August 31, 1998
September 28, 1998
November 2, 1998
January 11, 1999
February 15, 1999
March 22, 1999
March 29, 1999
April 26, 1999
July 14, 1999
Miller introduced Ms. Sharonne Winston, the new office secretary for the Faculty Senate. He then announced that the next Executive Committee meeting would be September 28, 1998, in room 306 of the Library. He next asked each committee member to introduce herself/himself.2. President's Report
Miller reported that he spent the summer talking with many university officials and many Faculty Senate committee chairpersons. He next said that he needs two faculty for the Senate-Chancellor Review of Administrators Committee and asked members to e-mail suggestions to him.3. Discussion of UT President Search
Miller distributed the job description used when President Johnson was hired. He also noted that a female African-American Trustee recently was added to the search committee. He does not expect any advisory committee to have much influence on the search. Miller also distributed a letter to him from Jon P. Coddington, AAUP President, UTK Chapter. The letter deals with several matters concerning the presidential search. Burstein noted that the advisory committee for the new tenure policy did have some influence with the Board of Trustees and expressed his hope that the Faculty would try to make the advisory committee for the search effective. He spoke in favor of letting the search committee know faculty ideas on a job description and about candidates. Snyder and Lester noted a few difficulties with the previously used job description and other aspects of previous searches. Miller expressed his interest in appointing a Faculty Senate committee to deal with some of these matters. Peters suggested sending the search committee chair a list of characteristics UTK faculty would like to see in a new president. He emphasized the need to do so sooner, rather than later. After a brief discussion it was decided to establish a committee to develop a document to be considered by the Executive Committee (by e-mail) and then sent forward. Burstein, Lester and Miller constitute the committee. Snyder suggested trying to get successful presidential search ads from universities UTK aspires to be like.4. Discussion of the new Board of Trustees Tenure Policy
Miller distributed copies of the new policy and noted that some will say the policy only codifies current practice. He believes the policy and its implementation should be studies and discussed by the Faculty Senate. He proposed setting up a committee of certain committee chairs to coordinate the process. The committees he listed are Budget, Academic Affairs, Teaching Council, Research Council and Faculty and Staff Benefits. Peters believes UTK needs to work on a strengthened annual evaluation process and a way to tie those evaluations to merit raises, a way to identify and to deal with underperforming faculty, and a way to handle comprehensive evaluations. In response to a comment from Dobbs, Miller said he believes an existing working group is recommending that a faculty member who disagrees with his/her evaluation have an opportunity to write a statement to be forwarded with the supervisor's evaluation. Glenn next distributed a synopsis of an analysis by Jordan Kurland of the AAUP of the new UT tenure policy. Glenn briefly discussed some of the points.5. Proposal for a Senate ad hoc Committee on Computing and Instructional Technology
Miller suggested that such a committee might operate in a manner similar to the Library Committee and consider a very wide range of topics. Poore suggested that such a committee was needed from about 1965 to about 1990, but not now. Papke noted that an additional committee should be appointed only if another is eliminated. Miller suggested some needs that no existing committee meets. Peters reported that across the country Library committees seem to be expanding their roles to include some of the topics Miller mentioned. Lester said that if Mettlen would welcome having an advisory organization, then the idea should be pursued in some form. Miller indicated that he would charge several existing committees/councils with considering different matters he had raised. Poore pointed out that there is the question of whether a faculty member who creates a course presented electronically should receive teaching credit for it when it is offered the second and later times, if no further work by the faculty member is involved.6. Discussion of CTEP. Proposal for Senate Bylaws Changes for Teaching Council
Miller noted that the Teaching Council will consider these matters and report. Poore suggested that the process of student evaluations could be handled better by using technology.7. Proposal for Senate Bylaws Changes for Committee on Committees
Miller suggested that the Committee on Committees would function better if members were elected sooner.8. Other Business
Miller has asked the chairs of the Professional Development and International Education Committees to consider whether those committees are viable. Dobbs suggested that each committee report what it has done and what would go undone if the committee were eliminated. Miller felt there would be a thorough review.9. New Business
Burstein noted that the day's discussion showed a general belief that the faculty voice is not being heard as well as it should be. He distributed copies of a survey on such matters to be distributed by the UTK Chapter of AAUP. He encouraged everyone to participate in the survey.There being no further business, the Committee adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
A. Report on Trustees Committee on Honorary Degrees. Miller reported that this committee is considering whether UT should change its policy of only rarely granting an honorary degree. D. Dobbs said he is opposed to honorary degrees in principle and definitely feels they should not go only to alumni, but primarily to those who have made significant contributions to humanity. A. Burstein felt that the awarding of honorary degrees should be under the control of the faculty, but expressed doubt that such a policy change is likely to occur. B. Glenn noted that the awarding of honorary degrees to truly outstanding people might improve commencements.II. Legislative Committee Report (M. Combs)
B. Report on Tenure Implementation Work Group.
Miller said that the group has been appointed and includes the following faculty: R. Benson, N. Cook, and C. Mailand. Burstein suggested that Miller remind the group that departments need to be reviewing their bylaws, so materials need to be provided to the departments soon.
Combs reported the committee has interacted by e-mail and will meet soon. Some of the committee members will meet with Senator Bud Gilbert and W. Lambert who are willing to provide the committee with insight and suggestions. He invited suggestions from Faculty Senators. Combs plans to be quite active this year in presenting the case of the university.Ill. Other Reports
There was no other report.IV. UT President Search
A. Discussion of AAUP Letter to the Search Committee. Miller distributed copies of the draft letter for committee members to read. The letter lists procedural criteria and qualifications criteria. Miller recalled the major points of the letter from the Faculty Senate to the chair of the search committee and then noted that now is the time for the Faculty Senate to comment on procedural and qualifications criteria. Miller next described the second item.V. Discussion of Faculty Counselors to President Meeting
B. Discussion of Approaches to the Advisory Panel. Miller noted that the panel has been appointed, but there has been no word on how it will operate. He suggested several ways he has thought of to have some faculty input to the overall process. The committee next discussed both item A and item B. Burstein and Dobbs both encouraged Miller to be proactive soon. J. Poore noted that the AAUP criterion that the candidate be tenurable is weak and should be significantly strengthened. Dobbs suggested using "tenure worthy," in place of "tenurable." Miller said such suggestions should be sent to J. Coddington. Papke suggested that copies of the draft letter might be distributed to the Faculty Senators; there was general agreement with the suggestion. Miller then said he would try to make informal contact with M. Perry who chairs the Advisory Panel. T. Hipple encouraged asking soon when/whether faculty would be allowed to review reference letters for candidates who make the "short list." Papke suggested that the AAUP provide copies of its draft letter and make them available at the next Faculty Senate meeting. Miller suggested that the Faculty Senate mailing list might be made available. B. Glenn expressed his opinion that the Faculty Senate should speak strongly in support of the search reflecting current affirmative action guidelines and the candidates having records for support of affirmative action and open hiring policies. Glenn, it was decided, will prepare a document (for consideration at the next Faculty Senate meeting) on the role of the faculty in the search for and selection of a president and on the role of affirmative action in the search. The committee next briefly discussed strategies for having faculty views put forth. There was concern about the infrequency of Faculty Senate meetings. It was agreed that all possible methods should be used to consult with the Executive Committee, the Faculty Senate and the faculty on "hot" topics. Burstein then noted that two faculty will be able to present their views to the Governor's Council on Higher Education. They will encourage the Council to distribute its reports quickly and widely, so faculty can see it in a timely manner.
Miller described this opportunity to make comments to the president and asked for suggestions of comments to be made. It was decided to leave comments to Miller's discretion.There being no old or new business, the committee adjourned at 4:35.
Miller distributed copies of the agenda for the meeting. He then reported that the advisory Panel for the presidential search has met and he is hopeful that faculty will be heard. The search process is moving slowly, in part because the Search Committee is waiting for the report of the governor's Task Force on Higher Education, which is expected in January, 1999. The consulting firm will handle initial screenings and then provide the Search Committee with a list of applicants. Miller expects that list to be shared with faculty. He also expects a truly national search. The UTK contingent on the panel is attempting to emphasize the diversity of the system's institutions and the fact the job is a system position. Snyder suggested that it should be assumed that each candidate will visit UTK and this campus should decide what it would like each candidate to see and to do.II. Chancellor's Report (B. Snyder)
Miller next reported he is pleased with the faculty representation on the Tenure Work Group and with the group's efforts. He also emphasized the need for faculty to serve on the committees for the Senate/Chancellor Evaluation of Administrators program. J. Poore asked whether there is any data that the evaluations are beneficial. Miller said he would be happy to ask K. Bohstedt to talk with the Executive Committee about the process. Several noted that there have been too many cases of administrators who did not cooperate with the review process. J. Peters suggested that K. Bohstedt should be given an opportunity to improve the process and then it should be reviewed.
Snyder distributed copies of "Summary of Five Year Plan Currently Being Revised" and quickly reviewed the nine sections. He has asked for a new section on international education. He hopes to have the final draft document ready for distribution, discussion and final revision before the June meeting of the Board. J. Poore inquired about UTK's status as a Carnegie I institution. M. Devine responded that a new list will be announced in 1999. There are two main criteria for being a "Research I" institution: Ph.D. production and federal funding. How the institution is classified determines its reference group for comparisons.III. Vice Chancellor's Report (J. Peters)
Snyder next distributed comments on the structure of higher education in Tennessee, which he made at a recent meeting of the Tennessee Council for Excellence in Higher Education. He also distributed copies of a "Context" article titled "Planning for a UTK Institutional Identity for the Millenium and Beyond."
Peters noted that theoretically there are 81 sets of bylaws on the UTK campus, which must be brought into agreement with the new policy on tenure. He estimates that 90% of the new policy is UTK's existing policy. The UTK committee looking at the new policy is dealing with it on a line-by-line basis. Some units already are looking at their bylaws. The annual evaluation of each faculty member is a main focus of the committee. The committee's draft document should be distributed in about two weeks. R. Mundy noted that one must ask units not only for their bylaws and procedures, but also whether they are implemented. He also noted that annual evaluations of "average" for the majority of faculty will hurt morale. B. Blass suggested that a listing of positives and negatives for an individual, rather than a single ranking, would be beneficial. J. Poore asked whether the ratings would be in comparison to a departmental or national or some other standard. Dobbs suggested it would be helpful to make generally available data on the percentages of faculty in each unit classified in each category.IV. Vice Chancellor's Report (M. Devine)
Devine reminded everyone that the contract to manage Oak Ridge National Laboratory is being "recompeted." Lockheed Martin apparently is not going to rebid. H. Fisher, L. Riedinger and Devine have been gathering information on the possibility of bidding for the contract. Proposals will be due in September, 1999. It is fairly clear that UTK will try for the contract in cooperation with other entities. In addition to the three individuals named previously, there is a steering committee as well as several advisory committees. Much effort is being given to determining and establishing an effective team.V. Committee Reports
A. Professional Development Committee (J. Paul)The meeting adjourned at 5:09 p.m.Miller distributed a written report.B. Educational Policy Committee (L. Bensel-Meyers)Bensel-Meyers provided a written report and briefly reviewed it.C. Faculty Affairs Committee (R. Mundy)Mundy reported that the committee has been operating under a set of rules which differs from the set of rules currently in the Faculty Handbook. The committee probably will come to the Senate with a proposed set of "balanced" rules for its work.
|I.||A. Boulet was appointed temporary secretary.
B. With regard to the search for the next president of the University system, Miller reported on the latest meetings of the search committee and the advisory committee, and encouraged all present to nominate appropriate candidates.
|II.||Chancellor Snyder distributed copies of various materials he is using to publicize some of the many noteworthy achievements made by faculty, staff, and students at UTK. Some of these documents were made available to UTK alumni attending the Fiesta Bowl earlier in January. Miller affirmed the efficacy and popularity of these handouts at the Fiesta Bowl.|
|III.||Vice Chancellor Peters reported on the hiring of a new Dean of Admissions and Records and a new Director of the School of Information Sciences. Interviewing of candidates for the position of Dean of University Outreach will begin this week. At the latest Deans' meeting, two topics of discussion were the new tenure policy and the future of the baccalaureate degree. The Deans will study the latter and probably produce a document intended to initiate campus-wide discussion of the issue.
With regard to tenure policy, Glenn asked if pending revisions to the Faculty Handbook would come to the Executive Committee for their review before being implemented. Peters replied in the affirmative, and indicated that the proposed revisions would reconcile the current handbook with both the new tenure policy and the recently proposed campus policy for implementing same. Burstein recommended that the pending revisions also reflect recent proposals made in the Executive Committee.
|IV.||A. At the meeting of the Faculty Senate to be held on January 25, the sole topic of discussion will be the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Tenure Policy chaired by Bob Glenn. After introductory remarks by the President of the Faculty Senate, Glenn and members of the committee will initiate discussion on several important issues on which no consensus has yet emerged. Although no action will be taken at that meeting, straw votes will be allowed.
B. At the meeting of the Faculty Senate to be held on February 1, the senate will act on motions to be brought by the Ad Hoc Committee on Tenure Policy (and perhaps others). Although motions passed by the Senate are probably not binding on the Board of Trustees, both Miller and Peters expressed the view that the Board's response would give serious consideration to any position clearly supported by the faculty Senate. Peters also pointed out that implementation of the Board's policy is in the hands of the faculty.
Burstein requested clarification of the Senate's role in revising the Faculty Handbook. Miller offered to invite a suitable consultant to meet with the Executive Committee to address this issue.
Various aspects of implementing performance reviews for faculty and establishing a meaningful merit raise policy were discussed. Miller solicited advice for the Ad Hoc Committee on Tenure Policy in planning the meeting of January 25 and drafting motions for the meeting of February 1.
|V.||A. The meeting of the Executive Committee scheduled for March 15 was rescheduled for March 22.
B. The meeting of the Executive Committee scheduled for April 19 was rescheduled for April 26.
Miller distributed an agenda and asked if there were other agenda items. B. Glenn suggested adding the Freedom Information Act and the governor's recent tax proposal. Miller reminded everyone of the meeting with Keith Moore on Friday, February 19. He next noted that today is the announced first day of review of applications for the position of the President of the University. He also reported that the task force on the new tenure policy is working hard on the new document. He reminded everyone that elections would be coming up soon.II. Chancellor's Report (B. Snyder)
Snyder reported that plans are being made to honor retiring President Joe Johnson. The various events will be announced to the campus soon. An event for Faculty will occur April 5 after the faculty Senate meeting and another event for staff will occur on April 12. The Chancellor's Honors Banquet also will be used to honor the president and his wife.III. Vice Chancellor's Report (J. Peters)
Snyder next distributed and briefly discussed a statement on the recent reorganization of the UTK administration. He also distributed a new organizational chart. He noted that the affirmative action correctness of the changes has been validated.
Peters expressed his thanks to the Chancellor for the reorganization and his confidence that the changes were the correct actions.IV. Resolution for Senator Postow on Connector Proposal (J. Nolt)
Miller asked for guidance on how the Executive Committee should proceed with this resolution. Nolt then distributed and described the resolution and the events leading to it. In response to a question from D. Dobbs, Nolt said that there may be a copy of the University Master Plan in the library and noted that it does call for a pedestrian-friendly connector between the main and agriculture campuses. R. Mundy asked whether there is a legal requirement to have public hearings when there is a swap of public lands. Nolt responded that he does not know that there is a legal requirement for public hearings but believes that TDOT has the option of having public hearings. B. Blass agreed with Mundy that the resolution could be reworded to sound less accusatory. Dobbs suggested an additional statement explaining why the matter should be a concern of the Faculty Senate. It was agreed to add the resolution (or a revised version) to the agenda of the next Faculty Senate meeting.V. Motion from the Bylaws Committee on Teaching Council (M. Papke)
Papke distributed a set of bylaws for the Teaching Council and briefly discussed the document. It is intended to replace the current Faculty Senate Bylaws statement on the Teaching Council.VI. Resolution from the Faculty/Staff Benefits Committee (C. Thompson)
Thompson distributed copies of the resolution which concerns long term care for faculty and staff. The resolution will be considered at the next Faculty Senate meeting.VII. Report of the Educational Policy Committee (L. Bensel-Meyers)
Bensel-Meyers reported that there will not be a report until the April Faculty Senate meeting.VIII. Preparation of the Ballot for the Committee on Committees (M. Miller)
Miller distributed lists of the Faculty Senate members organized by affiliation and asked each member to vote for two individuals to run against one another.IX. Motion on Senate Role on Computing Policy (B. Blass)
Blass distributed and briefly described the motion which calls for formation of a Senate-Chancellor Information Technology Policy Advisory Committee. Snyder expressed his view that the motion is premature and should wait on the selection of new leadership for the Division of Information Infrastructure. Miller noted that decisions are being made now and that faculty advice should be available and considered. The motion was seconded. Peters noted that a committee joint with the Chancellor goes against the purpose of the administrative reorganization. Blass expressed willingness to have the proposed committee be joint with the Provost. Miller suggested establishing an ad hoc committee to look into how the faculty might have input on Information Infrastructure matters. B. Glenn noted that the Library Committee's mission might be restructured to deal with these concerns. He suggested asking the Library Committee and Bylaws Committee to work jointly on such a restructuring. Papke noted that the restructuring would take a long time. She suggested creating an ad hoc committee with members from the Teaching Council, Research Council, Library Committee, etc. Miller asked for approval to establish such an ad hoc committee. Approval was given and the motion of Blass was withdrawn.X. Freedom of Information Act (B. Glenn)
Glenn reported that under a federal law passed in December, 1998, anyone who has federal support for research must make their data available to anyone who wants it. He moved that the Executive Committee direct the Research Council to report to the Faculty Senate at its meeting March 1 on the impact of the law. Blass suggested that encouraging faculty to contact their senators would be more useful. Blass agreed to have a resolution available by the next meeting of the Faculty Senate.XI. Governor's Tax Proposal (B. Glenn)
Glenn proposed that the Executive Committee direct the Budget Committee to assess the impact on higher education of the Governor's recent proposal on tax reform. T. Boulet responded that the Budget Committee will consider the matter and he will report at the next meeting of the Faculty Senate. Mundy noted that faculty are in a difficult position when they try to argue about tax reform that might benefit higher education.The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Miller reported that Mr. Sansom said at a Board of Trustees meeting that the President search is going on with the help of a consulting firm. Miller expressed concern with the lateness of the year and wondered whether the Faculty Senate should encourage greater speed. A. Burstein suggested that speed should be a secondary concern. B. Snyder reported that President Johnson recently expressed confidence that the process would move sufficiently fast for the Board to consider a candidate at its June meeting. Burstein asked whether it would be appropriate for Miller to send the Board a letter on behalf of the Faculty Senate to stress the interest of the faculty in having an opportunity to interview candidates on the short list. Miller said he would review a relevant Faculty Senate resolution from last fall and draft a letter, which he would circulate for comments. B. Blass suggested inviting Sansom to speak to the Faculty Senate.II. Chancellor's Report (B. Snyder)
Miller next reported that he has received from B. Lyons a letter in which Lyons expresses concern that the Faculty Senate, AAUP and the Commission on the Arts need to propose a broad and clear policy on freedom of expression on campus. Miller will provide more detailed information. He believes Lyons wants the Commission to take the lead in this effort.
Snyder reiterated his belief that the possibility of tax reform is the issue of primary concern. He again encouraged faculty to contact their representatives and to "talk up" the topic.III. Provost and Vice Chancellor's Report (J. Peters)
Peters recalled that there were eight focus areas in the APEC Report. Last June faculty and chairpersons for the focus groups were identified and committee charges were provided. In January there were reports that the groups were "losing steam" because there was doubt about anything actually changing. The Chancellor then announced that $800,000 would be made available to begin to implement focus group ideas that are approved or related ideas from elsewhere. The idea is to build on strengths to elevate them to higher levels. Blass suggested that focus groups should be encouraged to nominate faculty for Chancellor's Awards. Miller expressed concern that various groups on campus are pointing the institution in different directions and sometimes are at cross-purposes. Peters then reported that admission applications are up 14-15% in comparison to this time last year. There is a goal to improve what is delivered to freshmen. A committee is considering the matter and has suggested planning on an increase of 500 freshmen. The increase in tuition from the increase in freshmen will be used at the freshman level. Next year students will have an earlier application deadline. Other changes in the admission process also are being considered.IV. Committee Reports
Bylaws Committee (M. Papke)V. Discussion of the New Tenure Policy (M. Miller)Papke distributed the bylaws for the Teaching Council and a list of the members of the Committee on Committees.Nominating Committee (A. Burstein)Burstein reported that he has statements from the nominees and expressed hope that there would be time for Faculty Senators to pose questions to the nominees at the next meeting.Educational Policy Committee (L. Bensel-Meyers)Bensel-Meyers distributed a report and called attention to a concern it raises about the renewed policy to include a Financial Impact Statement with all undergraduate curricular changes.Legislative Committee (M. Combs)Combs reported that the committee has met with several resource people and gotten much good advice. The committee also has contacted two people in the governor's office about the possibility of meeting with the governor for serious discussion. The committee hopes to have a genuine impact on developments. L. Lester noted that Bud Gilbert described UTK's voice in Nashville as rather weak and also noted that, in general, the Legislative Committee's visitors have said that they have not been hearing, but want and need to hear, the sort of comments the Committee has made to them. Burstein suggested that Miller might write the governor and others on behalf of the Executive Committee on the matter of tax reform. R. Mundy cautioned that we need to stay away from specific issues, where we might be seen as self-serving, and to focus on the inability of UTK to deliver what the state needs under the current tax structure. B. Glenn reported that it will be next fall before a visit by a legislator can occur. He, too, noted that those he contacted said that they do not hear much about education from UTK and would welcome an opportunity to meet with faculty.
Miller reviewed some of the history of the policy and the recent revision of the tenure section of the Faculty Handbook. He said he cannot find a requirement that the Faculty Senate must consider or approve the policy, but he believes it should be presented to the Faculty Senate for its consideration. He acknowledged that there are matters of concern to the faculty that are not in the policy, but also pointed out some positive features that are included. Blass said he always understood that the Faculty Senate had to approve changes to the Faculty Handbook. He expressed the view that the document should be sent back to the legal counsel with a request for explanations of why certain items from the work groups were removed and replaced with original language from the Trustees' policy statement. He noted that the document deals with implementation, not establishing fundamental policy. Miller noted that counsel will say that the Board has the right to set policy and that the work groups infringed. Peters noted that the current document has the approval of the System and of legal counsel. He said that the Faculty Senate might make suggestions, which could be submitted to legal counsel, but he did not know what could be done if legal counsel were to change things yet again. J. Poore commented that the whole process and especially the categories for evaluation are having a very negative effect on faculty morale and that what we are seeing now is only the beginning of a very destructive process. B. Glenn said that if the Faculty Senate were to endorse the current document, it would lose all credibility. Lester reported that she has received much negative feedback from her faculty; she reported that no one sees what the document has to do with thoughtful evaluation of faculty. Miller raised the possibility of creating a resolution stating the difficulties the faculty sees, but saying the faculty will do its best to implement the Board's policy. Peters suggested that he and Miller might try going over the concerns one-by-one. Mundy commented that under the new policy faculty may be worse off than other state employees. Blass then commented that, although probably not intended, there are places where the document "thumbs it nose" at the faculty. Papke suggested getting legal counsel to respond to B. Glenn's written comments and then distributing those comments and the responses. Miller suggested having a special meeting of the Executive committee in one week. He will try to schedule a meeting.The meeting adjourned at 5:32 p.m.
Miller distributed copies of a document titled "Recommended Modifications to the Faculty Handbook Draft," a draft of the Table of Contents for the Proposed Faculty Evaluation Manual," and a memorandum to collegiate deans from J. Peters, which contains information on resolutions passed by the Faculty Senate. The modifications deal with some of the matters B. Glenn raised in his response to the new tenure section for the Faculty Handbook. Glenn briefly reviewed his points and the modifications, which resulted from a meeting attended by him and several other faculty and administrators. Ten of Glenn's thirteen items are addressed by the modifications; the others apparently cannot be addressed because of state laws. A. Burstein asked whether the Faculty Senate will have to approve the proposed Faculty Evaluation Manual. Peters expressed concern about needing to have the manual available by next fall and needing to distinguish between policy and "hints" which appear in the manual. M. Papke suggested including the Faculty Senate President and President-elect on the committee to work on the manual over the summer. Peters asked that Miller identify three or four faculty to serve on the committee. Miller agreed to do so. In response to a question from R. Mundy, B. Levy said that the requirement for peer review may either improve or exacerbate faculty relations in departments. D. Dobbs noted that the new policy has the potential to be more meritorious than past policies. Levy noted that the Board of Trustees was told there would be training of deans and department heads on how the process is to work.The meeting adjourned at 4:58 p.m.
Miller next reported that Glenn has developed a resolution on the new tenure section for the Faculty Handbook to take to the Faculty Senate. Glenn distributed copies of the resolution. Dobbs asked whether the Faculty Senate has approved the Teaching and Research Councils' recommendations. It was noted that they were provided to the Faculty Senate and were referenced in the discussions leading to the resolutions passed by the Faculty Senate on February 1, 1999. Miller said that he would present the resolution to the Faculty Senate by first describing the history of the policy and modifications to it. Copies of the recommended modifications will be available at the Faculty Senate meeting, April 5, 1999. Levy and Peters assured the committee that the recommended modifications will become part of the policy. Blass moved (and Dobbs seconded) that the Executive Committee approve the new tenure policy as revised (i.e., with the modifications). The motion was approved without objection. J. Poore then expressed the opinion that the faculty have been doing their job and for ten years the leadership at UTK from the Board of Trustees down has not done its job to maintain and promote the welfare of the institution. Peters and others noted that the process may have started as damage control, but the leadership with the help of faculty has managed to turn it into a generally positive process. By consensus it was agreed to change the resolution to read "fair and consistent" in place of "uniform" in the last line. It also was agreed to provide the final, revised version of the policy at the next Faculty Senate meeting.
Miller expressed his view that the search for a new president is now the major issue. He reported that the search committee is diligently trying to recruit candidates, but candidates are unlikely to be announced before spring term ends. The search and the legislature's work are two reasons to have a carefully selected "cabinet" to represent the Faculty Senate during the summer. The committee settled on B. Blass, M. Miller, M. Papke, B. Glenn, A. Burstein, J. Poore, K. Greenburg and S. Jordan.Discussion of Agenda for Next Senate Meeting (M. Miller)
Miller reported that President Johnson is willing to stay on through August, but no longer. He asked whether the Faculty Senate should take a position on having an acting president. D. Dobbs expressed his view that the financial situation is not likely to improve soon, so there is little reason to delay selecting a new president. It was decided that there is no need at this time to take a position on this matter.
Miller next reported on the agenda for next week's Faculty Senate meeting. J. Peters said he would relinquish his time for a report by the Educational Policy on a new basis for admitting students as a way to control quality and numbers. Miller then distributed copies of the report of the Athletics Committee. Faye Muly next gave a preview of a report on information technology resources. Sandy Goldston distributed handouts on information security standards and a copy of a draft policy on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. T. Boulet said that the Budget Committee will have a report for the next Faculty Senate meeting. Before Muly and Goldston left, B. Blass asked that faculty be given at least six weeks during the academic year to study and respond to the proposed policies they brought to the meeting. Muly indicated November 1 would be a good target date.The meeting adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Next, B. Glenn spoke about a resolution L. Ratner has proposed. The resolution concerns restructuring the system. A. Burstein noted that the resolution identifies a problem, but probably should not propose a solution to such a complex problem. It was suggested that the resolution might be read, background given and any action delayed until the next academic year. J. Poore said that his current understanding is that Ratner would prefer that the resolution not be brought forward at this time. It was decided that the Executive Committee should not make a decision to include the resolution in the agenda, but Ratner and others should be informed that a resolution may be proposed from the floor.
Next, Miller distributed copies of an e-mail message from T. Heffernan on the topic of possible "perks" offered by the Athletic Department to selected Faculty Senate individuals. No one was certain of the extent of such perks. Blass suggested that it would be mean spirited to deny such perks to faculty who do much work. R. Mundy expressed his belief that the Faculty Senate has passed a resolution denying such perks to Faculty Senate individuals. It was noted that the Athletics Board and campus leaders regularly are invited to bowl games. D. Dobbs expressed his belief that some committee members regularly receive free tickets to regularly scheduled games at which no university business is conducted. A. Burstein suggested that Miller should contact Heffernan to encourage him to pursue a formal resolution. It is clear that the existence of a resolution denying perks should be researched and the nature of the reason for the awarding of perks should be determined to see whether there is a connection with Faculty Senate service. Miller said he would contact Heffernan.