allow any unit to create its own system of professional leave. Howell responded that the section on workloads in the current Faculty Handbook addresses course-banking and other related topics. Nothing in the proposed policy contravenes the Faculty Handbook. Weber expressed concern about item D.5. on returning all compensation from the University of Tennessee if one receives compensation without approval required by the policy. He noted that someone on leave abroad who is asked at the last moment to teach a course for someone who became ill would have to decline even if teaching the course were a wonderful professional opportunity, since getting quick approval would be difficult, if not impossible. Greenberg then expressed concern about proceeding without the Provost available to comment on changes. Since probably only 75 leaves can be funded each year, Galligan noted that the policy should be viewed as a first step and also noted that, unlike last year's version, it does not urge the faculty member to strive to do various things. It finally was agreed to consider the policy further at the next meeting.

Minutes of the meeting of January 14, 2002, were approved with the change that J. Gehlhar was present.

Greenberg reported that she had been contacted by concerned contingent faculty who want to provide input into the process of determining policy for contingent faculty. She raised the possibility of a special topics meeting which would include contingent faculty. B. Glenn reported that the AAUP chapter will hold a forum on the same topic in late March. Greenberg suggested waiting until after the AAUP event to have a special topics meeting on the matter of contingent faculty.

Greenberg next raised the possibility of a special topics meeting on IRIS. Some committee members said they really do not understand the IRIS situation and suggested creating an information document or website.

Weber reported briefly on the committee's activities. He noted that the committee did not approve a proposed change in the progression policy for students in the College of Business. He distributed copies of the proposed policy and described several concerns about it.

Miller said the task force has met once and will meet again soon. He would like to report to the Faculty Senate on the matters the group is discussing.

Chesney reported on activities since the discussion of the proposed changes at the last Faculty Senate meeting. Mayhew reported that questions raised during the discussion have been addressed and that the suggestion to move the list of matters the proposal does not address to early in the document has been followed. Greenberg distributed a statement from N. Cook on the proposed changes and Mayhew read a response from S. Martin. F. Spicuzza reported that the Teaching Council is concerned that research faculty will have titles including the term "professor", but teaching faculty will not have that title. Mayhew said that the difficulty had been noted and discussed and said that the proposed approach fits with practices elsewhere. P. Höyng asked that the proposal not go forward until the national office of AAUP has a chance to review it. B. Glenn noted that the national office critiqued an earlier version and found difficulties. He expressed concern about the failure to have faculty input in the hiring of lecturers and the possibility that a lecturer could be employed for many years and never have the opportunity to participate in governance. Mayhew said that the proposal does not change current practices other than the use of titles and recalled that the AAUP national office's comments on the earlier version noted that it did not conflict with current practices at the institution and some other institutions. L. Crabtree reiterated that the proposed policy simply codifies current practice and noted some of the related complexities not addressed by the proposal. Mayhew then suggested that the Executive Committee and the Faculty Senate ratify the proposal for a limited time, perhaps two years; during that time the institution would investigate the cost of decreasing the number of contingent faculty. In the interim the policy would not be part of the Faculty Handbook, but would be used for guidelines in assigning titles to employees. Weber spoke in favor of adopting the proposal as a first step, so that the employees involved have some protection. D. Patterson spoke in favor of a one-year trial period and suggested that the Faculty Affairs Committee work with contingent faculty and appropriate others to study the issues. He noted that contingent faculty need the opportunity to become involved in the process. M. Moffett suggested using the proposal as a draft document until December, 2003, when the revised Faculty Handbook should be ready. Crabtree argued that a full two-year trial period is needed. Höyng expressed hope that the proposal would include a statement saying that the policy should not be used to increase the number of contingent faculty.

A proposal by T. Hood that the contingent nature of funding for lecturers be explicitly noted as is done for research faculty positions was accepted. The addition of the title "clinical instructor" also was approved. The Executive Committee passed a motion to approve the document on title changes as an operational draft to be implemented on a trial basis through December, 2003, and to thoroughly study the issues addressed in the document with involvement of regular faculty, contingent faculty and appropriate others.

Gilliam briefly reviewed the history of the current program. He said that the General Education Committee has established a clear statement of purpose for general education with clear goals and outcomes. He also described several models used by other institutions. Gilliam then described a proposal for the Knoxville campus; it was approved in principle by the Undergraduate Council in November, 2001.

Howell discussed some editorial changes made during January. Mayhew suggested making the content of B.1.c.a parenthetical comment at the end of B.1.b. Howell favored striking B.1.c. and her proposal was approved. A suggestion by Höyng to add "and to the students" at the end of the second sentence of the second paragraph of part A and to delete the last sentence of that paragraph was approved. Weber noted that "except as noted in item D.2. through D.6." should be added to the end of the first sentence of D.1.; there was general agreement with the suggestion. In response to a question from B. Lyons, Howell said that the policy does not preclude units having their own leave or workload programs. The revised draft was approved.

Combs distributed copies of two proposed changes. They concern chairs of the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils. In revised form, the first proposal change is as follows: "The Chair of the Graduate Council shall be a faculty member from the Graduate Council elected for a two-year term by voting members of the Graduate Council. The election of the Chair will take place at the last meeting of the Spring semester." The proposed change for the Undergraduate Council reads the same with the obvious replacements of "Graduate" with "Undergraduate." The revised proposed changes were approved.

Moffett suggested deleting Article IV: Dues because of the difficulties dues create. Hood said he had little concern with the article, since it calls for setting annual dues each year. After some discussion the constitution was approved without change.

Little described three options. One is to use Blackboard. A second is to use some DreamWeaver templates based on the structure Glenn set up. A third is to augment either or both of the first two possibilities. Glenn noted there is an excellent website on faculty senates at the University of Southern California. He suggested surveying faculty opinions about the existing UT Faculty website. He also suggested that whatever is used should be full of information, easily accessed, hyper textual, professional and faculty controlled. Lyons noted the need for a built-in search engine. B. Robinson emphasized that there needs to be a Faculty Senate person responsible for information issues to provide continuity. Greenberg responded that the bylaws now include a webmaster position but Robinson said his concept is broader and calls for a person at a higher level of management perhaps with the title of "Senate Information Officer." Glenn then suggested that there be an annual survey of faculty to determine their satisfaction level with the operation. It was agreed that a task force should pursue the matter. K. Greenberg stated that task force would be appointed immediately so that we can meet B. Glenn's need to complete his website duties by the end of this semester.

The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

MINUTES
Faculty Senate Executive Committee
March 11, 2002

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

Minutes
Minutes of the meeting of February 18, 2002, were approved.

Special Topics Meeting (K. Greenberg)
Plans were discussed for a Special Topics Meeting on IRIS, to be held April 8 at 3:30 p.m. (place TBA). Greenberg asked for recommendations of those who should be invited to participate.

Provost's Report (L. Crabtree)
Crabtree reported briefly on both reallocation and reorganization. The goal in reallocation is to have $2M in cash to redistribute to programs by the end of spring semester. While the reorganization of colleges that is underway will not result in significant monetary savings, any funds that are freed will be retained by the new units. Crabtree characterized the discussions about reorganization as being fruitful. He anticipates a March 15 deadline will be met, with interim leadership identified by April 15. The draft of the Strategic Plan is on the web. Plans call for input from the colleges by April 25, with work to continue over the summer to identify 4 or 5 items on which the campus will focus to make a difference. Crabtree identified two areas that need immediate attention, the erosion of faculty lines (88 lines lost since 1995) and inadequate operating funds.

Selection of Representatives to the Tennessee Association of Faculty Senates (K. Greenberg)
UT is entitled to a representative and an alternate as voting participants in the Association of Faculty Senates, with the current President and President-elect being ineligible for these positions. A motion was made to have our representative be the Past President and the alternate to be elected from the immediate past chairs of the Faculty Senate Budget, Faculty Affairs, and Educational Policy committees. The motion was passed unanimously.

Senate Agendas for April Meetings (K. Greenberg)
Noting that the schedule for the April 29 meeting was overly full, Greenberg encouraged any committees that could, report at the April 1 meeting.

Development and Alumni Relations Committee (K. Sowers)
Karen Sowers reported that the committee had met 4 or 5 times this year with key members of the Development and Alumni staff. The Committee has formulated recommendations for implementation in the next academic year that will be presented at the April 1 Senate meeting.

Faculty Affairs Committee (D. Patterson)
David Patterson enumerated the 7 charges given to his committee this year and reported progress made on each. The issue of e-mail privacy was discussed in more detail. Crabtree noted that all communications we make are discoverable, with e-mail records being particularly subject to open records access. Current UT policies limiting e-mail privacy and restricting access to student records recommended as potential issues for Special Topics meetings.

Equity and Diversity Task Force (D. Patterson)
David Patterson reported that this is getting underway following a Special Topics meeting to consider who should be involved in establishing the task force.

International Education Committee (J. Gehlhar)
Jim Gehlhar reported that the committee has looked at the status of international programs and majors at UT. They are troubled by the decline over the last decade (from 2% to 1.4%) in the percentage of international students in undergraduate programs, feeling that undergraduates are important for bringing international perspectives to the campus as a whole. Comparable figures at other universities-3.8% at University of Arkansas and 4.4% at the University of Michigan-are the result of scholarships and special admissions recruitment efforts that UT should also consider.

Faculty Handbook Task Force (M. Moffett)
Marian Moffett reported that the work is well underway. The task force has examined handbooks from comparable institutions that are both flagship campuses and land-grant universities (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Georgia, and Florida) to guide its work. Drafts of sections should be ready for review by the Senate starting early in the fall semester. Once approved by the Faculty Senate, the Provost, and the Board of Trustees, UT's handbook will be an on-line compilation of policies, linked to procedures associated with these, all to be maintained through the Office of the Provost. The task force envisions an annual copy of the handbook being distributed on CD-ROM to all faculty, and a hard copy to be maintained at the
Library.

Bylaws Committee (M. Combs)
Mike Combs reported that under current by-laws, the university president is not a member of the Faculty Senate, although he is a member of the Executive Council. He asked if we want to amend the By-laws to make the president a member of the Senate. Discussion followed concerning the merits of this proposal. A motion to include the President as an ex-officio member of the Faculty Senate was carried.

The meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

Note: Minutes were taken by Marian Moffett in the absent of the Secretary.

MINUTES [Note: These minutes are unofficial until approved by the Senate Executive Committee.]
Faculty Senate Executive Committee
April 15, 2002

Members present: Katherine Greenberg, Sam Jordan, Benita Howell, Frank Spicuzza, David Patterson, Marian Moffett, Salvatore DiMaria, Tom Hood, Peter Höyng, Peggy Pierce, Marla Peterson, Mark Miller, William Robinson, Beauvais Lyons, Jim Gehlhar, Joe Trahern, Tom Galligan, Doug Birdwell, Glenn Graber, Mike Combs

Guests: Ryn Blecke, Anne Mayhew

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

Minutes
Minutes of the meeting of March 11, 2002, were approved.

President's Report (K. Greenberg)
Dr. Shumaker has asked for a meeting with the Executive Committee on April 25. An invitation will be emailed. The next Senate retreat is being scheduled. Greenberg then briefly described a proposed Senate budget which she and M. Combs will submit. B. Lyons suggested adding a statement about the services of S. Winston. Finally, Greenberg asked for volunteers to serve on the Executive Council during the summer. B. Robinson, P. Pierce, D. Patterson and G. Graber volunteered.

Instruction with Technology Subcommittee (M. Peterson)
Peterson noted that the committee is a subcommittee of the Educational Policy Committee and then briefly reviewed a few of the items in the subcommittee's report (distributed at the meeting). Increasing faculty representation on committees across campus had been and remains an important concern. Distributed education, as related to workload calculations and to promotion and tenure decisions, has been another concern. Another topic has been the use of time commitment rather than contact hours for technology-enhanced and Tennessee Online courses.

Enrollment Strategy for the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (A. Mayhew)
Mayhew very briefly discussed the report (distributed at the meeting) and then offered to answer questions. In response to a question from Patterson, she described the fairly weak early admittance program. M. Moffett reported that many applicants fail to write the optional essays and, therefore, may be at a disadvantage. The essays were made optional after the number of applications dropped and high school counselors complained about the extra burden on them. Mayhew agreed that applicants should be strongly urged to write the brief essays. She also noted that there is a huge effort to follow up applications after the applicants are admitted. J. Trahern expressed concern that any effort to increase graduate enrollment might place pressure on some departments to accept students they should not accept. Mayhew responded that departments are being surveyed about constraints on increased graduate enrollment. Robinson suggested having a separate strategy document for graduate enrollment.

Athletics Committee (P. Pierce)
Pierce distributed copies of the committee's report and then briefly reviewed it. There was no discussion.

Legislative Committee (T. Galligan)
Galligan summarized the committee's report. He and others have spoken to many organizations about the need for better funding for higher education.

Library Committee (B. Robinson)
Robinson noted that the library needed about $500,000 this year simply to address inflation increases. A new integrated library system will cost $500,000; the old one no longer is supported by the vendor. How to handle retrenchment is a possible topic for next year. Lyons commented that B. Dewey attended many of the budget hearings and reported that special funding for the library reduces faculty lines. Robinson added that his committee is not concerned with the College of Law Library, which is operated separately. In response to a question from P. Höyng, Robinson said that there are trends to encourage researchers to submit to less expansive journals, to form consortia of libraries to deal with vendors and to encourage faculty to publish fewer, larger papers. There will be a conference on new directions in scholarly publishing here in the next few months.

Professional Development Committee (B. Howell)
Howell said that results of a survey on mentoring are expected soon and will be incorporated into the report, copies of which will be available at the Faculty Senate meeting.

Research Council (D. Birdwell)
Birdwell expects to have a written report later. He briefly described activities of the Research Council this year and some of its planned activities. He also listed some recommendations concerning F and A funds; they call for one-third of those funds to go to each of the following; principal investigators, Office of Research and the general fund. Höyng suggested that the Council should look next year at research support for the humanities and social sciences. One idea is for a Humanities and Social Sciences Institute.

Student Affairs Committee (G. Graber)
Graber will have a report later in the week. He said that a Leadership Council composed of student and faculty leaders has been proposed.

Teaching Council (F. Spicuzza)
Spicuzza briefly summarized the report (distributed at the meeting). Robinson commented that photographs of students with class rolls would be especially helpful for distance education classes.

Greenberg then had everyone for the work done this year and Lyons then thanked Greenberg for all her work.

The meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.