Misdirection is a technique used by prestidigitators in which attention is
drawn away from one event by calling attention to a peripheral event.  The
wand is waved in one hand while the card is quietly palmed in the other
one.  Last week's senate meeting contained a deftly executed
misdirection.  A motion was introduced authorizing the secretary to send a
memorandum to President Petersen and the UT Board of Trustees endorsing an
across-the-board pay raise like one currently being considered by the state
legislature.  The increase suggested--$1200--would be less than 2% of the
salary of anyone with a current base pay over $60K.  Opponents of the
motion quickly focused attention on the legislation and mis-characterized
the motion as an endorsement of pending legislation rather than and
endorsement of a salary increase.  On the tail of the mis-direction, a
motion was made and seconded to table, which carried, shutting down debate
before any rebuttal could be offered in response.

I had sent a memo to senators beforehand explaining that the motion was
intended to be as simple and straightforward as possible, and that my
intention was not to have faculty senate draft legislation--that's the work
of our representatives in Nashville--or to have faculty senate draw up an
alternative budget--that's the job of the administration.  Rather, my
intention was to call the Board's attention to a specific piece of
legislation instead of continuing our usual whining about the financial
state of the university.

The motion was given to the senate president 3 days before the meeting and
the text is contained in the minutes Betsy posted on the web last
week.  Anyone who reads the motion will notice that
(1) The motion directs the secretary to write to Petersen and the Board,
who are in the direct chain of commend, NOT to the legislature or anyone else.
(2) The bills are given to illustrate to the recipients (i.e., Petersen and
the trustees) what we have in mind.  It doesn't ask them to support the
bills or to lobby for them or anything of the sort.  It asks them for a
raise and it describes the kind of raise asked for.  Period.
(3) The motion does NOT require a full blown discussion of the UTC budget
or the UT budget, let alone the entire state budget.  It     addresses
budget PRIORITIES.  It says to the President and trustees, "We don't want
more buildings or another stadium or an expanded SIMCENTER with expensive
chairs or a chancellor paid $300K a year.  We want a pay raise, and this is
what we want PART of it to look like.  If there's more, and you want to
cover inflation or make merit increases, fine, but as a matter of
priorities, do this first."
(4) The motion doesn't ask for a raise for everyone in higher education--it
asks for a raise for employees of the University of Tennessee.  It was made
clear in senate that nobody receiving an unsatisfactory EDO or the
equivalent would be eligible for a raise--this is university policy and was
clarified last fall.  The raise should also be pro-rated on an FTE basis,
as I made clear in response to a RAVEN note posted by Claire
McCullough.  The bills as written are defective for not stating this.  I
would welcome any appropriate amendment to the MEMO, although presuming to
amend the BILL is exactly what I wish to avoid.

These are the things I wanted to say on Thursday before debate was shut
down.    BTW, while it's true I did not post the senate motion to the full
RAVEN, I DID post the web addresses for the bills in an e'mail I forwarded
to RAVEN from Elizabeth Gentry on February 8, along with an article from
the Nashville Tennesseean.  I post this now only because Prof Dumas posted
the following to the full RAVEN:


At 06:13 PM 2/17/2005 -0500, Dr. Joe Dumas wrote:
>This message contains excerpts from a message I just sent to my colleagues in
>the College of Engineering and Computer Science.  After further reflection, I
>decided that this is a topic which needs to be discussed campus-wide.  I offer
>my thoughts for your consideration and debate.
>
>Joe Dumas
>Faculty Senator, College of Engineering and Computer Science
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>An update on the motion presented by Fritz Efaw at the Faculty Senate
>meeting today:
>
>Fritz Efaw wrote in a message to Faculty Senators yesterday:
> >>>>> The UTC Faculty Senate endorses an across-the-board increase of
> $1200 to
> >>>>> the base pay of every employee of the University of Tennessee as
> part of
> >>>>> any salary adjustment in the coming fiscal year, as provided in two
> >>>>> bills with bi-partisan sponsorship currently before the state
> >>>>> legislature--HB126 and SB790.
> >>>
> >>> You can read the bills for yourself at these addresses:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/SB0790.pdf
> >>>
> >>> http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/bills/currentga/BILL/HB0126.pdf
>
>By a voice vote on my motion to table, Dr. Efaw's original motion as stated
>above was tabled.  Before the vote, one of my colleagues presented a concern
>similar to one I had received via e-mail:
>
> > If these are bills being sponsored by two members of the state legislature,
> > why is it necessary for UTC Faculty Senate to endorse (or reject) these
> > bills?  They will either pass or fail based on their merit and be
> > prioritized with other state budget needs.

An interesting comment, and a fatalistic approach appropriate for an
apathetic faculty.  Why should Faculty Senate or any employee become
involved with the budget process?  Either you get a raise "based on merit"
or you don't. [Although, according to a report by Prof Prevost and Prof
Sompayrac last year, salary increases are more likely to be related to who
advocates for you--it's WHO you know, not WHAT you know.]

>The Senator in question made a statement to the gist of "why are we going
>around
>our administration, the UT system, the Board and THEC on this ... we should be
>working with our administration, not alienating them."

Even though the secretary is directed to write to the Board and the
President.  Perhaps we're meant to assume they will be alienated by
anything short of abject obsequiousness.

>I voiced a concern about the motion itself being presented for action so
>quickly, without the general faculty being informed of the issue or having
>adequate time to discuss it with their Senators.  My colleagues in the College
>of Engineering and Computer Science would not have known about the motion
>had I
>not forwarded Dr. Efaw's message to them; he did not post it to RAVEN for
>general faculty and staff distribution.  I don't know how many, if any,
>faculty
>or staff in other divisions were aware of it at all.  Another colleague wrote:
>
> > Thank you for bringing this to the faculty's attention.  It would seem
> to me
> > that having the senate endorse specific legislation involving a pay
> increase
> > that has nothing to do with merit, with no notification of all faculty is
> > not something that should be voted on with 24 hours notice.

Again, the motion endorses a SALARY INCREASE, not LEGISLATION.  And note
that Senate frequently votes on items, such as the handbook, that affect
the entire faculty without posting them on RAVEN.  Last October, for
example, Senate approved sending a letter to the Trustees calling for a
salary increase that was patterned on one sent by the UTK Senate.  At that
same meeting Senate voted to oppose re-opening Vine Street, even though a
full discussion had not taken place on campus, even though this might seem
to be an interference in municipal affairs beyond our purview, and even
though the road will likely be open or closed  regardless of how we feel
about it.

>I also expressed concerns about the wording of the bills themselves.  They are
>extremely broad, referring to a $1200 raise for "each employee of the
>University
>of Tennessee system and the state university and community college system."
>There is no mention of full-time vs. part-time employees, adjuncts, etc.
>Conceivably, the bill could be construed to include not only full-time faculty
>and staff but also TAs, RAs, student workers, and so on.

Yet, rather than offer an amendment,  a motion to table was made.  The
remainder of this memo is obfuscation, IMHO.

Fritz.

>My second, related concern is that no "fiscal note" (cost estimate) yet exists
>for the bill.  (For updates, you can check the state's web site at
>http://www.legislature.state.tn.us/ , click on "Legislation" and search for
>SB0790 or HB0126.)  While raises would be nice (I'm sure any of us could
>use an
>extra $1200), they come at a cost to the taxpayers and/or our
>students.  (By the
>way, if such an estimate *did* exist, we might have some idea of how many
>employees are covered by the increase.)  And not only do we not know what the
>bill would cost, but with TennCare reform still very much up in the air, we do
>not know whether the state will have the money to fund it.  Thus, it is
>premature and (in my opinion) irresponsible to support or oppose the bill at
>this stage.
>As I commented during the meeting, as faculty we try to teach our students to
>gather all the relevant facts and carefully consider those facts before making
>informed decisions.  If we jump into supporting or opposing a measure without
>taking time to get all the facts and consider the pros and cons, what kind of
>example are we setting?  I am glad we will now have more time for intelligent
>consideration of this significant issue.
>
>The motion to endorse these bills has been tabled at least until the next
>Faculty Senate meeting two weeks from today (March 3).  As there is a chance
>that it will be taken off the table and reconsidered, I would appreciate any
>comments, pro or con, between now and then as I attempt to represent the
>wishes
>of my constituents and promote the well-being of the University and our state.
>
>Joe Dumas
>
>--
>"One man with courage is a majority." -- Thomas Jefferson