Although RAVEN seems rather ineffective for handling serious
discussion of issues, especially when messages become lengthy, I believe
that it is important for me to attempt some clarify some serious
misunderstandings for those willing to stay with me long enough.

        As President of the Faculty Council, I accept full responsibility
for setting the agenda for the upcoming Faculty Meeting.  Although (as
customary) the Faculty Secretary, Chancellor, and Provost met with me to go
over the agenda, I basically determined the order.  To do so, I used the
practices I always follow for regular faculty meetings:  (1)  I reviewed
the items on the agenda for the comparable meeting of the previous year in
order to assure inclusion of routine matters (elections, approval of
graduation candidates, etc.);  (2)  I reviewed the items brought through
the regular governing process at UTC, i.e., items from the Faculty Council;
and (3)  I inquired  if there were other known items to be added to the
agenda.

        At this point I also noted that I had gotten a petition several
weeks ago (If you read my email to Richard Rice which he distributed to all
faculty, you will note that I clearly said "weeks ago," not "last week," as
he misread) with 12 signatures (mistakenly noted in my email as 10 because
two names were not decipherable and were left off my typed list).  When I
received this petition, I placed this request in a folder with other
materials for the Faculty Meeting.  Just before our agenda-setting meeting,
I reviewed all materials in the folder and also checked the Handbook to
ascertain the procedure of adding an item brought by petition and
particularly whether there was any reference to where it should be placed
on the Agenda.  Even though the petition requested for the resolutions to
be placed ahead of a vote on the Implementation Plan, it seemed to me
rather illogical to place an item from a handful of faculty ahead of an
item that came through the regular governing body of the faculty.

        Furthermore, the Handbook revealed immediately that the proper
procedures had not been followed for getting an item on the agenda.  At
that point it was too late for me to call Richard and have him redo the
petition in time to get the item on the Agenda (although that probably
would have been the politically expedient action).  I also noted that I had
not heard further from Richard or the other signers of the petition since
all the revisions had been made in the Implementation Plan and since the
resolutions had actually been developed.  I deemed it likely, however, that
he would still want his resolutions to be discussed at the meeting, but I
saw no problem since we always have a section for "Other Business."  I also
noted that established procedure exists for changing the order of the
agenda once the Faculty Meeting begins, should the majority of the faculty
desire such a change.  I immediately notified Richard of my actions in
setting the agenda.

        According to his email, Richard seems to think that I have
committed a grave offense in not placing his resolution on the agenda
BEFORE the discussion of the Implementation Plan.  He (and at least two
other signers of the petition) had warned me at the time I was sent the
petition that the faculty would not pass an Implementation Plan if they
were not allowed to vote on Richard's resolutions FIRST.  That may prove to
be true, but I do not think that such a threat authorizes me to break with
the Handbook in setting the agenda.  Nor did it matter in my decision that
I am sympathetic to some of the concerns expressed in the resolutions.  As
already noted, however, if the majority of the faculty desire to change the
agenda, they clearly have that prerogative.

        I readily acknowledge, however, that I hope faculty will not want
to change the order of the agenda for the following reasons:

1).  We must have an Implementation Plan by June, and I (and surely most of
the faculty) think it is best to have one that has been developed by UTC
faculty.  A prolonged discussion of resolutions may prevent us from even
getting to the Implementation Plan.  As far as I can detect, UTC faculty
and administrators have been unanimous is their concern over both the way
the new tenure policy was developed and imposed and over certain elements
in the policy itself.  The policy was passed by the Board of Trustees,
however, and faculty have now become split over how to respond to the
policy.  A number of us believe that our first and most important task is
to pass the best possible Implementation Plan while others are primarily
concerned with passing some resolutions.  Thus the dispute over the order
of the agenda.

2).  The Implementation Plan (unlike the resolutions) has been developed by
faculty through procedures as they exist in our current Handbook.  After
the initial Implementation Plan was rejected, the Performance Review
Committee worked even harder to get widespread faculty input which (even
though requested) had been minimal in the first draft.  Several committee
members (and I) even attended Richard Rice's open meeting seeking to gain
insight into what faculty wanted in the Implementation Plan.  Several met
individually with Richard (and anyone else willing to offer suggestions).
Committee members read all the comments on RAVEN and in individual emails.
They asked for input from faculty in their departments and colleges.  Using
all these responses they developed a revised Implementation Plan to take to
Faculty Council.  Council members and guests (including Richard who spoke
at length) reacted to the plan and provided additional suggestions for
revision.  Discussion was so long, in fact, that the vote was delayed
another two weeks to allow completion of the additional revisions.  The
revised Implementation Plan then passed the Faculty Council on April 15
without significant additional debate.  Consequently, the revised
Implementation Plan reflects considerable input from across the campus.

3).  By contrast, the resolutions being offered were developed with minimal
input from UTC faculty, though they do contain major input from UTK faculty
as noted by Richard.  (I make no judgment on whether they reflect the
attitude of the majority of UTC faculty or whether most faculty have even
read them; that can be determined at the Faculty Meeting.)  Richard
rejected an invitation to bring his resolutions through Faculty Council,
choosing rather to present them at the Faculty Meeting based on input from
his "public" meeting or that given him by individuals.  Although Richard is
to be commended for his efforts to involve faculty, fewer than 30 faculty
attended any part of the lengthy session and fewer than half a dozen were
there the entire time, including several of us who were interested in
gaining information for improving the Implementation Plan.

        While I sincerely believe Richard provided valuable service to the
University by calling the meeting and by spending so much of his time on
his resolutions, I have no evidence of input from more than a handful of
faculty.  When Richard offered the resolutions at his meeting, some were
discussed, some not.  Statements were occasionally added or deleted at the
request of an individual or two at the meeting.  No vote was taken nor was
any list of participants provided to faculty.  The twelve signers of the
original petition (most of whom did not attend the meeting) provided no
follow-up to indicate that they supported the actual resolutions that had
been developed. And, as Richard himself noted in Friday's RAVEN message,
there has been "no public opposition or discussion of the resolution."  I
may have as Richard has suggested to me, hurt the cause of the
Implementation Plan itself by following the guidance of the Handbook and by
my political naïveté, but I have chosen to do what I felt was right based
on the evidence available.

        To sum up, what is important to me about the order of the agenda is
that it follows correct procedure and that it allows the faculty to
accomplish the important tasks of self-governance.  I do personally believe
that faculty should be given the opportunity to vote first on the
Implementation Plan because of the lengthy time I expect to be required to
debate the long series of resolutions.  If faculty choose to address the
resolutions first, however, I trust they will reserve time for the
Implementation Plan that's what will affect all of our lives beginning next
year.

A FINAL NOTE!  In an issue as emotionally explosive as this one has become,
keeping the discussion civil and impersonal is always difficult, and I
greatly appreciate the efforts that most faculty have taken to avoid
creating a divisive atmosphere that can be damaging to long-term faculty
relationships.  Whatever the decision faculty make regarding an
Implementation Plan and a series of resolutions, we will need to continue
to work together to accomplish our goals as educators.

Verbie Prevost







Verbie Lovorn Prevost
Katharine Pryor Professor of English
Director of English Graduate Studies
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
Phone: 423-755-4627
FAX: 423-785-2282
email: [log in to unmask]