Site Index

Chancellor Reese spent time giving his expectations regarding the 1981-82 budget. He noted that there was a greater degree of uncertainty anticipated for this year than for most, because the Governor's budget request may not go to the legislature until mid-February, several weeks later than normal. The Chancellor predicted, however, that next year would be no more of a crisis than this year, and perhaps even somewhat brighter.

Bayne brought up the problem of selecting nominees for the Committee on Committees to represent every school and college. Pierce moved that the present officers be charged to construct such a slate of nominees. The motion was seconded and passed.

Bayne discussed Carney's memo regarding length and format of Senate meetings. After considerable discussion in the Executive Committee, Hood moved that the president negotiate with each person scheduled to give a presentation, to determine an appropriate amount of time for the presentation, and also refuse to recognize a speaker for a second time until all persons who wish to speak have had an opportunity to speak first. The motion was seconded and passed. Walker then moved that the president seek out two committees and ask the chairs to present informal interim reports to the Senate. The president is to schedule these reports for the end of the meetings, And is to announce to the Senate at the start of each meeting which committees will report at the end of that meeting. The motion was seconded and passed.

Walker indicated some concern over the composition of the Undergraduate and Graduate councils, being subcommittees of the Senate, but elected separately from the Senate from primarily nonsenators. Silverstein moved that the president appoint an ad hoc committee to review the structure and activities of the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils and recommend action to the Executive Committee and ultimately to the Senate.

Silverstein raised the question of the University Snow Policy. The Executive Committee concluded that this issue might better be addressed as new business on the floor of the Senate.

(1) concern about the budget: seeking comparative information on the system and campus budgets, relative to similar institutions

(2) legal obligations of affirmative action--any possibility of injury to the university and the individual campuses for non-compliance

(3) concern for timing and public relations aspects of announcements of UT system-level administrative appointments

(4) request for information on the circumstances in the recent appointment to the system legal staff

(5) consideration of the establishment of University professorships, and also establishment of a means for retiring Chancellors and other high-level campus administrators to have a guaranteed position in order to achieve an orderly transition when one leaves office.

J. Dickson McLean raised the issue that there is no faculty group or body charged with viewing the University as a whole, or of asking the "questions that are not being asked, issues that are often deferred because 'we don't have the time to deal with such large issues'." He suggested the creation of a body that would view the university as a whole, and call attention to the discrepancies between what we say and what we do. Pierce suggested a body that is permanently involved in planning for the campus, reflecting on actions of the preceding five years and trying to project to the next five years.

Various people brought out the fact that there is no reward in the current structure for doing such free thinking. Many observed that this is a necessary part of our charge as faculty members, however. After some discussion of appropriate groups to do this, it was concluded that the University Counselors will meet with McLean to discuss the present role of the Counselors, and to discuss the possibility of creating a more structured body for this purpose.

Bayne read a letter from Ron Fraser on the University policy of paying faculty members on nine month appointments in twelve equal installments. Pierce moved that this letter be sent to the Fringe Benefits committee for their study and report to the Senate. The motion was seconded and passed.

Ralph Norman discussed several of the proposed changes to the Faculty Handbook, explaining the position of the administration on several of the suggestions. After considerable discussion, Pierce moved to charge the chair of the Faculty Affairs committee to prepare a statement of pros and cons on the issues and to distribute this statement to all Senators prior to Senate consideration of these issues. The motion was seconded.

Pierce then presented a substitute motion to defer all items of revision until a document can be prepared separating the editorial changes from the significant ones, separating the significant ones into ones on which there is controversy and ones on which there is not, preparing a statement of the significance of the change for the noncontroversial ones, and preparing a statement indicating pros and cons for the controversial ones. The motion was seconded and defeated.

Walker then moved to separate the substantive issues from the editorial ones, to defer consideration of the substantive issues until the first meeting after 16 February, and to ask the Chancellor for Academic Affairs to assist in preparing a statement indicating pro and con arguments on the substantive issues, to he distributed in advance of the meeting at which they are considered. The motion was seconded and passed.

--What is the attitude on other campuses toward faculty organization and collective bargaining? --TEA, TSEA, AAUP.

--Share fringe benefits information and concerns.

--Share minutes between the Faculty Senates.

--How much initiative do the other Senates take in curricular matters?

Russ French reported on the 1982 World's Fair. Campus facilities for UTK-sponsored activities are already heavily booked, and any group wishing to schedule an activity between May and October should arrange facilities immediately. The Academic Affairs committee for the fair has recommended to the Deans that, where feasible, the academic timetable be expanded, using 7 a.m. times and times after 5 p.m., as well as offerings during the day, in order to give a broader base for the estimated 4,000 to 7,000 students who will want to attend school and work parttime during the fair.

Ken Kenney stated that he has no current information on the future use of the U.S. pavilion. There is some concern that the cost to retrofit the facility for university use might be high.

The Budget Committee will meet with Tony Spiva and Homer Fisher Friday 1 May 1981 at 3:00 p.m. in 220 Perkins. Spiva will speak on the projected state of the Tennessee economy for 1981-82, and Fisher will discuss the UTK budget and travel for the remainder of the fiscal year.

A newspaper in Milan, Tennessee has printed a list of faculty earning in excess of $50,000. Many names on the list are not correct. Don Eastman is investigating the printing of this erroneous information, and Joe Johnson is working to present the actual figures to legislators.

Drs. Minkel and Norman described the current state of comprehensive reviews of academic programs. These reviews cover all elements--undergraduate education, graduate education, faculty and facilities--of a program. The review teams are comprised of internal members (one member chosen by each of the Undergraduate Council, the Graduate Council, and the respective Dean) and external members. After the review, there is a careful analysis of the report by the department, the college, the Academic Affairs and the Graduate Studies office to identify those changes that can be made and to fix responsibility for implementing the change.

Minkel and Norman agreed to prepare a formal document indicating the scope and the format of these reviews. Hood moved that the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils be charged to study this document and recommend policy on comprehensive program review to the Senate at its meeting in October 1981. The motion was seconded and passed.

Bernie Silverstein spoke on a meeting of the Knox County Legislative Delegation with the Fringe Benefits, Legislative, and Budget committees on Saturday 25 April. At that time the legislators presented three concerns.

1) The public relations activities of UT with the legislature are not perceived as good. We have lost credibility with the legislature because we allege we cannot continue to perform without funds, yet we persevere.

2) The Tennessee Education Association is attempting to convince the legislature that they speak for UT.

3) Resolutions (as passed by the Faculty Senate) carry the weight of only one sheet of paper. Other interest groups get individual letters from their members. One resolution from the Senate is not nearly as impressive to a legislator as fifty letters.

After discussion, the Executive Committee asked Pauline Bayne to write to the heads of other Faculty Senates in the state suggesting they ask for individual letters to local representatives. Bernie Silverstein will prepare a notice for Senators outlining this situation and suggesting they write their representatives to ask for support of preplanning money for the new library and state assumption of employee retirement contribution.