Below you will find a draft of the minutes of yesterday's meeting. You will
note that I missed many of your names and simply listed "faculty," during
this active meeting, so please contact me if you would like to be correctly
identified. More importantly, if there are perceived errors of substance,
please let me know. If important to our debate, I will issue a correction
on Raven immediately in addition to correcting the minutes which will
accompany the next meeting announcement, as two readings are required of
important issues. An announcement will be made about the next meeting will
be made as soon as a room is confirmed.

Remember that the minutes below are a draft and not official; they are
posted in support of time-sensitive issues and full campus disclosure and
debate. I welcome your corrections.

Richard Rice
Faculty Secretary




The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Faculty Minutes
February 26, 2004


Faculty Senate President Marvin Ernst called to order the Called Faculty
Meeting at 3:15 P.M. He ceded the floor to Prof. Nelson who made an
announcement about the death of Jack Freeman, longtime faculty member,
department head, and graduation marshal. He called for a moment of silence
in honor of Dr. Freeman.

The first item was approval of the minutes of January 22, 2004. Professor
Leroy Fanning moved approval, seconded by Prof. Bill Wright. The minutes
were approved.

Next was discussion and approval of Faculty Senate action on three items that

President Ernst had, in consultation with the Executive Committee, declared
major issues subject to two readings by the full faculty. He suggested that
the faculty could declassify the items to avoid a second vote if they
desired. After debate over the issues, in that case there would be no need
for a second reading. If items are approved, the Faculty Secretary will
declare a second meeting as required by our Handbook.

Hearing no motion to declassify the items as major issues, Prof. Ernst
continued.

The second item was a motion to drop the university requirement of 2 hours
of physical education. Departments that wish to retain any part of this
requirement may do so, but it will be considered part of the 120 hour
limitation for their major. Prof. Noe approved, Prof. McCullough seconded.
Extended discussion ensued.

Professor Trimpey, head of the 120 hour committee, explained the rationale.
The committee discovered that departments were having difficulty in
reducing their requirements to meet the state mandated 120 hour maximum.
Some programs could not. Regents have shown what programs have been given
exemptions, and we can do likewise if 120 is impossible. Engineering in the
Regent System has been allowed 128 hours with a different General Education
program.

One department has reduced their major several hours. Nursing is dropping a
nutrition requirement taught outside the department. Sociology wants to
drop 8 hours of university requirements. So far only Engineering has been
offered an exemption.

We do not have to drop P.E., but the Regents schools have; therefore junior
and senior transfers would have to take our P.E. Not every school is doing
the reduction our way, but all schools will have to set a graduation limit
of 120 hours.

Prof. Ernst: I set up a committee to look into this with cross-campus
representatives, including the heads of the General Education and
Curriculum Committees.

Prof. Trimpey: There was unanimous vote to drop P.E.

Prof. Cundiff: We are the only state institution with this requirement.

Prof. Sturzer: What impact would it have on P.E. faculty and other programs
which incorporate P.E.?

Prof. Cundiff: There will be no impact on full-time faculty.

Faculty: What about the math in Tennessee Board of Regent schools?

Prof. Trimpey: We require two math courses; transfers would bring with them
their General Education.

Prof. Russell: TBR schools have General Education without two math courses.

Prof. Dumas: There are currently exemptions to P.E. What per cent now take it?

Prof. Ernst: It is given for military service and being over the age of 25.

Prof. Cundiff then presented a PowerPoint on the benefits of exercise and
wellness. There is a well-noted obesity trend in the U.S., especially in
the South. Health care costs and productivity have been adversely affected.
Disability costs and lost work days increase with weight. Tennessee gained
53% in obesity in 1991-1998. 41% of Hamilton County residents are
overweight. Coronary disease is the result of poor nutrition and lack of
exercise. Diabetes is on the rise, especially among Hispanic females.
Thirty or more minutes of activity is needed each day. Over 70% of
Tennesseans are sedentary. It is better to prevent disease than cure.
National health care will spiral if prevention programs are neglected,
raising business costs. Many diseases are avoidable. Tennessee has the
greatest increase in health care spending in the nation. Knowledge is a
component of wellness. He concluded by reminding us that we are educating
for life. Life expectancy can increase, disability delayed, and other
benefits accrue from a wellness lifestyle.

Prof. Cundiff urged continuation of the two hour P.E. program. Students
learn to evaluate their lifestyle. If not deleted, the concepts course
would become a two hour course.

He pointed out the academic credibility of EHLS programs. When he became
head of EHLS, athletes could take varsity sports 8 times for one hour
credit without going to class. The grade would be assigned by coaches and
staff, not EHLS faculty. They could also get 8 hours credit for
conditioning and weight control. This was 16 hours of academic credit
without going to class. He did not want that kind of program and has
demonstrated credibility by changing this practice.

Prof. Cundiff, responding to a question, said that he has not waived the 25
year rule; the Records Office waives it.

  Prof. Thompson: The General Education Committee looks at programs and has
discussed these issues yesterday. It has resolved that individual programs
could ask for exemptions or waivers in General Education to meet the 120
hour limitation. We looked at Engineering and there the Cultures and
Civilizations requirement can be reduced from three to two classes. These
will be presented to the Faculty Senate for discussion and approval in the
future.

Faculty: I am not for or against this, but I serve on the Admissions
Committee, and it seems UTC makes it more difficult to enter than other
competing schools.

Secondly, do we assume that one course will really change the obesity trend?

Prof. Sachsman called the question; seconded by Prof. Rush. It was called.

The measure to drop P.E. passed 117-50 at this first reading.

Item three was dropping of the university requirements of Intensive
Writing, Oral Communication and Computer Literacy. Departments may require
any or all of these courses as requirements for their majors, but the hours
will be considered part of their 120 hour limitation.

Prof. Trimpey: The rationale was not to eliminate these classes, but to
allow departments to roll courses into the major. Some departments
indicated using one, some two courses; some departments did not respond
[Some were awaiting this discussion and vote before acting]. We do not have
to have these specific classes. However, academic programs must have these
skills for credibility. Accrediting agencies will want writing and the
other skills.

A motion to declassify was made and seconded. It failed [thus this item too
requires a second reading]. Considerable and heated debate followed:

Prof. Pratt: Has there been a discussion of General Education requirements?

Prof. Trimpey: Until today, we had not been informed of Gen Ed approving
exceptions.

Prof. Sompayrac: We are not advocating cutting these classes, only as a
university requirement. The College of Business could not afford to drop
these requirements. Departments will keep these courses in their core
requirements. Having them as a university requirement is almost redundant.
We are giving departments more flexibility to meet the 120 hours
requirements with the needs of their majors in mind.

Prof. Nelson: Will we have to roll other courses into our programs?

Prof. Trimpey: There is no mustin SACS now. You saw [referring to a recent
Raven posting by Prof. Darken] a 1977 statement; the 2003 SACS statement
does not mandate the specific courses.

Faculty: Why was Gen Ed not addressed?

Prof. Trimpey: Our Committee did not want to touch the Gen Ed program.

Faculty: We were on the Gen Ed Committee and were not told this could be an
option.

Prof. Greenwell: If not a SACS mandate, it still will require that we meet
the stated requirements. We add more power to SACS if we specify classes.

Prof. Trimpey: In 1977 SACS said the institutionmust meet certain
requirements, but now it is the departments.

Faculty: Dont TBR schools require 41 hours of Gen Ed?

Faculty: Is there a standard about what courses meet proficiency requirements?

Prof. Russell: There are 41 hours in TBR and for history there is a close
correlation.

The question was called by Faculty member; seconded by Prof. Rush. The vote
was 88 for and 56 against. Since this did not meet the simple majority
requirement, discussion continued.

Prof. Prevost: Does a department have to use the courses under discussion?

Prof. Ernst: It can use the courses, but they will be part of the 120 hours
determined by the department for their major.

Prof. Darken: I feel strongly about this issue. I have yet to get an
explanation of what the problem is. Yes, 120 hours is required, but we as
faculty need to know what the situation really is. Prof Trimpey does not
have all department information. Engineering and Business do not want to
eliminate the three courses. Only three majors are concerned? This is
absurd. I have not been able to get the complete information before a vote.
We have not received full information [applause].

In the beginning these courses were part of Gen Ed, considered critical
requirements, not to be lopped off. I received immediate response from the
community about these courses. You saw the strong support from the real
world. They said we should not create graduates who do not know how to
write, speak, or know about computers.

Faculty: Gen Ed does not monitor these courses.

Prof. Beech: We must look beyond the corporate model to create responsible
citizens.

Prof. Sturzer: As I understand it, there is not a problem with department
compliance to the new limitations.

Prof. Trimpey: All departments that complied had to drop eight hours from
their requirements. They are dropping university requirements and those
courses outside the major. They have not dropped Gen Ed, but that
apparently will be considered case by case. Only one department has dropped
one of their own courses.

Prof. Sturzer: Are these competencies tested at the exit exam?

Prof. Ernst: None at this time, but I think in five years this may well happen.

Prof. Sachsman: I would like to thank the committee for the thankless task
of cutting requirements. I doubt if this will be the end of financial
cutting by the state. But this solution will minimize the costs in faculty
lines and Gen Ed courses.

Prof. Greenwell: Art did make the deadline, but there were problems; we did
not know what was optional. We made very difficult choices and dropped all
but the writing competency class because we do not meet that need
adequately in our own program. The more complex reality is that programs
are teaching these skills.

Prof. Harris: Many are still grappling with the rule. Only today we have
found out that Gen Ed may be cut. This motion is premature and should be
tabled. A motion to table failed.

Prof. Churnet: Why is the Gen Ed Committee now considering exceptions?

Prof. Ernst: The Faculty Senate will have to decide Gen Ed Committee
recommendations.

Prof. Williams: Many students wish they had skills earlier in their
careers. Seniors do not have skills they need.

Prof. Nelson: We thought this issue was a moving target, so we in biology
have waited until the results of this discussion. A 120 hour limit is
really hard for biology. Something has to give. We should shoot or boil in
oil every member of THEC [loud applause]. Were the requirements not driven
by SACS muststatements?

Prof. McCullough:  In Engineering we have to show our students demonstrate
these skills. We would have more freedom if we could meet these skills
without university requirements.

Prof. Russell: If students switch majors, the 120 hours becomes a problem.

Faculty: If the motion fails, each department would do its own thing?

Prof. Ernst: The Curriculum Committee would approve each department plan.

Prof. Kuhn: We are talking about nine hours of requirements.

Faculty: Will each department have to demonstrate competence?

Chancellor Stacy: The SACS 2003 rules are different. We will describe the
baccalaureate as well as each undergraduate degree. At least 30 hours from
various humanities and sciences are required. Commonly accepted standards
and practicesmust be ensured. Competencies must be declared and then SACS
will judge if we did it. Quality enhancement plan is the real issue; we
will have to show how we are getting better.

Prof. Ernst called for a vote: 81 supported the motion, 54 opposed. There
will be a second reading.

The fourth item would have been elimination of the procedure of the full
faculty approving the graduation list, but noting the steady departure of
faculty, Prof. Fell called the quorum.

Adjournment was pronounced by President Ernst at 4:52 P.M.

Respectfully Submitted,

Richard Rice
Faculty Secretary
________________________________________________________________

The next regular faculty meeting will be on Reading Day, Tuesday, April 20,
at 10:15 A.M. in Grote 129. Please mark your calendars now. An announcement
on Raven will follow shortly about the second reading of the items
discussed above.