October 5, 1981
November 2, 1981
January 18, 1982
February 15, 1982
March 8, 1982
April 5, 1982
May 3, 1982
May 31, 1982
July 12, 1982
|Ken Kenney, Presiding||Thomas Hood, Parliamentarian|
1. Senators were encouraged to attend the following meetings: (a) THEC hearings on Wednesday, 7 October, 1981 at 8:00 am in the Shiloh Room and (b) the annual reports of the Chancellor and past president of the Senate, Pauline Bayne on Monday, 12 October 1981, at 3:15 pm in the Shiloh Room.LIBRARY COMMITTEE
2. The orientation meeting for new senators was well attended. Feedback from persons attending was positive.
3. The publication Pointers on Parliamentary Procedure will be sent to senators.
4. Corrections in committee assignments will be announced at the November meeting of the Senate.
.5. Senators were urged to attend all Senate meetings and to remain in attendance until the conclusion of business. In order to expedite meetings the following rules will govern debate: (1) each senator may speak only once on a given subject until all who wish to speak have spoken, (2) senators may speak no more than twice on an issue, and (3) senators are generally limited to speeches of three minutes.
LeRoy Graf, Chair of the Library Committee, reported that due to the stringent library budget, individual departments would not receive budget allocations. Instead, each department will submit requests which will. be screened by the library staff. Graf also announced that a public meeting of the Library Program Advising Committee will be held Wednesday, 31 October 1981, at 3:30 pm in the Shiloh Room. This Committee, whose chair is Luke Ebersole, has the following faculty as members: Gerald Anderson, George Everett, Leroy Graf, Thomas Heffernan, Homer Johnson, and Marjorie Penfield.MINUTES
Ken Kenney corrected the minutes of the Senate meeting of 13 July 1981. On page one under Faculty Affairs, the last line should read endorsing the Faculty Senate Faculty Affairs Committee recommended position instead of the Senate recommended position.UNFINISHED BUSINESS
The minutes were approved as corrected.
Tom Hood offered two corrections for the Executive Committee Minutes of 21 September 1981. Hood's phone number should be 6021 and his name is Hood instead of Hoom as it appears in the last paragraph of page two. Following these corrections, the minutes were approved.
1. Ralph Norman presented the revised proposal regarding the new honors policy in the College of Law. The revised proposal states that highest academic honors will be awarded to students graduating with a cumulative law grade point average of 3.4 or better. High honors shall be awarded to students graduating with a cumulative law grade point average of 3.0 to 3.39 and who are in the top 10% of their graduating class. Honors shall be awarded to students graduating with a cumulative law grade point average of 2.8 to 2.99 and who are in the top 25% of their graduating class. Awards shall appear on the student's diploma.EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The policy was approved by the Senate.
2. Ken Kenney relinquished the chair to Ken Walker, president-elect of the Senate, in order for Kenney, in his role as faculty counselor, to present a resolution from that group. Kenney moved the following:Resolved: that the Faculty Counselors to the President of the University of Tennessee call upon the President, the Vice-President for Academic Affairs, the Chancellors and the Academic Vice Chancellors to provide strong encouragement to Deans and Department Heads to institute prompt corrective and/or disciplinary action in verified instances where faculty members are found to be seriously derelict in their teaching duties, e.g., repeated failure to meet their classes, or appearing for class under the influence of alcohol.Hall Roland seconded the motion for the resolution. The resolution, passed. There was one dissenting vote.
3. Jeff Mellor moved the following resolution.On the occasion of his retirement after thirty-four years of service to the University, the Faculty Senate acknowledges with gratitude the contributions of H. W. Fuller, Professor of German, during his tenure here.George Spiva seconded the motion for the resolution. It passed unanimously.
As an influential spokesman for Faculty participation in the governance of the University, Professor Fuller worked effectively during his terms in the Senate and as President of AAUP to this end. His service on countless other committees over the years has made him a valuable member of the University community.
His brightness, vigor and gentlemanly sense of the equitable will be greatly missed by his friends and colleagues among us.
Ken Kenney called the attention of the Senate to the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of 21 September 1981. The aspect of enrollment limitation, reported in the minutes, was emphasized. Kenney asked Howard Aldmon for a brief report on current enrollment. Aldmon reported that enrollment was down by 1400 students from Fall, 1980. Of this total, 900 were undergraduates and the remainder were from the graduate school, evening school, and off-campus programs.GRADUATE COUNCIL
Tom Hood called attention to the document entitled Grant and Contract Administration Report on Findings and Recommendations which is discussed in the minutes of the Executive Committee. Hood announced that the Research Council is reviewing the document and that it should be of interest to anyone who is concerned with external funding.
L. Evans Roth presented the report of the Graduate Council meeting of 9 July 1981. Roth reported that since only Appendix A, Course and Curricular Changes, had been previously distributed to the Senate, only that aspect of the meeting would be discussed. Tom Hood objected to this. Hood moved that the Graduate Council report not be considered at this meeting . His reasoning was that the report was incomplete and that distribution of the report violated Article II, Section 6 of the Faculty Senate By-Laws. The provision in Section 6 is that all reports should be received by Senators 5 days prior to meetings.UNDERGRADUATE COUNCIL
John Finger seconded the motion. A discussion followed in which one of the issues raised had to do with courses being taught without Senate approval. It was pointed out that in the Appendix A material two new courses in Business Administration had received approval from the Graduate Council to be taught in Fall, 1981. Roth was unsure as to whether these courses, Business Law 5130 and Finance 5910, were, in fact, being taught without Senate approval. Francis Chamblin, a representative from the College of Business Administration, assured the Senate the courses in question were not being taught. At the conclusion of the discussion, the motion by Hood was passed.
At the November Senate meeting, the Graduate Council reports from July and October meetings will be presented.
Ralph Norman presented the report of the Undergraduate Council for 25 June 1981. He identified the Proposal on Enrollment Limitations from the College of Engineering, details of which may be found on pp. 5205- 5206 of the Undergraduate Council Minutes. Mancil Milligan spoke regarding the proposal. He stated that the policy was an attempt by the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, to match existing resources with rising student demand. Milligan also commented that acceptance into Upper Division courses would depend on the long range performance of the student and not solely on GPA. The proposal would not affect students already enrolled in the program.NEW BUSINESS
Norman made available to Senators copies of a report entitled Comprehensive Program Review. Since these copies had not been available prior to the meeting and since there were not sufficient copies for all those present, Kenney suggested this topic be discussed at the November meeting of the Senate. It was agreed to defer discussion and to distribute copies of the Comprehensive Program Review report to all Senators prior to that meeting.
1. Henry Fribourg, chair of the Fringe Benefits Committee, reported that this committee, at the request of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, was studying the advantages and disadvantages of a formal sick leave policy for faculty. A bill passed by the legislature provides a bonus for state employees who do not take sick leave. Since the bill does not deal explicitly with faculty having nine- month appointments, the UT system has asked each campus for policy recommendations regarding this matter. The Fringe Benefits Committee has been charged with the task of making a recommendation to the full Senate. The Senate recommendation will then be presented to administration and the Board of Trustees. The Board is ultimately responsible for enacting a faculty sick leave policy.There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:20 pm.
2. Jeff Mellor questioned the policy of students retaking the English Composition course. Mellor felt the policy was that a student could take the course any number of times until it was successfully completed. However, the policy in effect seems to be that after taking the course three times, a student must petition before being allowed to take the course again. Ken Kenney agreed to ask the appropriate person(s) to investigate the matter and report the findings to the full Senate.
|Ken Kenney, Presiding||Thomas Hood, Parliamentarian|
1. Ken Kenney recognized Lucy Hamilton, a student representing the College Bowl Committee. Hamilton announced that the College Bowl intramural competition will take place the week of January 18, 1982. She requested that Senators encourage students to participate in the competition. Registration forms and a memorandum explaining the competition in detail were made available to interested Senators.MINUTES
2. The booklet, Pointers on Parliamentary Procedure, which has been distributed to all Senators should be returned to the Secretary of the Senate at the expiration of each Senator's term. Returned booklets will then be made available to new Senators.
3. Senators were reminded to sit in the center section of the Shiloh Room. This facilitates counting votes and enables the secretary to identify Senators who make and second motions. In addition, the side section, particularly the one nearest the entrance, should be made available for visitors.
There were two corrections to the minutes of the Senate meeting of 5 October 1981. On page 3, the word "and" should be underlined in the title of the document, Grant and Contract Administration Report on Findings and Recommendations.EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
On page 4, at the end of the first paragraph, a final sentence should read: The Senate approved the actions of the Undergraduate Council for the 25 June 1981 meeting.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
Ken Kenney asked if there were questions regarding the minutes of 19 October 1981. There being none, he highlighted the aspect of the meeting which dealt with academic program reviews. Additional information regarding the results of the reviews is being requested in the form of two case studies of departments which have undergone reviews. Subsequent to the case study reports, the full Senate will be asked to approve the academic review process.GRADUATE COUNCIL
Evans Roth presented the report of the Graduate Council meeting of 9 July 1981. He emphasized four items from the minutes of that meeting: 1) proposed guidelines on foreign student enrollment; 2) status of the recruitment of minority students; 3) proposed changes in residency requirements for doctoral students; and 4) proposed changing in awarding audits. Since no action was taken by the Council on any of the items, Roth was informing the Senate that these matters would continue to be considered by the Graduate Council and that items one, three, and four would eventually require Senate action.UNDERGRADUATE COUNCIL
Ralph Norman discussed three reports which were included in the Undergraduate Council minutes for the meeting of 8 October 1981. The first of these was the Report of the Internal Consultants for Audiology and Speech Pathology Program Review. Full text of the report may be found on pp. 5219-5227 of the minutes. Norman indicated this was a good example of a comprehensive program review.FRINGE BENEFITS COMMITTEE
The second committee report discussed by Norman dealt with proposed guidelines on foreign student enrollment. This report begins on page 5228 of the minutes. Senate action will be required when guidelines are finally approved by the Undergraduate Council.
The final report was concerned with the educational advancement program appearing on page 5236 of the minutes. The success of this program, based on retention of participating students, was noted by Norman.
Following Norman's presentation it was brought to the attention of the President that twenty-one Senators had not received the minutes for the Undergraduate Council meeting which had just been discussed. Based on this disclosure, it was moved and seconded to redistribute the minutes for the meeting of 8 October 1981 and to consider them at the January meeting of the Senate. The motion passed.
Henry Fribourg, chair of the Fringe Benefits Committee, presented the recommendation of that committee regarding a formal sick leave policy for nine-month faculty members. The recommendation was as follows:AD HOC COMMITTEE ON THE EVALUATION OF TEACHING"The UTK Faculty Senate, after due study and deliberation, recommends to the appropriate administration and other officials that nine-month faculty members be excluded from participation in a formal. sick leave policy."There was considerable discussion regarding the recommendation. Several Senators questioned the need for Such a recommendation. Fribourg indicated that the Board of Trustees will establish a policy on this matter and had requested a Senate position. The central issue in the discussion was whether the bonus which faculty would receive each year for not taking sick leave would be worth the cost involved in establishing and monitoring the system. After considerable discussion, the Senate voted unanimously in favor of the recommendation from the Fringe Benefits Committee.
Mike Johnson, chair of the committee, presented the proposal on teaching evaluation and improvement. He began by stating that the charge to the committee, which was formed in 1980, had been to develop recommendations for procedures to be developed for use in a mandatory university-wide evaluation of teaching. Johnson emphasized that the main consideration in the development of the proposal had been that the evaluation procedure should be designed and implemented by the individual departments and the results of the evaluation should be used at the departmental level.NEW BUSINESS
Following these introductory remarks, Johnson discussed the major components of the proposal. These are as follows:1. Evaluations should be conducted at the level of the Department, or Program.Since the proposal had been previously distributed to all faculty, several senators spoke regarding their colleagues' reaction to the proposal. The sentiment appeared to be that faculty are generally in favor of evaluations and that student evaluations are used widely, but in an unstructured manner. In regard to this specific proposal the major concerns were with the university-wide body which would monitor the system and with the peer evaluations. Several Senators felt that central control of teaching evaluations would result in additional bureaucracy which would be inefficient and costly. In terms of peer review, the feeling appeared to be that this would be too costly in regard to faculty time.
2. Each Department will be charged with the responsibility of developing a system of teaching review and faculty development to be approved by some campus-wide body.
3. We, as a University, must be willing to provide support for both monitoring the evaluation systems adopted by individual departments, and for assisting faculty in the area of teaching improvement.
4. Departmental evaluation procedures should be developed within the following guidelines:a. Faculty members early in their teaching careers should be evaluated at least once annually, or perhaps more frequently in some cases. All faculty should be evaluated periodically (at least every two or three years), even after passing the usual tenure and promotion hurdles.
b. Departmental evaluations will include the following components:i. Carefully designed student evaluations (there are several good forms available).c. Evaluation procedures may or may not include class visitations. Some experts in the area of teaching evaluation contend that class visitations by peers do not provide information that can't be gleaned in other ways, do not necessarily yield valid evaluation information, are costly in time and emotion, and may be counter-productive. Others disagree. Some form of peer evaluation should be used, however.
ii. In depth peer evaluations of courses, within mutually agreed-upon guidelines (including course goals, instructional methods, content where appropriate, evaluation methods, and the like).
iii. Student evaluation may be conducted more frequently than peer evaluations, up to and including every course.
d. Evaluation procedures will be used in the Department in an atmosphere which encourages professional development in teaching, and positively rewards teaching proficiency on an ongoing basis.
John Finger voiced some additional concerns which he had with the proposal. He remarked that the proposal had implications regarding rewards based on teaching evaluations. This, according to Finger, also implied the power to punish. He also mentioned that once guidelines are established, faculty may teach to the guidelines. A lack of innovation and imagination in teaching could result. This would be the exact opposite of the intent of the proposal.
Following this lengthy discussion, Tom Hood moved that action on the proposal on teaching evaluation and improvement be deferred. Specific objections, amendments and requests for information should be presented to the President in writing. The President will organize these items and circulate them to the Senators prior to the next meeting. At the next meeting a vote on the committee report as submitted or as amended will be taken. Carl Pierce seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Ohmer Milton, director of the Learning Resource Center and chair of the Committee for Instructional Evaluation, presented the Instructional Evaluation Report which had been presented to THEC in August, 1981. The report was the result of THEC's performance funding criteria which specifies that institutional quality must be assessed. The assessment is based on five variables with a maximum of 20 points being assigned to each variable. The variables and UTK's rating on each one are as follows:There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 P.M.1. Program Accreditation--19 pts.UTK's overall marks on the variables resulted in THEC adjusting the UTK recommended appropriation upward by about one-half million dollars.
2. General Educational Outcomes--15 pts. (to realize 20 points, it would appear necessary to have a long range study comparing change from freshman to senior year on the same test).
3. Program Performance Outcomes--15 pts.
4. Program/Services Satisfaction Indices--20 pts.
5. Planning for Renewal and Improvement--15 pts.
Milton indicated that the full report was available from the Learning Resource Center.
|Ken Kenney, Presiding||Thomas Hood, Parliamentarian|
Ken Kenney announced that Ed Keshock, Senator from the College. of Engineering, is circulating a petition concerning scholarly freedom in Poland. Anyone interested in this petition should contact Keshock.MINUTES
The minutes of the Senate meeting of 2 November 1981 were approved as distributed.EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
There have been two executive committee meetings since the last Senate meeting, and minutes from these meetings have been distributed to Senators. For the meeting of 16 November 1981, there was a correction to the Minutes. On page 2, item 2 under the Traffic and Parking Committee, item (d) parking at the steam plant should be omitted. This is the same parking space as cited in item (a) Aluminum Recycling Center. There being no further corrections, the Minutes of the 16 November meeting, were approved as distributed.GRADUATE COUNCIL
From the Executive Committee meeting minutes of 4 January 1982, Kenney noted the following:1. There has been no response from the governor in: regard to Kenney's attempt to obtain an appointment. The purpose of meeting with the governor and/or the Commissioner of Finance was to provide ail opportunity to discuss appropriations for UTK.In a brief discussion following the explanation of the letter, Clint Allison commented about other budget matters. He observed that the faculty voice had not been heard in regard to the proposed building of the sports arena. Allison suggested that the five to seven million dollars in private funds sought for such an arena could possible damage fund raising efforts for academic purposes such as the library.
2. A letter and brochure are being sent to parents of students from Tennessee who reside outside of Knox County. The purpose of the letter, which is being signed by the president of the Faculty Senate and the president of the Student Government Association, is to urge parents to contact their state legislators and request legislative support of UTK. The brochure contains pertinent facts regarding consequences of lack of funding. Also included is a list of names and addresses of all state legislators. The Alumni Association is sharing one-third of production and mailing costs. Approximately four thousand letters are being sent to parents of primarily freshmen and sophomore students.
There being no corrections and no further discussion of the executive committee minutes for the meeting of 4 January 1982, the minutes were approved as distributed.
Evans Roth presented the report of the Graduate Council for the meeting of 22 October 1981. He began by expressing the following concerns: 1) the reduction in the number of students enrolling at the graduate level; 2) the current curtailment of new graduate programs; 3) the number of plagiarism cases and the leniency of the faculty regarding plagiarism.UNDERGRADUATE COUNCIL
Roth continued his report by announcing that Tom Klindt, Associate Professor in Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology had been appointed Assistant Dean for Graduate Studies. The appointment was effective I January 1982. Mary Richards has been promoted to Associate Dean for Graduate Studies. These personnel changes will result in some functional changes within the Graduate Office.
Concerning curricular materials, Roth made one correction. From the College of Communications, the course, Advertising Management 5320, should be numbered 5340. The 5320 number had not been dropped long enough to permit use of that number.
Tom Hood questioned whether two of the courses from the College of Communications (Communications 5120 and 5121) did not overlap with information in courses taught in other departments. Jack Haskins responded that much of the content in the proposed courses is specific to the College of Communications. Similar courses in other departments are more general in nature. Hood then commented that course duplication is a problem throughout the University and is quite costly.
Roth made an additional correction to the Graduate Council minutes of 21 October 1981. On page 2 under the listing for doctoral dissertation approval. it should he noted that !he approval is limited to five years.
There was considerable discussion concerning the Guidelines for Foreign Student Enrollment which has been approved by both the Graduate and Undergraduate Councils. Roth emphasized that these guidelines, which may be found on pp. 5232-5234 of the Undergraduate Council Minutes, are guidelines and not formal policy. Comments by Senators indicated concern that the guidelines might result in denying admission to students who were from countries perceived to be undesirable. Roth responded that the intent of the guidelines was to provide for greater diversification of international students. Normal baseline standards for admission of foreign students to the graduate school will not be altered, but individual departments may alter requirements in order to admit students from countries with limited representation.
Eric Gangloff, chair of the International Education Committee, raised the question concerning responsibility for monitoring the guidelines. Roth's response was that all graduate admissions are channeled centrally, but individual departments set standards of rejection or acceptance of applicants. Insofar as monitoring international student applications is concerned, there will be none other than monitoring numbers and reporting them. Bud Minkel and Ralph Norman are responsible for this. This has been done for the past few years and consequently data are available that were previously unknown. Departments may decide to move in a different direction as a result of such data.
Following this lengthy discussion, the report of the actions of the Graduate Council for the meeting of 22 October 1981 was approved.
Ralph Norman presented the report of the following meetings of the Undergraduate Council: 8 October 1981 and 12 November 1981. The highlights or the October meeting had been presented at the Senate meeting of 16 November 1981, but had not been approved because 21 Senators had not received the minutes. Norman again emphasized the following two aspects of that meeting: 1) Guidelines on Foreign Student Enrollment, which were the same as those presented by Evans Roth from the Graduate Council. Rationale and principles of the guidelines as well as the guidelines themselves may be found on pages 5228-5134 of the Undergraduate Council Minutes; 2) report from the admissions and retention committee. Full text of the report may be found on pages 5235-5239 of the Undergraduate Council Minutes.COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES
There was no discussion of the items presented. The Senate approved the minutes of the Undergraduate Council for 8 October 1981.
Norman then presented the report from the 12 November meeting. Major emphasis from this meeting concerned the following: 1) plans of the Computer Science Department to limit enrollment. These are detailed on page 5267 of the minutes; 2) discontinuing the notation of audit on student transcripts (p. 5260 of minutes); and 1) the report of the comprehensive review of the Botany Department (pp. 5161-5264 or the Minutes).
Norman outlined the process for comprehensive program reviews and stated that the process was becoming more formalized. The purpose of this formalization is to provide departments with more specific information which may facilitate departmental improvements.
The minutes of the Undergraduate Council for 12 November 1981 were approved.
Ken Kenney proposed the following changes from the Committee on Committees:REVISED PROPOSAL ON TEACHING EVALUATION AND IMPROVEMENT1. Mike Pemberton be designated as a replacement for Larry Taylor who has resigned as chair of the Development and Alumni Relations Committee.The Senate approved the changes.
2. Ron Hay be appointed to the Research Council to replace Lawson Safely who has resigned.
3. Jeff Mellor be appointed to the International Education Committee instead of the Research Council.
Ken Kenney relinquished the chair to Ken Walker, president-elect of the Senate, in order for Kenney to present the Revised Proposal on Teaching Evaluation and Improvement.PROPOSED BYLAW CHANGES
Kenney began the discussion by calling the Senate's attention to materials which were distributed to all Senators prior to the meeting. The materials included a questionnaire which Kenney had prepared and sent to all department heads and a compilation of the results of the questionnaire. A copy of a study entitled "Student Evaluations of instruction" by Warren F. Seibert was also included in the material. Seibert's study was favorable to student evaluation.
Kenney then stated that after consideration of comments, background reading, and reflection, the following revised proposal is submitted to the Senate for consideration:1. Teaching evaluations will be conducted at the level of the department program, or school.There was considerable discussion of the proposal. Central I issues were whether student evaluations should be required of all teachers, how the evaluations would be monitored, and the relationship of such evaluations to teaching improvement.
2. Each department will develop and implement a written policy on teaching evaluation. By January 31, 1983, copies of the policy statements will be forwarded to the appropriate dean, the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, and the reserve rooms of the main and undergraduate libraries. Revisions in departmental teaching evaluation policy are to be forwarded to these locations as they occur. Each department will report annually on the continuing implementation of the policy to the appropriate Dean.
3. The Learning Research Center will provide information and advice on teaching evaluation upon the request of the department.
4. The various deans and the office of the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs will develop and implement teaching improvement programs. They are to submit written reports by January 31, 1983, to the Professional Development Committee of the Faculty Senate, which will then report [to] the full Senate.
Lee Humphrey proposed the following amendment: Add to Part 2 of the Proposal the following:A committee will be designated by the President of the Senate to assess and put in manageable form a summation of the reports from individual departments and programs. This report will be made available through the Senate to all departments and programs. This committee will also serve a coordination and advisory role for departments and programs wishing to consult this material and with other departments on methods, procedures, and the use made of the evaluations. The committee will be advisory; it will not certify or approve individual policies.The amendment was seconded and passed.
Cart Pierce proposed the following amendment to item one of the proposal:In addition to those normally conducted immediately prior to promotion and tenure decision, teaching evaluations of all faculty members shall be conducted at the level of the department, program, or school.The amendment was seconded and failed.
Ronald Magid moved to postpone the vote on the proposal until the February meeting. The motion was seconded and failed.
Following further discussion concerned with the relationship of student evaluation to teaching improvement, the vote on the proposal was taken. The proposal as amended by Humphreys passed.
Ken Walker, before returning the Chair to Ken Kenney, reminded the Senators of the proposal from the Bylaws Committee which was included in the materials distributed for this meeting. A vote on the proposal wilt be taken at the February meeting.NEW BUSINESS
1. Henry Fribourg, chair of the Fringe Benefits Committee, moved the following resolution:There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 P.M.The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Faculty Senate, wishes all to know, and in particular the U.T.K. Parking Authority, that the Senate and the Faculty it represents consider the continued assurance of convenient parking on campus not only an important fringe benefit, but indeed a necessity for the carrying out of faculty functions.The motion for the resolution was seconded and passed. 2. John Finger moved the following resolution:Whereas, in consideration of the fact that at Stokely Athletics Center on the evening of January 9, 1982, players, coaches and other representatives of the University of Kentucky basketball team were treated rudely--and in some cases abused--by supporters of the University of Tennessee; now therefore let it be resolved that the UTK Faculty Senate:The motion for the resolution was seconded and passed.1) Deplores such conduct and apologizes to those visitors and to the University of Kentucky;
2) Calls upon all supporters of the University of Tennessee to behave with the decorum and good sportsmanship that have long characterized their behavior; and
3) Calls upon the administration of the University of Tennessee to provide adequate safeguards for all representatives and supporters of visiting athletic teams.
3. LeRoy Graf spoke of his concern regarding recent newspaper accounts of two male basketball players who were declared academically ineligible. The newspaper accounts implied a lack of academic integrity at UTK. Graf suggested that steps need to be taken to alter that impression. The Senate agreed that Howard Aldmon and John McDow should make a full report on [his matter to the Athletics Committee of the Faculty Senate. The Athletics Committee would then report to the full Senate.
|Ken Kenney, Presiding||Thomas Hood, Parliamentarian|
1. Ken Kenney encouraged Senators to attend an open meeting sponsored by AAUP to be held at noon on Friday, February 19 in the Crest Room of the University Center. President Boling and his staff will be present to address the topic "The State of the University: Issues and Answers".BUDGET
2. LeRoy Graf informed Senators that AAUP is raising money in order to continue the salary of a lobbyist in the state legislature. Donations to the fund may be sent to Stan Lusby, Professor of Religious Studies.
3. Ken Kenney remarked that attendance at Senate meetings had been generally good. However, there was concern over the number of absences at the January meeting. He informed Senators that there will be a Faculty Senate meeting on March 8, 1982.
4. Ken Kenney recognized Anne Hopkins, who is chair of the nominating committee. Nominations for President-Elect and University Councilors should be sent to Hopkins by February 23rd. A list of persons eligible for President-Elect was made available to Senators.
Jack Reese presented a brief update of the financial situation as a result of the $27 million total reduction for state agencies. He reported that the "set aside" was necessary because of a loss of state revenues and that all state agencies, with the exception of K-12 and the highway department, had been subjected to a loss of funds. Reese stated that a major concern was that the reduction for this year might be carried over to reduce appropriations in next year's recommended budget for UTK. He expressed confidence, however, that the Governor was committed to the one million for pre-planning funds for the library and for the seven million for the steam plant. Reese concluded his remarks by asking Senators to urge state legislators to support the Governors recommended budget for next year. Reese felt that the legislators could not improve on the Governor's recommendations and that legislative action might result in harm to proposed appropriations.MINUTES
Homer Fisher summarized the impact of the "set aside" funds on the UTK campus. He reported that the loss to UTK represented a 2.5 percent reduction. To accommodate this loss the following unilateral actions have been taken by the central administration: 1) suspension of hiring; 2) reduction by 4 percent in operating funds; 3) deferring equipment purchases; and 4) postponement of renovation projects.
Responding to a question concerning frozen positions, Fisher explained that all non-academic positions are frozen, but that faculty positions are somewhat more flexible. Department Heads, Deans, and the Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs may appeal to the Chancellor in emergency situations.
There were two typographical errors in the minutes for the Senate meeting of 18 January 1982. On page 2, second paragraph, line five, the word dollard should be dollars. Line six of the same paragraph should read "possibly, instead of "possible". There being no further corrections, the minutes of the Senate meeting of 18 January 1982 were approved as corrected.EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Ken Kenney elaborated on the following items from the Executive Committee minutes of 1 February 1982: 1) selected department heads may be able to testify before the Education Committee of the state Senate on 17 February 1982; 2) the policies for part-time faculty which have been approved by the administration for inclusion in the faculty handbook will be presented for Senate action at the 8 March meeting; and 3) a position statement on the proposed arena will be presented to the Senate at the 8 March meeting. Ken Kenney will prepare the statement. He requested that interested Senators confer with him on this matter.GRADUATE COUNCIL
The Executive Committee minutes of 18 January 1982 were approved as distributed.
Evans Roth presented the following items from the Graduate Council meeting of 19 November 1981:UNDERGRADUATE COUNCIL1. The College of Education has requested that the Ed.D. and Ed.S. programs in Vocational-Technical Education be offered at UTC. Approval from the Graduate Council is pending.The Graduate Council minutes for the meeting of 19 November 1981 were approved.
2. The Graduate Council is considering the following policy regarding 3000- and 4000-level courses.At least two-thirds of the minimally required hours in the graduate program must be at or above the 5000-level. For purposes of this determination, no more than nine may be thesis hours although many students complete a larger number. Courses at the 3000-level, even though authorized for graduate credit in certain departments, are generally not intended for use by persons majoring in that degree program.Roth requested that Senators discuss the proposed policy with their colleagues and communicate their opinions about the proposal to Graduate Council members.
3. The Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics has revised sections of the Doctoral Program in the Graduate Catalog.
Ralph Norman emphasized the following points from the Undergraduate Council minutes from the meeting of 28 January 1982:BYLAWS COMMITTEE1. A report from the Undergraduate Degree Requirements Committee was received. The report appears on pp. 5278 through 5280 of the minutes. A major proposal from the committee is an extension of the drop deadline to fifteen class days after the beginning of each quarter. Senators were urged to study the entire proposal and to give advice to the Undergraduate Council. Action on the proposal will be taken at the March meeting of the Undergraduate Council.Following Norman's presentation, Wayman Scott was granted permission to address the Senate. Scott explained that in his position as chair of the Commission for Blacks, it is his responsibility to monitor UTK policy which might reflect adversely on the black student body. Based on this responsibility, Scott was objecting to a proposal from the College of Education which could reduce the number of black students on campus. Scott requested that the Senate postpone action on the proposal until the 8 March meeting in order to provide opportunity to determine more exactly the impact of the proposal on blacks.
2. A progress report from the General Education Committee was received and approved in principle by the Undergraduate Council. The full report is on pp. 5281 through 5287 of the minutes.
3. A proposal which provides for a co-op option for any major was approved. Full text of the proposal may be found on pp. 5292 through 5294 of the minutes. The proposal suggests minimum guidelines for establishing co-op programs and provides the mechanism for implementing such programs.
4. Comprehensive Program Review materials from two departments, Plant and Soil Science and Chemistry, were highlighted. These reports appear on pp. 5273 through 5277.
5. There was one correction to the curricular materials. On p. 5271, under VII. College of Agriculture should appear rather than College of Education.
There followed a lengthy discussion of the proposal, which appears on pp. 5303 and 5304 of the Undergraduate Council minutes. The essence of the proposal has to do with admittance to the College of Education, to teacher education, and to student teaching. Present policy allows anyone who is admitted to UTK to become associated with the College. There are, however, several criteria which students must meet in order to be admitted to teacher education and student teaching. One of these is a 2.2 GPA. The proposed policy change would require entering freshmen, who want to major in education, to meet the following criteria in order to have full association with the College of Education: Minimum 2.5 high school GPA and a minimum 17 ACT composite or 765 SAT combined score. Students unable to meet these criteria would be granted Provisional Status. This status may be upgraded to full status upon completion of a minimum 45 quarter hours and achieving a 2.5 GPA.
Glennon Rowell, Associate Dean in the College of Education and Tom George, Assistant Dean defended the proposal. However, they were unable to explain to the Senate's satisfaction the two central issues in the discussion: the number of blacks who would be adversely affected by the proposal and the relationship of GPA to teaching competence. They did point out that the proposal had been examined from the standpoint of discrimination and the College of Education Faculty felt that by providing provisional status, high risk students could be identified earlier and given remedial help. This is important since the State Board of Education requires prospective teachers who do not score at least 17 on the ACT test or at least 765 on the SAT to pass the California Achievement Test. This is a basic skills test in the areas of math, reading, and language. Students failing this test are not certified to teach. Students unable to score at minimum levels on the National Teachers Exam are also denied certification.
At the conclusion of the discussion, Anne Hopkins moved that action on the proposal from the College of Education be postponed until the 8 March meeting. LeRoy Graf seconded the motion. It passed by a hand vote of 40 to 24.
The Senate approved the Minutes of the Undergraduate Council for the meeting of 28 January as amended in the above paragraph.
Ken Walker, chair of the Bylaws Committee, presented the report of proposed changes in the Bylaws. The proposal had been distributed with the Minutes of 18 January meeting. After a brief discussion and following some minor changes in the proposal, the following changes were approved by the Senate.LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Change paragraph 1 to read as follows: Educational Policy Committee. Membership shall consist of eight elected faculty members from the Faculty Senate, one elected faculty member from the Graduate Council, one elected faculty member from the Undergraduate Council, one student designated by the Academic Council, and one student from the Graduate Council. Ex officio members shall be the Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs (or designate), the Vice Chancellor for Graduate Studies and Research (or designate), the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs (or designate), the Vice Chancellor for Planning and Administration (or designate), the Dean of Admissions and Records, the Dean of Continuing Education, and two administrative members to be elected from among the Deans and Directors of the academic units concerned with student instruction by the Deans and Directors. The Chairperson shall be one of the eight faculty members elected from the Senate. (The remainder of Article III Section 2A remains unchanged).
2 III 2B At the end of paragraph 2 add the following: The Faculty Affairs Committee also serves on call by the Chancellor as a fact-finding committee in matters of dismissal for cause. 3 III 2D Change last sentence of paragraph 3 to read as follows: Also, the chairperson shall submit an annual report on his/her perception of the state of the University for the past year during the Fall Quarter following tenure as President. 4 IV 2 In the 1st paragraph, the final sentence should be revised to read: in the event of death or resignation of the President, the President-Elect shall serve as President. The President-Elect shall be the editor of the Faculty Senate Newsletter. 5 IV 2 In the 2nd paragraph, the final sentence should be changed to read: the Vice-President does not automatically become President for the next year; instead, an election for a new President-Elect from a slate presented by the Nomination Committee shall be held at the 2nd Senate meeting after the assumption of the President's office by the President-Elect. 6 V Amendments In the final sentence of paragraph 1, change "thirty" (30) days" to twenty-eight (28) days."
Amendments numbers 2 through 6 will become effective immediately and amendment number 1 will become effective with the Senate Committee elections for the 1982-83 academic year.
Bernie Silverstein, chair of the Legislative Committee, presented a resolution regarding state tax reform. Rationale for the resolution had been prepared by Anne Hopkins and had been previously distributed to Senators. The resolution which was approved by the Senate is as follows: ...INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEEKen Kenney said that he intends to publicize the resolution by sending it to newspaper editors across the state.
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE, KNOXVILLE FACULTY SENATE RESOLUTIONWHEREAS, The State of Tennessee has had for a number of years a tax structure that is highly regressive, causing the tax burden to fall most heavily on those citizens who are least able to pay; and
ON STATE TAX REFORM
WHEREAS, the State of Tennessee's tax structure is relatively inelastic, causing tax revenues to not grow at a pace that keeps up with inflation and personal income; and
WHEREAS, the State of Tennessee has the 3rd lowest per capita tax revenue of any state in the Nation, and that Tennessee's state and local taxes are only 2/3 of the national average; and
WHEREAS, limited tax revenues make it impossible to adequately fund higher education and other necessary state services,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the UTK Faculty Senate go on record as supporting the enactment of tax reform legislation which would incorporate a progressive state income tax, coupled with reductions in sales tax rates.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate on behalf of Faculty, urge the Governor, Commissioner of Finance and Administration and the State Legislature to support appropriate legislation to bring about the endorsed tax reforms; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Faculty Senate through its various committees elicit the support of faculty, staff, students, alumni, and others for the proposed state tax reforms.
Jeff Mellor, a member of the International Education Committee, reported on a memo from Dixon Johnson, the Fulbright Program Advisor. The memo indicated that this appeared to be one of the most successful years for UTK students in regard to Fulbright grants. Students Reid Davis, Tom Elmlinger, Jan Lewis, Amanda Plumlee, and Sarah Lacy Tippins have passed the biggest "hurdle", the U.S. National Screening Committee. Their files are being sent to the Bi-national Commissions abroad for final consideration.There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:13 pm.
Mellor also announced that Tom Horton, chair of the Academic Council, is the first UTK recipient of a Marshall Fellowship.
|Ken Kenney, Presiding||Thomas Hood, Parliamentarian|
The following announcements were made by Ken Kenney:[MINUTES]1. There has been a request that there be no smoking during the meeting.Kenney recognized LeRoy Graf, Chair of the Library Committee, who announced that there would be an open library meeting on 6 April. Time and location of the meeting were not definite but the two agenda items are: 1) Revision of the circulation policy for journals and periodicals and 2) Methods of dealing with the required budget retrenchment of 2 percent. All faculty were encouraged to attend the meeting.
2. Dates for Senate meetings for Spring Quarter are 5 April and 3 May.
3. An additional item should be included under New Business on the agenda for today's meeting. Harvey Carruth will report on a recent retirement benefits program which he conducted, if time permits.
4. A letter from John Langley, chair of the UTK Parking Authority, indicated that there will be no change in faculty/staff parking procedures. This letter was in response to a Faculty Senate resolution (January 18) from the Fringe Benefits Committee regarding the possibility of changing faculty/staff parking to unassigned lots rather than assigned lots.
5. Ken Quindry, research professor in the Center for Business and Economic Research, reported to Kenney from Nashville just prior to today's meeting that the State is currently $13.8 million behind estimated revenues. Due to this and because state corporate income tax revenues may fall well below original estimates, perhaps as much as $15 to $20 million, the 2 percent set aside imposed by Governor Alexander may become permanent.
The following corrections were made to the minutes for the Senate meeting of 15 February 1982.EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE1. On Page 5, Amendment 4, Article IV, Section 2, line 2, the word in after the semicolon should be capitalized.There being no further corrections, the minutes of the Senate meeting of 15 February 1982 were approved as corrected.
2. On Page 5, Amendment 5, Article IV, Section 2, line 2, the word the after the semicolon should be capitalized.
3. On Page 5, Amendment 5, Article IV, Section 2, line 6, the Nomination Committee should read the Nominating Committee
4. On Page 2, under the Graduate Council, item 1, the Graduate Council approved the Ed.D and Ed.S. programs in VTE to be taught at UTC.
Since the minutes for the Executive Committee meeting for 1 March 1982 had not been distributed, Kenney gave the following oral report of the meeting: 1) Department Heads did not go to Nashville to testify before the Senate Education Committee because the Faculty Senate was allocated only three minutes on a thirty minute agenda. Kenney did attend and present UTK budget concerns to the Committee. Kenney reported from his conversation with three State Senators, representing both the Democratic and Republican parties, that they agreed that the only solution to the budget situation was in tax reform. Kenney informed the Senators of the recent Faculty Senate resolution which favored a state income tax. The Senators urged that the resolution be publicized. 2) Doug Wickham, Co-chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, discussed proposed changes in the Faculty Handbook which deal with improving the status of part-time faculty. The Executive Committee supported the revisions, but the full Senate must approve the changes before they are submitted to the Board of Trustees for final action. The proposal is on the agenda for today's meeting. Kenney reminded Senators that in order for the changes to appear in next year's Handbook, the Board of Trustees must receive the material by May 21st. 3) An arena policy statement, prepared by Ken Kenney, was distributed and discussed at length. Kenney agreed to incorporate some Executive Committee suggestions into a revised statement. It is on the agenda for consideration by the full Senate at today's meeting.GRADUATE COUNCIL
Kenney assured the Senate that minutes for the Executive Committee meeting of 1 March 1982 would be distributed. The reason they were not distributed with other Senate materials for today's meeting is that generally there are two weeks between Executive Committee and full Senate meetings. When there are less than two weeks, it is not possible to have materials printed and distributed in order to comply with the Senate bylaws which state that materials should reach Senators five days prior to meetings.
Evans Roth mentioned two items from the Graduate Council meeting of 21 January 1982.OLD BUSINESS1. A special committee has been appointed to study matters of increasing concern to the Graduate Council. Among these are plagiarism and appeals and termination of graduate students. Members of the committee are: Alan Fletcher, College of Communications, Chairperson; Malcolm McInnis, College of Education, Roger Nooe, School of Social Work; and Tom Klindt, Assistant Dean for Graduate Studies. Senators were encouraged to communicate their concerns to members of the committee.Roth explained that the proposal differs in two ways from present policy: a) Two-thirds of the courses required for the Master's degree must be at or above the 5000-level. Present policy stipulates one-half; and b) the required number of hours is calculated on minimum rather than maximum number of hours.
2. The proposal approved by the Council regarding 3000- and 4000-level courses is as follows:At least two-thirds of the minimally required hours in the graduate program must be at or above 5000-level. For purposes of this determination, no more than nine may be thesis hours although many students complete a larger number.
Minutes of the Graduate Council for the meeting of 21 January 1982 were approved.
1. College of Education ProposalNEW BUSINESSA vote on a proposal from the College of Education was deferred at the Senate's last meeting due to objections raised by Wayman Scott, Chair of the Commission for Blacks. The proposal, among other stipulations, requires entering freshmen who major in education to have a minimum high school GPA of 2.5 and a minimum composite 17 ACT or 765 SAT combined score. Further details of the proposal may be found on pp. 5303 and 5304 of the Undergraduate Council Minutes.2. Faculty Handbook Revisions on Part-time Faculty
Ken Kenney began the discussion by reading a letter from Wayman Scott. The contents of the letter revealed that Scott, on behalf of the Commission for Blacks, was withdrawing all objections to the proposal. Based on this information, LeRoy Graf moved that the proposal from the College of Education be approved. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously.Doug Wickham, Co-chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, led the discussion dealing with suggested revisions in the Faculty handbook concerning part-time faculty. A document detailing the revisions had been distributed to Senators prior to the meeting. The document reflects changes which had been agreed upon by the UTK central administration.3. ARENA POLICY STATEMENT Ken Kenney, at the request of the Executive Committee, prepared and distributed to the full Senate, a policy statement which was intended to reflect the Senate's position regarding the building of a sports arena for UTK. A lively discussion followed the presentation of the statement. Several Senators felt the Senate should "tell it like it is."
Wickham began the discussion by explaining the intent of the document was to create for part-time faculty a better status than they presently enjoy. The proposal included definition of a status of "regular" part-time for some part-time faculty. Although not a Tenure Track, it was designed to improve the quality and stability of their status.
Ralph Norman spoke for the Administration and remarked that care should be exercised in dealing with part-time faculty. He called the Senate's attention to page 3, paragraph 2, of the proposed Handbook revisions which states the following:The main principle is that part-time faculty, when they are needed in any of the circumstances mentioned here, should be sought, identified, employed, reviewed, counseled, encouraged, allowed to grow, retained or terminated, as part of a coherent academic plan and under the same standards as those applied to regular full-time faculty.A lengthy discussion followed Norman's remarks. Among the several concerns expressed by Senators were: a) The relationship of the regular part-time faculty status to tenure; and b) The financial impact of the proposed revisions.
Ken Walker offered three amendments which were intended to clarify the proposal. All three were seconded by Tom Hood and were approved by the Senate. They are as follows:a. Page 2 number 3 the second to last line, delete the phrase "has in fact occurred and a specific recognition of regular part-time status is made." The sentence should read, "When a coherent pattern of such persons has emerged (for instance, when a person has consistently been invited to teach two quarters a year for many years), a regular part-time arrangement should be considered.Trahern moved to amend further by deleting the second sentence in the fourth paragraph on page 7. Walker seconded the motion. It was approved by the Senate. The amended page 7 now reads as follows:
b. Page 6 number 3, the third paragraph, should read: Regular part-time faculty are entitled to participate in all departmental deliberations. The remainder of that sentence ... and to participate in tenure considerations, etc. should be deleted.
c. Page 7, third paragraph. Delete last sentence which begins, Upon receipt of this request. In the fourth paragraph on page 7, delete the first sentence and combine paragraphs three and four.The University will be conservative in granting Regular Part-time Status. The case for consideration must be strong and consistent with the University's commitment to a flexible but fair academic personnel policy.Following passage of the amendments, several Senators expressed confusion over the contents of the proposal. Based on this, Jeon moved to table the proposal. The motion was seconded, but failed by voice vote.
Part-time faculty who wish to be considered for full-time positions in their disciplines when such positions become available should submit a written letter of application to the department head indicating this interest. Regular part-time faculty who are offered full-time appointments will be given a probationary period, with proper account taken of quarters already served.
Hopkins moved to postpone action until the April Senate meeting. The motion was seconded and passed by a vote of 28-24.
Wickham requested that Senators communicate with him regarding their concerns and suggestions for revisions before the April meeting. His extension is 4334.
During the discussion several amendments were offered to soften the language. They were as follows:a) LeRoy Graf moved to amend the statement by replacing the words "complete misapplication" with "questionable application" in the third line of the third paragraph. Hal Roland seconded the motion. The motion passed.At the conclusion of the debate on the amendments, the following arena policy statement was approved by the Senate.
b) Ralph Dimmick moved to amend by deleting the last two paragraphs. Robert Landen was the second for the motion. The motion failed.
c) Kathleen Emmett moved to amend by removing sections of paragraph two and three. Pierce seconded the motion. The motion failed.
d) Ronald Magid moved to amend by removing from the last line the words public amenities such as. The motion was seconded and passed.
ARENA POLICY STATEMENTThe UTK Faculty Senate recognizes the inadequacies of Stokely Athletics Center in terms of seating capacity and configuration for basketball games and University and community public occasions. We also acknowledge that smaller state universities in smaller communities have superior athletic/public occasion facilities which have been built with very substantial State support, whereas Stokely Athletics Center was built without State financial assistance.
from the UTK Faculty Senate
However, in light of the current economic recession and our deplorable State tax structure, the UTK Faculty Senate believes that expenditure of State funds for an arena for UTK and the larger Knoxville community would be most inappropriate at the present time.
Furthermore, we deplore the position that if the $7 million state appropriation is not used for an arena, it must necessarily be spent on a state office building in Knoxville. This would be a questionable application of funds in this time of revenue shortfalls and crucial State needs. UTK, for example, is functioning on starvation equipment and operating budgets. Other units of State government have their own urgent needs. Rather than for an arena or state office building, the $7 million would be better spent on critical needs such as operating and equipment budgets, UTK library expansion, or a new facility for the State Technical Institute at Knoxville.
The UTK Faculty Senate therefore urges Governor Alexander and members of the Tennessee General Assembly to appropriate the $7 million dollars in question toward critical operating and equipment budgets or one or more high priority capital projects. Library expansion planning is our number one priority. Only when the recession is past and State tax revenues can more nearly fund needed services and capital projects should attention be turned to an arena.
Due to time constraints, Kenney postponed until the April meeting the report of Harvey Carruth dealing with a retirement benefits program.The meeting was adjourned at 4:58 pm.
|Ken Kenney, Presiding||Thomas Hood, Parliamentarian|
1. Ken Kenney encouraged Senators to attend an open meeting sponsored by the Senate Library Committee on Tuesday, 6 April at 3:30 pm in the Shiloh Room of the University Center. There are two agenda items: a) revision of circulation policies of journals and periodicals and b) methods of dealing with the two percent reduction in library operating expenses. Faculty and students are invited to participate in the meeting.MINUTES
2. President Kenney reminded the Senate that Senators should limit speeches to three minutes, and that no Senator should speak twice on an issue until all who wish to speak on the issue have been given an opportunity. The intent of this request is not to limit participation, but rather to expedite the proceedings.
There were several typographical errors in the minutes for the 8 March Senate meeting. They are as follows:OLD BUSINESSPage 2, line 2: retrenchmentIn addition to the typographical errors there was also an identification error. On page 5, item 3d, Ronald Magid was incorrectly identified as the Senator who moved an amendment. Since none of the Senators present admitted to making this motion, it appears that the perpetrator will have to remain unknown.
Page 2, lines 9 and 11: semicolon
Page 3, line 18: proposal differs
Page 4, line 11: exercised
line 30: clarify
line 33: occurred
Page 6, last line: adjourned
There being no further corrections, the minutes of the Senate meeting of 8 March 1982 were approved as corrected.
Part-time Faculty PolicyCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Doug Wickham, co-chair of the Faculty Affairs Committee, presented the information dealing with part-time faculty policy. A revised version of the document detailing such policy had been distributed to Senators prior to today's meeting. This revision incorporated amendment and concerns expressed by the Senate at the 8 March meeting. Subsequent to the mailing of the revised document several Senators, individually and collectively, suggested further revisions. Based on the latest suggestions, Wickham prepared another revision of the part-time faculty policy proposal. This revision, referred to by Wickham as the "clean" copy was distributed at the meeting. Senate discussion was based on the six page "clean" copy.
Wickham explained that the part-time faculty policy document had been divided into three parts. Part one deals with information and policy statements to be included in the Faculty Handbook. This includes such things as illustrations regarding reasons for part-time appointments, benefits for all part-time employees, and definition of the status of regular part-time faculty. Part two of the document is concerned with benefits for regular part-time faculty which the campus administration has endorsed but which are not to be included in the Handbook. Part three recommends that regular part-time faculty should be eligible for Faculty Senate membership.
Wickham moved adoption of the part-time faculty policy document. LeRoy Graf seconded the motion. The lengthy discussion which followed resulted in several amendments to the document being approved. Other proposed amendments failed. Details of the amendments follow.
Tom Hood moved to amend on page three, first paragraph, line 7, under the heading, Regular Part-time Status, the following sentence, "As between non-tenured full-time and regular part-time faculty there should be no automatic preferences in making general budgetary and staffing decisions." The following sentence should be substituted. "As between non-tenured full-time faculty and regular part-time faculty, general budgetary and staffing decisions shall be decided on a case by case basis."
Lee Humphreys seconded the motion. The amendment passed by voice vote.
Gill Evans moved to amend on page three, last paragraph under the heading, Revocation of Regular Part-time Status by adding a second condition. That section would then read as follows: "Revocation of regular part-time status will occur if: 1) the individual fails . . . or 2) the reordering of Departmental programs or priorities requires a redefinition of the position. Such revocation ...
Hugh Jaynes seconded the motion. It failed by a hand vote of 33-30.
Sam Jordan moved to amend on page three, first paragraph, line ten, by inserting the words "where appropriate" after the word "entitled". The sentence would then read, "Regular part-time faculty are entitled, where appropriate, to participate and, where appropriate, to vote in departmental deliberations."
Harvey Carruth was the second for the motion. It passed by voice vote.
Mary Sue Younger moved to amend on page one, number three, the last sentence by substituting the word "consistent" for "coherent" and the word "repeatedly" for "consistently". The sentence would read: "Where a consistent pattern of employment of such persons has emerged (for instance, when a person has repeatedly been invited to teach two quarters a year for several years), a regular part-time arrangement should be considered."
LeRoy Graf seconded the motion. It passed by voice vote.
Samuel Jordan moved to amend on page one, third paragraph, by including the first sentence and then deleting from there through sentence number three. It would then read as follows: "The University recognizes the importance of part-time faculty to many departments and programs. The main principle is that all part-time faculty, when they are needed, should be sought, identified etc."
Tom Hood seconded the motion. It failed by a hand vote of 37-30.
Wickham moved to amend by placing numbers one, two, and three on page one and a through d on page 2 in an appendix.
The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.
Sid Jumper moved to amend on page 3, by deleting number two and substituting the following: "Employment should normally include one quarter of service each year."
The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.
Following these amendments, Wickham moved and Graf seconded approval of Part I as amended. The motion passed by voice vote . Wickham moved and Graf seconded approval of Part II as amended. The motion passed by voice vote.
Clint Allison moved that Part III dealing with Faculty Senate membership be referred to the Bylaws Committee only and that there be no change in the Faculty Handbook regarding part-time membership until the Bylaws Committee had studied the issue and made a recommendation.
The motion was seconded and passed by voice vote.
1. Executive CommitteeNEW BUSINESSThere were two sets of minutes from Executive Committee meetings which needed approval. Kenney had discussed orally the Executive Committee meeting of I March at the last Senate meeting, but Senators had not received written minutes until they were sent with materials for today's meeting. Kenney asked for questions or corrections to the minutes for that meeting. There being none, the minutes for the 1 March Executive Committee meeting were approved.2. Undergraduate Council
The minutes for the Executive Committee meeting of 29 March were distributed at today's meeting. Kenney highlighted the following from those minutes:a. Kenney and three Department Heads (Bagby, Zoology; Bradley, Math; and Luttrell, Ag. Engineering) testified on 26 March in Nashville at an open hearing of the Tennessee Comprehensive Education Study Committee regarding the impact of lack of funding for UTK. Kenney reported that they were well received by the Committee. Kenney also reported that the trip to Nashville was funded from Senate funds generated during the Tennessee Tomorrow Campaign. Approximately $270.00 remains in the Faculty Senate Account.The minutes for the Executive Committee meeting of 29 March were approved.
b. Kenney recommended that a memorandum from Brodie Baynes dealing with liability insurance, which had been distributed to administrators, should be distributed to all faculty.
c. Kenney supplied the address for House Speaker McWherter for Senators wishing to write to McWherter requesting restoration of preplanning funds for the library.Linda Tober, Secretary to the Undergraduate Council and Recorder of Curriculum, presented the minutes of the 4 March meeting of the Council. She reported that the material in the minutes dealing with undergraduate degree requirements would be continued to be discussed at Undergraduate Council meetings. She assured the Senate that approval of the minutes did not indicate approval of the Council deliberations on this matter.3. Graduate Council
There was one correction to the minutes. The curricular material from the Department of Chemical, Metallurgical, and Polymer Engineering should be effective Summer Quarter, 1982 rather than Fall. This information may be found on pp. 5337-5351 of the minutes.
The minutes of the Undergraduate Council for the 4 March meeting were approved as corrected.Evans Roth presented the minutes for the Graduate Council meeting of 25 February 1982. In regard to curricular matters, Roth mentioned that the Department of Economics had dropped two degrees; Master of Arts in College Teaching with a major in Economics and a Master of Science degree with a major in Economics.4. Fringe Benefits Committee
Roth also reported that there is no policy proposal regarding 3000-level courses and that the previous policy regarding 5000-level courses would remain as approved by the Senate March 8, 1982.
There was one correction to the minutes. On page 1, (c) Janet Handler was approved to teach 6000-level courses in Curriculum and Instruction rather than Physics.
The minutes for the Graduate Council meeting of 25 February were approved as corrected.Harvey Carruth, chair of the Fringe Benefits Committee, distributed a report detailing a project which is concerned with individualized retirement financial planning for UTK employees. This project resulted in a seminar held on 22 February 1982 in which about 350 people requested permission to participate. Of those, only 144 could be accommodated. The response of those participating was very positive. Based on this success, Chancellor Reese has arranged for Carruth to spend full time on this project during the Spring quarter. This will enable him to conduct another seminar to accommodate the approximately 200 people who would like to participate.5. Nominating CommitteeAnne Hopkins, chair of the Nominating Committee, presented the following slate of officers:There being no nominations from the floor, the Senate accepted the nominations as presented. Hopkins explained that a ballot would be distributed in the near future and Senators were requested to vote and return ballots by the deadline which would be indicated on the ballot. Results of the election will be announced at the 3 May meeting of the Senate.
President-elect: LeRoy Graf
University Councilors (3 will be elected): Daniel Billen
Mary Sue Younger
University Studies 1000The Senate voted to postpone action on the course, University Studies 1000, until the next Senate meeting. This was the recommendation from the Executive Committee. The rationale was that additional information about the course was needed in the form of more extensive evaluation materials. This additional information, according to F. A. Hilenski, one of the developers of the course, will be distributed with materials for the Senate meeting of 3 May.
|Ken Kenney, Presiding||Thomas Hood, Parliamentarian|
1. Ken Kenney announced that there would be a Faculty Senate meeting on 31 May. This meeting is necessary in order to consider some important proposals from the Undergraduate Council.MINUTES
2. Ken Kenney recognized Jack Reese and Homer Fisher and asked them to address the Senate concerning the budget.
Jack Reese spoke first and confirmed his remarks to salary guidelines. He mentioned the following: a) the final appropriation figures for UTK are still uncertain; b) there will be a 7 percent increase in faculty salaries; c) Deans and Vice-Chancellor for Academic Affairs have small pools of discretionary funds to use where special adjustments may be needed; d) there is a separate pool of money to be used for promotions; e) there will be a 7.2 percent salary increase for the non-exempt clerical staff. An effort is being made to make significant salary improvements for this particular category; f) the longevity pay will remain at seventy-five dollars per year for those who have served three years up to a maximum of 15 years; and g) GA's and GTA's will receive an average of 5 percent stipend increase.
Homer Fisher remarked on the budget in more general terms. He mentioned that lack of funding for equipment and operating expenses was acute, and that this was causing morale problems within departments. He stated that the 32-83 budget should be an improvement in terms of operating and equipment budgets as well as in the other priorities of faculty salaries and library acquisitions. He concluded his remarks by indicating that the UTK budget for the next fiscal year appeared to be the best in the last six or seven years.
Jack Reese emphasized that UTK has not arrived at a level of funding which is necessary but that the proposed budget does represent an increase in state appropriations. He concluded the discussion by commending the vice -chancellors, deans, and department heads for their contributions to the budgetary process.
Ken Kenney presented the following corrections to the minutes of the 5 April meeting: page two, first paragraph, line 4, the word amendment should be amendments; page five, number four, Harvey Carruth should be identified as a member rather than chair of the Fringe Benefits Committee. Henry Fribourg is chair of that committee.OLD BUSINESS
There being no further corrections, the minutes of the Senate meeting of 5 April 1982 were approved as corrected.
University Studies 1000COMMITTEE REPORTS 1. Executive CommitteeThe Senate at the 5 April meeting voted. to postpone action on the University Studies 1000 course until today's meeting. The Executive Committee had recommended the postponement and requested that Senators be provided with additional information regarding the course. Such information was distributed with the agenda for today's meeting. Ski Hilenski summarized the material which had been prepared by the four instructors who taught the course in the fall quarter. He emphasized in his presentation that all courses created by the University Studies Committee are experimental in nature and carry a self-imposed sunset law which forces review by the Undergraduate Council every two years.
Following Hilenski's remarks, Lee Humphreys moved that University Studies 1000 be continued for one year and that the course be revised to comply with recommendations from the Senate Executive Committee regarding credit hours and grading. Those recommendations were that three hours credit be assigned to the course and that the grading be S/NC. The motion was seconded and passed.
Ken Kenney made the following correction to the Executive Committee of 19 April: Page one, number one, should read Committee on Committees Nominations. He highlighted the following items from the meeting: liability insurance coverage, committee on committees nominations, and proposed alternative period revisions.2. Undergraduate Council
In regard to University liability insurance coverage, Henry Fribourg, Chair of the Fringe Benefits Committee, has written to Emerson Fly requesting that this information be distributed to all faculty. Concerning committee on committees nominations, Kenney reported that the Executive Committee had prepared the ballot which had been distributed at today's meeting. Kenney, in compliance with the bylaws, asked for nominations from the floor. There being none, the ballot was approved. Senators voted and returned the ballots at the meeting.
Ken Walker, chair of the Committee on Committees, announced that a committee preference form would be distributed in the near future and that Senators should complete the forms and return them as quickly as possible in order to have committees structured prior to the end of Spring Quarter.
The final item from the Executive Committee was concerned with a proposal from the Undergraduate Academic Council which dealt with providing a study day in the University Calendar. Ken Kenney presented the following motion: the Executive Committee moves that a study day be provided each quarter between the last day of class and the four day alternative period.
The motion was seconded and passed by the full Senate. Although some concern was expressed regarding the impact of the proposal on the calendar, the vote indicated strong Senate support for the study day.
The Senate approved the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of 19 April 1982.
Since Senators had not received the minutes of the Undergraduate Council meeting of 22 April five days prior to today's meeting, it was decided to postpone deliberation on the report until the 31 May Senate meeting. Ralph Norman did highlight important policy changes which had been approved by the Undergraduate Council and which required Senate action. Among those changes are the following: an earlier drop deadline; a concept referred to as Academic Second Opportunity whereby a student readmitted to UTK after a two year absence from school could petition to have previous grades counted only as S/NC credit; and a final policy change approved at the 22 April meeting limiting the number of courses a student can repeat to get a substitute grade.3. Research Council
Senate action on the important policy changes will be taken at the 31 May meeting. All Senators were urged to attend that meeting.
Tom Hood, Chair of the Research Council, distributed a 14 page report from the Committee on Research Centers. Members of this committee, chaired by Ed Howley, prepared the report at the request of the Research Council. The report was a follow-up of a similar document prepared in 1977 and contains the following information: a) the name of the center (laboratory); b) the person contacted by this committee to obtain the information; and c) a brief summary of that information.4. Nominating Committee
Hood moved that the Research Council be authorized to distribute the report to all administrators through the department head level.
The motion was seconded and passed.
The brief discussion which followed included the suggestion that contact names should be updated. For example, on page five of the report the Ecology Program is now known as the Graduate Program in Ecology and the contact person is Dr. Dewey Bunting, Chairman. The former contact person was listed as Director.
Hood asked Senators to read the report carefully and to provide him with any corrections.
Anne Hopkins, chair of the Nominating Committee, gave the results of the Senate election.NEW BUSINESS
President-elect: LeRoy Graf
University Councilors: Daniel Billen
Mary Sue Younger
Beacon InterviewThere being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.John Finger raised the question of an appropriate Senate response to an interview with Ed Boling which appeared in the Daily Beacon on 30 April 1982. The interview, according to Finger, was degrading to faculty and because of this the Senate should respond in some manner. After some discussion, it was agreed that the Executive Committee should discuss the matter at the next meeting and make a recommendation to the full Senate at the 31 May meeting.
|Ken Kenney, Presiding||Thomas Hood, Parliamentarian|
1. In response to concern expressed by some Senators regarding approval of Executive Committee minutes, Kenney explained that members of the Executive Committee should make corrections as to the accuracy of the minutes. However, approval of the actions of the Executive Committee, as reflected in the minutes, was the prerogative of the full Senate. Thus, approval of the minutes indicates approval of actions rather than approval in terms of accuracy. Approval of the minutes of the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils is also based on this premise.MINUTES
2. Kenney announced that in order for non-members of the Senate to address the Senate and/or participate in debate, specific Senate approval would be required. This ruling was necessary since Senate Bylaws are not specific on this matter. (An expert parliamentarian was contacted on this matter by Tom Hood.)
3. Kenney reminded members of the Committee on Committees that a meeting was scheduled for 1 June 1982 at 3:00 p.m. Ken Walker, chair of the Committee, announced that he had additional committee preference forms which members of the Senate, who had misplaced such forms, could complete and return to Walker at the conclusion of today's meeting.
4. Ken Kenney recognized Jack Reese who made some remarks concerning the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the library serials cancellation list. In regard to ORNL, Reese announced that Union Carbide is relinquishing management when the current contract expires in 1983 and that UTK is interested in bidding for management of the laboratory. The faculty will be kept informed as developments occur regarding this matter. In addition, Senate officers will be invited to be active participants in any negotiations between UTK and ORNL.
Reese then announced that the final library serials cancellation list has been distributed to library representatives, deans, directors, and department heads. The serials cancellation list should be reviewed carefully and efforts will be made to accommodate suggestions from faculty who feel that specific cancellations will compromise the academic integrity of the institution. Regarding the library, Reese also announced that $40,000 had been allocated for subscriptions to new periodicals.
Corrections to the minutes for the 3 May Senate meeting were as follows:UNDERGRADUATE COUNCILPage 1, number 2, second paragraph; the word confirmed should be confined.The minutes of the Senate meeting of 3 May 1982 were approved as corrected.
Page 2 line 4; identified, Fringe.
Page 3, line 2; Undergraduate Academic Council rather than Student Academic Council.
1. Curricular ChangesDue to a lack of quorum, the meeting was adjourned at 5:10 p.m.Ralph Norman presented curricular changes from the Undergraduate Council meeting of 22 April. This information may be found on pp. 5277-5285 of the Council minutes. On page 5283, Gil Evans moved to amend the section dealing with graduation with honors in psychology. As amended that section would read as follows:2. Policy Changes Ralph Norman distributed to Senators at today's meeting a list of six policy changes recommended by the UGC at the 22 April and 29 April meetings. They are as follows: a) drop/add deadlines (p. 5259); b) course repetition and grade averaging in courses repeated (p. 5259); c) academic second opportunity (p. 5259); d) minimum time in college association (pp. 5387-5388); e) use of ACT and SAT for admission to UTK (p .5387); and f) standardization of terms related to admission actions (pp. 5387-5388).Graduation with Honors in Psychology The Psychology Honors Committee certifies a student for a B.A. degree with Honors in Psychology after the oral exam on the basis of recommendations from faculty supervisor, GPA, and GRE score. (Students who do not qualify under these criteria graduate as regular psychology majors.)
Effective Winter Quarter, 1983.The motion to amend passed without opposition.
Norman asked Paul Pinckney, Chair of the Undergraduate Council Degree Requirements Committee, to make the presentation on the policy changes. Since Pinckney is not a Senate member, LeRoy Graf moved that non-members of the Senate be granted permission to speak. The motion was seconded and passed.
Pinckney began by explaining that there was an error in the section on p. 5259 of the Council minutes regarding repeating courses. A copy of this section, along with the policy changes, had also been distributed by Norman at today's meeting. Pinckney indicated that the qualifier, unless otherwise specified, had been misplaced. The corrected catalog copy for course repetition policy should read:As many as four courses may be repeated counting only the last grade of a repeated course in computation of the grade point average. After the first four courses of repetition, all grades and hours will be counted in the computation of the grade point average. Unless otherwise specified, a student may not repeat a course more than twice. Each course may be counted only once when determining credit hours toward graduation. All grades are entered on the permanent record.Pinckney continued the discussion by stating that the Senate should endorse the addendum statement appearing on p. 5259 of the minutes. The statement would not appear in the catalog, but should be monitored by all departments. The statement is as follows: Colleges and departments are expected to strongly urge faculty members to disseminate complete course information at the first class meeting of the quarter, preferably in the form of a written syllabus.
Following Pinckney's remarks, Ken Walker moved to consider the six policy changes separately. The motion was seconded and passed.a. Drop/Add Policy (p. 5259)Full text of the proposed drop/add policy is as follows:b. Course Repetition and Grade Averaging in Repeated Courses Policy (p. 5259)The drop deadline is an announced date 15 (or 8*) calendar days from the beginning of classes each quarter (except for summer or other special sessions). For undergraduate students in their first quarter of study at UTK the drop deadline is 22 calendar days from the beginning of classes (except for summer or other special sessions). Prior to drop deadline students may withdraw from courses as specified below.Senate discussion of the proposed policy was concerned primarily with the issuance of W's. Pinckney explained that adoption of the policy would mean that all withdrawals after the deadline would be considered late and that the present late withdrawal policy would be in effect.
Add deadline will be eight days for all colleges.
*Individual colleges may adopt an eight (8) day drop deadline.
Ken Walker moved to approve the policy. The motion was seconded and passed.
The Senate also voted to endorse the addendum to the policy, which Pinckney requested in his opening remarks.
The policy will become effective Fall Quarter, 1983.There was a lengthy debate regarding the policy change concerned with course repetition. Central issues in the debate were: 1) ambiguity of the wording regarding the definition of a course and the number of courses which could be repeated and 2) enforcement of the policy.c. Academic Second Opportunity Policy (p. 5259)
Ken Walker moved to amend the policy so that all grades and hours would be counted in the computation of the GPA. The amended policy would read as follows:With regard to course repetition, all grades and hours will be counted in the computation of the GPA. Unless otherwise specified, a student may not repeat a course more than twice. Each course may be counted only once when determining credit hours toward graduation. All grades are entered on the permanent record.LeRoy Graf seconded the motion to amend. The motion passed.
Tom Hood moved to amend by deleting the second sentence and inserting the following: Unlimited course repetition will be permitted except for courses in which a grade of A was received.
There was a second to the motion. The motion failed.
Jeff Mellor moved to postpone Senate action on the course repetition and grade averaging courses repeated policy until the first Senate meeting of Fall Quarter.
The motion was seconded and passed.This policy states: An undergraduate student who has been absent from school for at least two calendar years may, at readmission, petition for Academic Second Opportunity. If granted, all previous academic work remains on the permanent record but the grades for such work are not counted in the computation of the grade point average, or in determining good standing. S/NC credit toward graduation, major requirements, and distribution requirements may be granted for those courses in which a grade of C or better was earned. Academic Second Opportunity must be submitted to the Readmissions Committee.
Pinckney reminded the Senate this policy specified that a student must petition for Academic Second Opportunity and that a committee would determine whether to grant the request.
Sid Jumper moved to postpone action on this policy until the first Senate meeting of Fall Quarter.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Clint Allison moved to amend by inserting following one quarter's work after readmission, rather than have the student petition for Academic Second Opportunity at readmission.
The motion to amend was seconded.
No vote was taken on the motion as Tom Hood, parliamentarian, called for a quorum count.
Carl Pierce questioned the basis for such a count.
After consulting Robert's Rules of Order and the Faculty Senate Bylaws, Hood stated that the Bylaws specified that a majority of the members constituted a quorum and that a quorum was necessary in order to conduct business.
It was suggested that the Senate Bylaws Committee examine the quorum issue since it is the prerogative of governing bodies to establish their own rules regarding this matter.
|Ken Kenney, Presiding||Thomas Hood, Parliamentarian|
1. Ken Kenney explained that today's meeting had been moved from the Shiloh Room to the Crest Room in the University Center because the Shiloh Room was without air conditioning.MINUTES
2. Ken Kenney recognized Ed Howley who moved that the following items be added to the agenda for today's meeting: the minutes from the Senate Executive Committee meeting of 17 May and the minutes from the Graduate Council for the 20 May meeting.
The motion passed.
Ken Kenney made the following corrections to the minutes for the Senate meeting of 31 May 1982.OLD BUSINESSPage 1, item 4, last sentence--strike the last part of the sentence beginning with any "negotiations." The sentence should read: In addition, Senate officers will be invited to be active participants in formulating recommendations concerning UTK's future involvement with ORNL.Following these corrections, the minutes for the 31 May 1982 Senate meeting were approved.
Page 2, at the conclusion of number one, which deals with curricular changes from the Undergraduate Council, it should be noted that the curricular materials appearing on pp. 5277-5285 from the minutes of the 22 April meeting were approved by the Senate.
Page 4 b. Course Repetition, etc. The heading should be: Changing Grades Received in Completed Courses and Repetition of Courses.
Page 4 c. Last sentence under Academic Second Opportunity should read: All petitions for Academic Second Opportunity must be submitted to the Readmissions Committee.
1. Academic Second OpportunityCOMMITTEE REPORTSRalph Norman led the discussion regarding the recommendation from the Undergraduate Council concerning Academic Second Opportunity. The recommendation may be found in the Council minutes from the 22 April meeting, p. 5259.2. Undergraduate Council minutes from meeting of 29 April 1982.
Discussion on this issue had begun at the 31 May Senate meeting, but action was not taken due to the lack of a quorum. Debate at that meeting ended before a vote could be taken on a motion made by Clint Allison to amend the recommendation. Today's discussion began at that point. Allison explained that his amendment would modify the recommendation by having students complete one quarters work before applying for academic second opportunity. The recommendation would read as follows:An undergraduate student who has been absent from school for at least two calendar years may, following one quarters work, petition for Academic Second Opportunity. If granted, all previous academic work completed prior to readmission remains on the permanent record but the grades for such work are not counted in the computation of the grade point average, or in determining good standing. S/NC credit toward graduation, major requirements, and distribution requirements may be granted for those courses in which a grade of C or better was earned. Academic Second Opportunity may be declared only once. All petitions for Academic Second Opportunity must be submitted to the Readmissions Committee.The recommendation for Academic Second Opportunity, as amended by Allison, passed.Ralph Norman highlighted pp. 5386-5388 of the minutes which concern: a) recommendations for standardizing terms describing the processes of admission, association, and progression through degree programs; and b) the use of SAT scores in the admissions process.3. Graduate Council Minutes of 1 April 1982
The only recommendation on which there was Senate debate concerned association status. At issue was whether there should be a university policy or whether individual colleges and schools should decide on this matter.
Anne Hopkins moved that each college should be autonomous in determining whether to require association status.
Jeff Mellor offered a substitute motion. He moved that the recommendation read as follows: Successful completion of degree requirements include official association status within the degree granting unit.
The substitute motion failed.
The Hopkins motion passed. The recommendation as amended is as follows:Successful completion of degree requirements may, at the discretion of individual degree-granting units, require official association status. The degree-granting unit may require up to a minimum of 45 quarter hours of course credit immediately preceding the completion of all course requirements. This association period coincides with the residence requirement and applies to second degree and transfer students as well as those students entering studies at UTK. There will. be exception made for those students who pursue dual-degree programs simultaneously.The minutes of the Undergraduate Council meeting of 29 April 1982 were approved by the Senate.Evans Roth presented the Graduate Council minutes from the meeting of 1 April 1982. He indicated that reports from program reviews in the departments of Anthropology and Chemistry had been accepted by the Graduate Council and highlights of these reviews were included in the minutes.4. Executive Committee Minutes of 17 May and 24 May
The minutes of the Graduate Council meeting of I April 1982 were approved by the Senate.Two sets of minutes from the Senate Executive Committee meetings needed Senate approval. The minutes from the 17 May meeting were discussed first by Ken Kenney. He had one correction.
Page 1, under the heading UTK As Possible Prime Contractor for ORNL, second paragraph, the word level should be levels.
Other items discussed at the 17 May meeting, in addition to UTK's involvement with ORNL were the following: a) a semester study proposal which Ken Walker and Ken Kenney will ask the Educational Policy Committee to undertake in the 82-83 school year; b) Senate response to a Daily Beacon interview with President Boling; and c) Senate responsibility in regard to library funding.
The minutes from the 17 May 1982 Executive Committee were approved.
The minutes from the Executive Committee meeting of 24 May were then presented by Ken Kenney. He reported that this meeting was called immediately following a meeting with President Boling. The Boling meeting had been convened at the request of Chancellor Reese. Those in attendance were Boling, Reese, several members of Reese's staff and fourteen members of the Senate Executive Committee. The primary purpose of the Boling meeting was to discuss the arena issue.
The Executive Committee, subsequent to meeting with Boling, instructed Kenney to write a private letter to Boling thanking him for meeting with the Executive Committee and reiterating Senate concerns regarding published remarks about faculty motives as they related to the construction of the arena. This private letter rescinded previous Executive Committee action which had instructed Kenney to publish the letter to Boling in the Faculty Senate Newsletter.
The minutes from the 24 May 1982 meeting of the Executive Committee were approved.
1. Committee on CommitteesNEW BUSINESSKen Kenney presented the report for Ken Walker, chair of the committee.2. Executive Committee
A list of committee assignments had been distributed with the materials for today's meeting. Kenney requested that any errors or changes in committees be reported to Ken Walker.
Kenney indicated that chairpersons of committees are appointed traditionally for two year terms. Therefore, the following committees will have new chairpersons beginning in the Fall: Budget, Bylaws (this chairperson rotates annually, since the chair is the Senate President-elect), Educational Policy, Executive Committee (rotates annually-Senate President is chair), Legislative, Library, Nominating, International Education, and Research Council.
Kenney reported that all chairpersons, but not committee members, had been contacted and had agreed to serve. Harvey Carruth did not agree. He maintained that he had not been asked to serve as chair of the Nominating Committee.
The Senate accepted the Committee on Committees report. The one dissenting vote was Harvey Carruth.Ken Kenney gave the report of the Executive Committee meeting of 28 June 1982. He made one correction to the minutes. Page 1, number 2 under Announcements, second paragraph, lines 3 and 4, the word did should be do.3. Undergraduate Council
Highlights of the meeting, according to Kenney were: an update on ORNL presented by Don Eastman; library funding possibilities presented by Jack Williams; and a discussion of the Faculty Handbook.
In regard to the Faculty Handbook, Kenney explained that UT system administrators had some reservations about proposed changes, and because of this, the Handbook had not been given to the Board of Trustees for action at the June Board meeting. Senators had several questions concerning the status of the Handbook. Ralph Norman responded that John Prados had promised to convene a meeting around the middle of July. At this meeting there will be a detailed analysis of the objections raised by the UT system administration. Following this meeting, the Senate will be given a full report.
Clint Allison remarked that the Handbook originated with the Faculty Affairs Committee of the Senate, and that representatives from that Committee should be invited to participate in any deliberations concerning the Handbook.
Following this discussion, the Executive Committee minutes from the 28 June 1982 meeting were approved.The Undergraduate Council minutes from the 27 May meeting were presented by Ralph Norman. He indicated that the Liberal Arts materials appearing on pp. 5457-5480 are not the final copy. Final copy will be presented in the Fall.4. Graduate Council
According to Norman, the proposed changes in the College of Liberal Arts do not alter fundamentally the distribution of requirements. However, there is an increase in number of hours required for graduation from 180 to 190. The College also proposes to reinstate the Bachelor of Science degree. Cost of the proposed changes, Norman explained, have been looked at carefully. The College will reallocate and redistribute resources in order to accommodate changes rather than request additional funds.
Curricular materials from the School of Architecture may be found on pp. 5399-5419 of the Undergraduate Council minutes. The new curriculum as proposed by Architecture reflects the results of an accreditation review.
Curricular materials from the College of Business Administration, Education, Engineering and Home Economics are also detailed on pp. 5420-5456 of the minutes.
In conclusion, Norman informed the Senate that a list of courses which have not been taught in four or more years are also included in the minutes on pp. 5481-5492. These courses are scheduled to be dropped.
The Undergraduate Council minutes from the 27 May meeting were approved.Evans Roth reported on the minutes of the Graduate Council meeting of 20 May 1982. He began by stating that the audit policy approved at that meeting means that change from credit to audit will be permitted during the first five instructional days of the quarter and not the first five days of the course.5. Athletics Committee
Roth explained that the report from the Review Committee for the Plant and Soil Science program had been accepted by the Graduate Council, but that the committee report based on the review of the Vocational-Technical Education program had not been accepted by the Graduate Council.
The Graduate Council minutes from the 20 May 1982 meeting were approved by the Senate.John Finger, chair of the Athletics Committee, was not present, but he had prepared a written annual report of the committee which was distributed with materials for today's meeting. Ken Kenney asked for questions concerning the report. There were none. Kenney then mentioned that a study of athlete's academic achievement had been conducted by Suzanne Larsen, at the request of the Athletics Committee. Results of the study had been compiled into a booklet and were made available to interested Senators.6. International Education CommitteeEric Gangloff, chair of this committee, had submitted a written annual report detailing the work of the committee. The report was distributed with the packet of materials sent to Senators for today's meeting. Gangloff was unable to attend so Ken Kenney asked for questions or comments concerning the report. There were none.7. Fringe Benefits CommitteeHenry Fribourg, chair of the committee, had also submitted a written report regarding the work of the Fringe Benefits Committee for 1981-82. This report was included in the packet for Senators. Fribourg, who was present at the meeting, answered one question concerning the possibility of dental insurance being provided for the faculty. According to Fribourg, the possibility for this coverage in the near future is remote.8. Budget CommitteeKen Kenney reported that Norm Dittrich, chair of the committee, will submit a written annual report which will be available to Senators at the Fall meeting.
Kenney RecognitionThere being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.Since this was Ken Kenney's last meeting as Senate President, Clint Allison thanked him for his admirable service to the Senate. The Senate responded to Allison's remarks with a resounding round of applause.