The draft of the Faculty Meeting yesterday is below. Please let me know if
any corrections are needed. It is posted to increase timely awareness of
campus issues discussed. The official minutes will be distributed shortly
before the next meeting on Reading Day (April 22).
DRAFT..............................................................DRAFT....................................................DRAFT
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Faculty Minutes
January 23, 2003
Prof. Marvin Ernst, President of the Faculty Senate, called to order at
3:15 P.M. the third regular meeting of the 2002-2003 academic year.
The first item was approval of the minutes of November 13, 2002. Prof.
Craig Barrow moved approval; Prof. Nick Honerkamp seconded. The minutes
were approved.
Third item was annual election of the Faculty Secretary. Richard Rice was
nominated and approved by acclamation. Prof. Ernst thanked your Secretary
for maintaining the minutes and reading names at graduations.
Fourth item was a brief report from the Faculty Senate President, Marvin
Ernst. He mentioned the following Senate activities: They are looking at a
modification of the comprehensive performance review (CPR). It might not be
mandatory in the future; there may be modifications in faculty titles; the
Chancellor's proposals for exceptional merit awards will be discussed this
year; the Provost has suggested terminating one academic program; the
Budget Committee has been asked to consider what ought to be in the budget;
some handbook changes will be forthcoming. He also thanked the Curriculum
Committee for considering the many proposals this year. Finally, he
mentioned that the cartoon exhibit by Richard Rice at the Fine Arts Center
Lobby will be changing themes on Monday; currently it has academe as
subject matter. [Thanks for the plug, Marvin: some will appear in The
Chronicle of Higher Education.]
Fifth item was Provost John Friedl, who said that Verbie Prevost notes that
Prof. Earl Braggs will read some of his poems at the UTC Read-in in
February; look for announcements.
The Chancellor has proposed a bonus for faculty and staff who received
exceptional merit ratings last year and also department heads who were
outstanding. Future rewards are being considered by the Faculty Senate.
Please direct comments and ideas to them.
Extra service pay and teaching overload policy is being discussed by the
Faculty Senate.
The Executive Committee will look again at the Freshman Seminar; which has
drifted away form its original intent. About 30 sections offered, but only
two are taught by full time faculty. Three hours of graded credit may be
too much. It is valuable in retention and graduation rates, but there are
concerns about the course. An appropriate committee will look into the issue.
Revisions in the CPR process have been suggested by system. Rather than
have them automatic every six years, a review would be triggered by
consecutive negative reviews during the EDO annual process. Remediation
would result as in the existing system. Bob Levy will come to UTC to
discuss this issue, with open faculty forums.
Prof. Efaw: How do we define negative review?
Prof. Ernst: The EDO will continue as it is, but if performance is not
adequate over several years, the CPR would come into play as a probation
period.
Prof. Efaw: What is negative? Is it below merit overall on the EDO?
Prof. Ernst: Yes. There may be forthcoming major changes in number of
categories of evaluation. But this will take away the six years mandatory
review process.
Prof. Russell: Where is this new system coming from? The UT system?
Prof. Friedl: It came from meetings of academic units, and we bring it to
campus for feedback. The goal is to have the same policy on each campus,
but not necessarily.
Prof. Ernst: I planned to have Bob Levy come and explain plan here, but he
will visit us later.
Prof. Russell: CPR was imposed upon us. Trustees began the program.
Prof. Ernst: They got rational as the program began to cost real money.
Prof. Friedl: There is a new THEC policy limiting credit hours for new
baccalaureate programs at Board of Regents schools to 120 hours, but it is
not yet applied to the UT system. Any new programs here will have to be 120
hours, so we may have a problem as UTC requires 128 hours.
Prof. Barrow: Why do they want to do this?
Prof. Friedl: Money is the issue. They want to get students out with fewer
credit hours.
Voice from the back: Why not in thirty?
Prof. Friedl: It is unfortunate that academic policy is being decided by
finance.
Prof. Van Horn: Does SACS have a minimum?
Prof. Friedl: Yes, 120 hours.
Prof. Ernst: Professional programs often require more than 120 hours. This
could pose a real problem.
Prof. Friedl: Transfer students and native students graduate with 6-7 more
hours on average than the minimum, while Engineering students reach as high
as 153 hours. Transfers often complete even more on average. [The Provost
presented a chart to illustrate]
Prof. Barrow: We have a lot who change majors.
Prof. Friedl: Yes, these numbers suggest that ours students often do more
than 128 hours.
Prof. Rice: Fewer FTEs lower will lower academic revenue, right?
Prof. Friedl: Yes, it is a money issue.
Prof. Russell: Will they mandate a maximum?
Prof. Friedl: Some states are not financing beyond the minimum. Some are
considering differential tuition rates for hours going beyond the minimum
required.
Prof. Friedl went on to mention that he hoped to have a report soon on
strategic planning. The Technology Planning Committee has developed a
survey to determine costs and replacement rates to determine a realistic
budget line for technology.
There is also a Faculty Task Force on faculty compensation which has met
several times during the fall and collected data from UTC and other
institutions, considering equity, merit, and other issues. Prof. Mike Bell
will meet next week with a goal of a report to the Budget Committee.
Prof. Friedl also discussed an in-depth analysis of UTC admission
standards. What triggered the concern was a THEC request about improving
retention rates and graduation rates. They would like to channel more
students of marginal quality into cheaper two-year institution. UTC should
not be working with remedial and developmental students. Our data on
retention and graduation rates show that only 58.1% of freshmen with ACT 16
went on to the next year, and only 25.5% graduate within six years (overall
rate is 43.6%). This suggests that we need higher admission standards and
accessibility is still available at Chattanooga State. Those with 16 ACT
scores might be told that graduation is unlikely for 75 % of them. We will
be discussing and debating admission policy in light of these figures.
Prof. Rutledge: Have we looked at other types of graduation rates?
Prof. Friedl: We will ask about that.
Prof. Friedl went on: Last week I proposed to terminate the Occupational
Therapy Program, based on budget issues, and the difficulty in recruiting
new faculty with appropriate credentials. If it does increase from 3 to 5-6
faculty to become a Masters Program, costs would be considerably higher. We
could not find a single applicant for a recent vacancy. SACS will require
the PhD for teaching at the graduate level. Can we afford the needed
expansion and quality of this program, which currently enrolls about 30
students? This is just a proposal for discussion, but it will be a
difficult decision. People will be hurt, but our budget has significant
problems next year that make a $250,000 increase in one program
problematic. When the legislature says there is no money to expand
programs, we cannot any longer do more with less. We cannot do more with
less indefinitely. If my proposal is carried out, we will phase out the
program until December 2004 to accommodate our current students.
Prof. Janeksela: The College is responding to the proposal, hoping to
retain the program in spite of our recruitment difficulties. Part of the
problem is that the word is out, making it difficult to recruit both new
faculty and future students. We are putting together a new budget within
two weeks.
Sixth item was a report from Chancellor Bill Stacy: He thanked everyone for
our SACS success at San Antonio; some off-campus courses were also
approved. Instructors without PhD in the disciplines required new hires and
money. We will be better as we assign faculty lines to degree holders.
THEC feels student should make better course choices to finish earlier. It
wants to maximize efficiency, but we need to maintain academic quality.
SACS is pushing towards quality even though it might cost money.
We are developing a "score card" approach to accountability by UT system.
[The Chancellor presented a PowerPoint, which will be available soon on our
site; look for an announcement]. We need to find ways to make UTC better,
including access. This will be needed to build support in the legislature.
A scorecard method might be the lay approach to demonstrate accountability.
Beginning November 18 we began to establish a public dialogue on the
scorecard. What would a lay person see as quality? [A chart was presented
showing possible strategic agenda items such as graduation rates, passing
professional exams, faculty awards, and many more categories.] An agenda
has been suggested for 2010 goals.
President Shumaker would like to have a system-wide unity of benchmark
goals. Some possible measures would be class size, classes taught by PhD
holdings, and so on.
The next allocation of Lupton Renaissance funds will come in February as
new transformative proposals are funded. We received about $4.5 million
more inspired by Lupton funding.
I am in the dark about the possible revenue scenarios for UTC and state
government, but we are hoping for at least a stable level of funding rather
than a cut, but additional funds are targeted for opening our new
Engineering Computer Building. We will be closer to our goals for
compensation at 96-97%.
There were no announcements.
Ninth item was the drawing for a Barnes and Noble Book Gift Certificate
($25): Prof. Gene Van Horn was the lucky winner. [Thanks to Rene Long for
supplying this gift]
Adjournment was announced by Professor Ernst at 4:20 P.M.
________________________________________________________________
The next regular faculty meeting will be on Reading Day, Tuesday, April 22,
at 10:15 a.m. in Grote 129.
|
