Richard:

I'm not sure who to ask about this, so I'm asking you in your capacity as
Faculty Secretary:  For those of us who may be unable to attend some of the
various budget hearings, will there be minutes distributed?  What about
copies of the budget proposals for all of the divisions we haven't seen yet
(everything but Academic Affairs)?

Why must the needed funds for Cadek Conservatory and the Children's Center
come from Academic Affairs' part of the budget?  Can't we eliminate some of
the waste in other areas to cover those operations?  For example, how much
would we save if we discontinued the empty shuttle buses that go to the
parking lot (where nobody parks) at Engel Stadium (which we don't use for
anything) on the way to Phase III of UTC Place (which can't be filled, so we
have to force students out of other campus housing by reducing the number of
spaces available)?  Obviously, I've got my priorities all wrong--we probably
need the shuttle to service the SIM Center Building on King Blvd., since for
some mysterious reason, that entity cannot be housed in the empty space over
in the new EMCS Building.

Since the ostensible primary mission of the university is to educate
students (not to run a bus service or a parking lot or an apartment complex
or an historic restoration project on a dilapidated stadium), why can't we
pull funds from those areas and not from areas that are part of the academic
mission of the university?

Melissa Burchfield


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Rice" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 11:55 AM
Subject: [UTCSTAFF] Fwd: Faculty Meeting Addendum


> >Evidently there is some delay this morning, so I am resending this notice
> >via Raven:
>
> >Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 09:03:11 -0500
> >To: UTCINFO
> >From: Richard Rice <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Faculty Meeting Addendum
> >
> >Yesterday in haste I forgot to include a revised version of the minutes
> >from the last called meeting. Also, there is a minor change in the agenda
> >below. We meet today at 3:15 in Grote 129.
> >
> >Agenda
> >
> >1. Call to Order               Marvin Ernst, President Faculty Senate
> >2. Approval of the Minutes of February 26, 2004 (below)
> >3. Discussion and vote on faculty approval of graduation list
> >4. Second reading of proposal to drop P.E. requirement
> >5. Second Reading of proposed dropping of three university requirements
> >6. Other business
> >7. Announcements
> >8. Adjournment
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >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 Standards, 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. Kuhn] a 1997 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 two-thirds
> >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 not talking about nine hours of requirements.
> >[subsequent to the meeting Prof. Kuhn elaborated: Since departments may
> >integrate these three requirements into their major, for some departments
> >it is 9 hours, for others it could be 6,  3 or even zero hours.
> >Departments do not have to require any separate courses. Thus we could
> >keep these three requirements, encourage departments to integrate them
> >into their other courses, and reduce the strain on the hour requirements
> >for majors without suggesting  that we believe Intensive Writing, Oral
> >Communication, and Computer Literacy are unimportant.]
> >
> >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.
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> >